Talk:Clay Aiken

Portions of this talk page have been archived. You may wish to look up the previous discussion, as some of it is on issues that have already been resolved. Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7

How did Clay Aiken help Kelly Clarkson break her "American Idol" contract?

I think that even more important than how good (or not) a singer he is, this question more than anything else occupies my mind. The AI contract was notorious in how restrictive it was to the winner's/contestant's subsequent careers. How did Aiken manage the feat of successfully breaking it, and in helping Kelly Clarkson achieve the same thing? The answer would reveal a side of the man not heretofore appreciated, that of a savvy, tough businessman. If anyone knows how he pulled the trick I would like to know. -- Jalabi99 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jalabi99. Normally we start new topics at the bottom of the "talk" age, but I'll leave it here so you can find my response. This story has not been told, and would require original research to verify it. Yes, I know it is stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, but we have higher standards here, or we try, anyway. All that is known is that Kelly signed with Clay's management of the time, The Firm. We don't know that Kelly broke her contract. We don't know for sure that Clay did either, though there were many rumors that he did. Rumor is that Clay was able to break his because AI had violated some terms, possibly by turning down some big endorsement deals without consulting him, but we prefer not to publish unsubstantiated rumors in this article. Now if reporters ever got back to reporting, and someone investigated and published on this topic in a reputable publication with multiple, verifiable sources, then we could include it in the article. He is the "savvy, tough businessman" you describe, so maybe we can think of another way to convey that. Thanks for the suggestion! (ETA: struck this statement since I can no longer find such a reference in Wikipedia.) -Jmh123 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Kelly's fan boards Kelly's brother found that the materials she paid for to promote her cd were not being sent to the stores and that's how she got out of her contract. There was a lot of speculation that Clay had something to do with Kelly joining The Firm, the management company he was with at the time. As Jmh123 said, there are no verifiable sources for this information. - Maria202 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An added thought. Most of the press about this came when Mario Vasquez quit American Idol last year. There were many reports that Mario had hired "Clay Aiken's lawyer" to get him out of his American Idol contract. [1][2][3] Bo Bice also hired "Clay Aiken's lawyer" after the show was over, and delayed signing his RCA contract as Clay had done, while, presumably, the lawyer was playing hardball (but there are no press links coming up on google regarding that connection). Perhaps "Clay Aiken's lawyer" should be the one who gets the Wikipedia attention. -Jmh123 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "Clay Aiken's lawyer" must be the Johnnie Cochran of ex-A.I.ers...who you gonna call? Clay Aiken's lawyer! :) -- Jalabi99 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing, Jmh123: I looked [here] and elsewhere, and nowhere did I see where it is official Wikipedia policy that "normally we start new topics at the bottom of the "talk" page"...but yeah, well, whatever floats your boat. -- Jalabi99 10:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia tutorial on "talk" pages Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages) says, "When you post a new comment, put it at the bottom of the talk page," but my intention was only to indicate common practice on this page. Apologies if I offended. -Jmh123 14:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gay?

I'm not sure what the question is, but I'll use this spot to explain my edit. There is a Wiki-news division; reports from the National Enquirer are not encyclopedia material, especially when they are only a few days old. I appreciate the inclusion of various disclaimers in the language inserted here, but, bottom line: this is "news"--if you stretch the word--but certainly not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. -Jmh123 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In a way you're absolutely correct. The alternate argument though is that while National Enquirer news should not be treated as fact, its existence might be noteworthy. For instance, if the story - even if it is patently false - somehow became really big news, citing it would be appropriate. This story seems to have generated a few dozen "legitimate" news stories. Enough? I don't think so. Were it bigger? You bet. That said, I'm not putting it back in. One thing, though, is that it could be used as a source that the rumors do indeed exist. --Hamiltonian 03:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need another source to prove that such rumors exist? Check out the random 'vandal' edits that happen here continuously. Don't get me started on my sociological arguments about the meaningless preoccupation with this guy's sexual orientation. It's like the world has been overtaken by 12-year-old boys. If this particular story becomes a meaningful part of Aiken's personal history in some way, maybe, but an Enquirer article not yet out a week sure doesn't cut it. I don't agree that there are any "legitimate" news stories out there--a few newspapers are including it in their gossip sections, but that doesn't make it a "legitimate" news story. DJ's are snorting about it - did I mention 12-year-old boys? You haven't seen this on CNN or even ET. Why not? Because it's a crock. Just a guy out to make a buck and a name for himself in the porn industry. Even if it became a "big news" story, if it is not substantiated or if nothing meaningful is added to the story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedia-worthy. -Jmh123 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just saying that it might be useful as a source for the rumours. There are actually no sources in the article about the rumours - only that some fan communities speculate and that he made fun of the rumours. Nothing about the rumours themselves. It's a crafty runaround actually. This is also not the first time that a rumour of this nature has appeared in the media.

Again, the difference between fact and rumour. Clay being gay - not a fact. Rumours that he is - absolutely a fact. That being said, I'm not going to add anything - but if it becomes a bigger story, I would argue it'd be worthy of inclusion.--Hamiltonian 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the history of the edit wars? I don't think there's ever been a dispute about the fact that rumors exist. The dispute was over how to indicate this and what to say about it. I see your "read" on it, but surely don't want to get into a debate about the content of that paragraph again. Maybe with promo for the new album about to start up, and with this tabloid crap out, we'll get some kind of statement from Aiken that will enable us to modify that paragraph along the lines of "rumors are"/"Aiken says". -Jmh123 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to back up whether "most" Aiken fan-sites don't speculate about his sexuality. And also, saying "of his many fan-sites" -- does he really have MANY fan-sites? Somebody back that up. Also, Howard Stern had an interview, with a guy who claimed he had sex with Aiken. I added it. 71.126.151.95 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he really has MANY MANY fan-sites. Check the listing at http://www.findingclayaiken.com/FCA2/Clay%20on%20web/clayonweb.htm

• I note that this is your first edit, via anonymous ISP. Please add your comments to the bottom, not the top of the "talk" page. There is a discussion of this topic below--I have moved your comments to that area. First, the paragraph in question is not to be altered, by agreement, after long and contentious debate. Second, Wikipedia is not in the business of news, and certainly not tabloid news. Re: fan-sites, findingclayaiken.com currently lists around 500. Re: fan speculation, see the many pages of discussion, including archives. -Jmh123 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia. In addition, the Enquirer article has been out for a while now and the man has gone on Howard Stern. I think it's relevant. 71.126.151.95 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the musings of every crackpot who calls into Howard Stern or is paid off by the National Enquirer. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah Kate, you may want to reconsider this one. This doesn't appear to be just some crackpot that "called into the HS show or is paid by the NE". The guy has not sought to hide his identity or his allegations. He has sat for several in-depth interviews with all the tabs, and also the hour-long in-studio interview with Stern, none of which he was paid for. Besides the story appearing in those maybe questionable venues, it is rampant across the net, and even the Chicago Tribune ran a small tidbit on it. As much as it may seem distasteful, by all accounts it does seem to be relevant, and sourced now in multiple ways. --207.200.116.204 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was false, Aiken could sue for slander. He hasn't. So, it's relevant. People coming out and saying that THEY had sex with a particular celebrity doesn't happen often. The article on Paula Abdul includes the Corey Clark affair. I can't see why this article shouldn't contain similar information. 71.126.151.95 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply disagree. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if Corey Clarke makes it onto Paula Abdul's page, then this Haulus guy should make it onto Aiken's. If you disagree with that, do you have any valid reasons as to why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefnayr (talk • contribs) .

I've already stated some quite valid reasons, but here are a few more. One page's content does not dictate another page's content. If you're dissatisfied with Corey Clarke's mention on Paula Abdul's page, go remove it -- I don't edit that page, personally. But simply on its face, Corey Clarke had real interactions with Paula Abdul, and therefore much more chance for what he alleged to have happened. Because of this, it got quite a lot more media attention. But as I said, one article does not dictate the content of another. Also, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~ . THis'll automatically sign and datestamp your entry. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So Kate when would you presume, in your all powerful wisdom, that relevance has been reached? It must appear on Nightline or CNN first? Aiken reps, for a full month now, have only said "no comment", refusing to either acknowledge the story or deny it. That appears notable in and of itself. This guy has neither backed down from his story nor has he been paid for it. The story is continuing to be discussed on the internet, in publications, and radio. Regardless of your personal beliefs in or distaste for the elements of the story and where it first appeared, by any and all standards, minimally, the simple acknowledgement that this claim exists is relevant, sourcable and NPOV. --207.200.116.204 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"No comment" could also mean "This is so ridiculous that we're not even going to dignify it with a response". Hermione1980 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Consensus. There's no consensus currently for adding this information. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous person dropped in a Category Gay Icon -- removed it -- not only is there no consensus that he is gay, if he was, wouldn't there have to be consensus about Gay Icon status? ArglebargleIV 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be gay to be a gay icon. However it is a dubious category because there is no definitive criteria. -Will Beback 23:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, thanks! ArglebargleIV 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding payment: Perez Hilton (Mario Lavandeira), who runs a salacious internet gossip site, offered to pay this person the day his story first appeared on filth2go.com. Whether Hilton did in fact pay him I do not know. I do know that he was paid by Lucas Entertainment to make a porn film, which began filming yesterday, and that a stated goal of his since this story began has been to attract the attention of the porn industry. So he has been compensated indirectly for this story. Regarding the absence of a denial: If Aiken issued a denial, there are those who would take that as "proof", odd as that may seem. It would also become mainsteam "news" in a way this is not--also odd, but true. A denial wouldn't change most people's minds anyway, so why bother? Many take Tom Cruise's lawsuit against the tabloids as proof that he is gay. In order to sue, Aiken would have to prove, not only libel or slander, but also malice, in other words, that the NE knew the story was not true when it was published. The NE would love the publicity such a suit would generate. Celebrities are gossiped about and lied about all the time--it's a huge industry. Check out the covers of the mags surrounding you in the grocery store line sometime. Do their stories look believable? We simply cannot accept such sources as valid. -Jmh123 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding absence of denial: For sake of arguement and brevity, I'll just grant you the point of not suing NE or any of the publications the story has appeared in. However, NOTHING is preventing him from suing John Paulus HIMSELF for a litany of things were it truly a false allegation, including defamation of character, libel, interference with commerce and/or deliberate inflicion of distress.
  • Simply because of where the story or news first originates does not automatically invalidate the substance of it. The NE has been known to also be on the forefront of much reporting (specifically the OJ trial, and more recently and applicable in this circumstance, Brad Pitt's leaving Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie long before any other "reputable" publication would touch it. In point of fact, People, US, ET and others were still running smiling cover photos of Brad and Jen, while B & A were being reported on in the tabs). The common perception that the tabloids are wrong or make up stories wholesale is a myth perpetuated by publicists hired to protect their celebrity clientele. --207.200.116.204 02:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. What prevents Aiken from suing Paulus is the prospect of drawing more publicity to and extending the life of this story. Tabloids as respectable journalism? Not buying it. I've been following this since it was first planted. Paulus' story has changed more often than I change my socks, and he contradicts himself constantly. He is not credible. -Jmh123 04:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • JMH123: I can appreciate your distaste for the subject mater, but the judgment call you've just expressed here over whether you believe it or not - or whether his claims are credible or not - just shows that you are clearly not NPOV. I am arguing here for the inclusion of an NPOV line or wordage that reflects the reality that his claims exist and can be sourced, not to the credibility or validity of the allegations. You seem to believe simply adding reference about it somehow gives truth to the allegation. Again, this man has not sought to hide his identity in any way and it can be sourced from multiple outlets, including the NY Post and NY Daily News, the 2 & 3 largest papers in New York. --207.200.116.204 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No. -Jmh123 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the summary of the Stern interview here:[4] (note, blogs are not reliable sources for articles).

• Clay allegedly wanted John to him to perform oral sex on him, and John initially declined. He said Clay was pushing his head down. He also said that Clay wanted to "fist" him but was able to fit only two fingers. John then said that Clay wanted anal sex, but they had no condoms. According to John, Clay said "Don't worry about that." Clay then flipped John on top of him and eventually forced him down onto him, and they had unsafe sex. In fact, they had unsafe sex for 90 minutes, during which John said he never once got an erection. John said he kept trying to stop, and that Clay is "very verbal, very loud."

Apparently "John Paulus", a former Green Beret, claims he was essentially raped by Clay Aiken. Now I'm not saying Aiken is a wimp, but the thought of him forcing himself on an unwilling soldier, trained in hand-to-hand combat, and having intercourse for 90 minutes, is hard for me to believe. Since we don't have a reliable source for the info, I think we should omit it. -Will Beback 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Will Beback - your NPOV interpretation not only assumes things (rape) that were not claimed (and could merely be a poor description of actual events that are misinterpreted because of a poor choice of vocabulary), I almost can't believe that you would admit it is based only on a summaryof the interview, rather than listening objectively to the interview first hand.

Further, I am curious what would you pose would be a reliable source in a story of this subject matter? The New York Times? CNN? Why don't two of the two of the largest and oldest papers in the United States - NY Post and The Daily News (both competitors I note) suffice? It may be worth ponting out that when a similar, in some respects, scandal was against even a sitting US president in the Monica Lewinsky matter, that the majority of the media (including CNN and The NY Times) were at least initially very reluctant or even hesitant to run with it, let alone know how to treat it because of the graphic details and unseemly nature of the story. It was the National Enquirer and Drudgereport that have been heralded and regarded among the best reporting in that matter by journalistic scholars, as well as the NE has been cited time and again for it's in depth investigative coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. So let's break down the similarities of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Clay Aiken matter to it's most basic: A person claiming a sexual encounter with a high-profile individual, corroborating it with graphic details (& questionable evidence), whose stories are both originating on the web and from the tabloids (specifically the National Enquirer). Both individuals identity was open, non hidden for public scrutiny. The only reason the Monica Lewinsky scandal grew to the extent that it did and was eventually exposed/reported on by the reputable media was because of the legal charges involved and because it was the sitting President. Otherwise it would of stayed only reported in the tabloids and on the web. The origination of the news has no bearing on it's validity or it's truthfulness. --207.200.116.204 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not the job of an encyclopedia to be the first to report the news. It is quite alright for us to be at the trailing edge. The National Enquirer may be correct occasionally, as is a stopped clock. Is the characterization from the blog incorrect in some specific way? I missed the links to the articles in the NY Post and The Daily News- could you please post them again or point me to them? Thanks, -Will Beback 06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Will I understand not being the first to report the news. However it has now been nearly a month since the first published reports, let alone the website rumours which arose even earlier. (And I know you know how time speeds up on the internet - a month is like an eternity!) This then poses the question, how much time should pass before a news of this type is worthy or acceptable for inclusion? I can imagine a notation in an Wikipedia article on Mick Jagger about the long rumoured and legendary liasion between him and David Bowie. That has been oft cited, but what length of time must pass before it can reasonably be added? IMHO, a week doesn't seem acceptable, a month might depending where and how much it was cited.

I'm not trying to characterize the Stern Show summary or offering an opinion here of the validity of the story at all, my point is I think it is relevant to include a NPOV reference that the allegations exist and have been openly reported, as well as including Aiken's reps response of "no comment", especially in the context of the topic here. Here are the citations from the NY Daily News [5] and the NY Post [6] (I've pointed you to My Way news syndicator for the complete Post article as when sourced from the NY POST site, it requires registration). Both of these cites are only the original reporting on the story, as follow up articles were also published. Further, it is worth noting that a simple google search currently brings up 91,500 references when searching for: "John Paulus" "Clay Aiken". That seems pretty substantial on it's own face, to at least minimally notate that the claim does exist. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I am aware how editwars can brew over fans that wish to maintain control over a page, attempting to prevent anything that they percieve as damaging to their artist. As such, I'd invite you to share this with or bring in some of the other mediation staff as well. In this case, the more objective heads we can bring to this, the better I believe. --207.200.116.204 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• The story was in the News and Post gossip sections on Jan. 27, and both referenced the Enquirer as a source. The Post gossip section, Page 6, on 2/1 reported briefly on an interview with Paulus. As far as I know, nothing has been reported in either paper since. There's a tabloidy feel to the urgency to get this into Wikipedia NOW. FYI, Aiken's rep did say to the Star: "Clay's on a flying saucer with his alien parents, busy kidnapping monkeys. We cannot comment till he gets home from Pluto." If you join Lucas Entertainment, only $24 for 30 days, you can watch JP tell his story in all its x-rated detail. [7] Lucas is paying JP for this as well as for a film which includes recently filmed sex scenes between Lucas and JP. Real NPOV stuff. -Jmh123 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I guess I stand corrected on the timing. I was informed earlier in the week that the story was already 3 weeks old. I apologize if I was misled. I really have no opinion on this one way or another other than IMHO it meets the test for relevancy and sourcing for inclusion. I have not any sense any urgency or non urgency on this. It is currently topical though which is when a vast majority of edits are made. My example of the legendary Mick Jagger/David Bowie liason still leaves the question to be debated of what is the appropriate timeframe before such subject matter should be included. I would support the inclusion of either the "no comment" or the monkeys comment.--207.200.116.204 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • From the beginning JP has indicated a desire to break into the porn industry, and stated that he hoped to star in a "reenactment" of the 90-minute miracle. For the sake of NPOV, shall we also include a link to Lucas Entertainment and to Perez Hilton's site [8], where the ad rates have tripled since he "discovered" Paulus? I say leave tabloid journalism to the tabloids. There's a reason this hasn't been reported by CNN or even Entertainment Tonight or Inside Edition, and it isn't because they fear the story. It's because the story stinks. -Jmh123 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• This probably could bear more debate now. These has gone from being reported in far more than just the tabloids. There are more than one man making public allegations. There have been photos published and an FTC complaint has been filed. [9] --Rabinid 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Paulus thing has ONLY been in tabloids. The FTC complaint hoax has NOT resulted in any lawsuit. It was just more publicity seeking behavior trying to force the Paulus topic into mainstream news. There were 250,000 FTC complaints entered the night of the Ruben/Clay finale. The resolution? Nothing. A few sources have brought up the topic of public image vs private image and how ridiculous the idea of such an FTC complaint is. That does not relate to Paulus in any manner. And for the complaint to even make SENSE you would have to prove the GAY point FIRST. Which brings us back full circle. The pics are a joke. Even I could produce that sort of "evidence" on my home laptop. All in all this is the same "Clay is Gay" crap that we reached consensus on already. 69.19.14.36 03:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of his sexuality is a bigger topic than the Paulus claims now. It appears that they although they may have some linkage, they appear to be two different issues. The FTC complaint is citeable from a number of verifiable sources, regardless of the ultimate outcome. The complaint charges the record companies with False advertising and misrepresentation in how he was marketed. That is noteworthy by itself.

If in a few months the FTC complaint proves that it has any merit or noteworthiness - that would be the time to add it in. Not when it is the topic of the day, which will probably be forgotten in a week or two.

I'm unsure where you are sourcing the 250,000 FTC complaints with regard to Ruben/Clay outcome, but that would seem noteworthy too for inclusion. The sexuality issue and claims of the several documented men and photos now is another issue, and I would argue that it weighs in favor of the inclusion of an NPOV line or wordage that reflects the reality that theses claims exist and can be sourced, not to the credibility or validity of the allegations. --Rabinid 04:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So far the Paulus claims are just tabloid trash, more of the same. In 3 or 6 months or whatever - if the FTC complaint proves to have any merit or noteworthiness, we can add it in at that time. At this moment however - it is just a tabloid push to add credibility to a story that otherwise has no substance. Wikipedia does not exist to track the current gossip of the day - even if it exists. The rumors about Clay being gay have been pushed before - that is WHY we reached a consensus on the handling of it. More unsubstantiated rumors do not change a thing. Michigan user 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• As much as you want to deny it this is not only a tabloid story. This has been reported on in the Telegraph (the biggest most respected paper in the UK) US Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, NY Post, NY Daily News, Seattle Post Intelligencer and numerous other verifiable, reliable sources. This is not Watergate or the Iraq war, but this also is not a tabloid story and does not just consist of the Paulus claims. Consensus was reached on the subject at one point in time. It does not mean it can not be debated again. --Rabinid 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, The FTC is noteworthy enough on it's own merit to include an NPOV mention. The charges of False advertising and Misrepresentation are serious ones. --Rabinid 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing two different topics. There is the Paulus topic. That is tabloid trash. It will never be appropriate for this page until proven. Paulus/Lucas calling in several additional anonymous claims is not proof.

Then there is the FTC complaint hoax. That raises a potential issue of public image vs private image. That has nothing to do with Paulus. And the FTC complaint is ONLY valid if the complainers can prove that Clay is Gay. They can not. That is why it is so silly. And that is basically what the papers that have mentioned it re-inforced. They are saying that it is NOT a valid complaint. They are also basically saying that the complainers are wacko. In any case it is not a valid topic to put in an encyclopedia. It has no substance.

And no matter what - this is not the place to put gossip that is unsubstantiated. No matter how much you want it to be true - saying it many many times in many many places does not make it true. Getting other people to repeat it does not make it true. The ONLY way that this could ever be notable is if in hindsight it becomes clear that there was some notable impact that could not have been caused by anything else. To date there has been no notable impact. We will not be able to determine if this FTC complaint is notable for quite some time yet. And even then - it would be mentioned without introducing Paulus into the issue, because the FTC complaint hoax relies on Clay being gay and his lifestyle - not on Clay having sex with a particular person. So sit back and wait until July or August and perhaps by then we will see some impact. Pushing to put it in now is just you pushing an agenda that is not yet notable. 69.19.14.30 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I resent your implication and personal attack that I have some agenda because I have asked for more debate on the subject. That does not assume good faith. Your POV is noted and one could infer that it has had some impact or you wouldn't be against any discussion of the topic.

If you have no POV then what is the BIG rush. Just wait and we will find out if this topic is notable or not. The ink is barely dry at this point.

I shudder as I dare ask what you would consider proven or more substantial in this instance than multiple published verifiable sources and photos that have not been officially challenged in any way? Whatever your belief of the allegations or not, minimally it is noteworthy to include an NPOV that the admittedly controversial claims exist.

A shred of evidence other than Paulus's word, and the stories in a tabloid would be a start. So far there is just thin air. It is not the issue of whether Clay is gay or not that is at stake here. It is the fact that this stuff is just not true. And it is not Clay's job to challenge the photos or the story. It is Paulus' job to prove it. He has not.

The FTC complaint could certainly be noted without mentioning the Paulus allegations: In February 2006, nine former fans of Aiken filed an FTC complaint against record companies RCA and Sony/BMG charging False advertising and Misrepresentation in the marketing and promotion of Aiken and other artists. [10] There. No mention of Paulus and NPOV. --Rabinid 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When the FTC complaint becomes a notable issue - we can discuss the phrasing. If Wikipedia documented every passing irritation of clusters of fans for every celebrity out there - they would run out of server space REAL quick. This is just not any more notable than all those others disgruntled fans of every celebrity. This is NINE people. Who CARES what they think?? Why is their little grumble so much more notable that any other groups grumble? Right now it looks like the thought of the day - that no one will even remember tomorrow. So why would we document such a non-event. 69.19.14.42 02:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The notability is that this "little grumble" (as you've put it) has been presented to a governmental agency with investigative and enforcement powers. That "little grumble" is comparable and as serious as someone filing a police report on a criminal complaint. --Rabinid 01:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply disagree. People do file frivilous complaints to the FTC. There is no penalty for doing so, as there would be in the case of filing a false report in a criminal matter. There are many who question the identity of these "fans" [11] [12] and suggest that the press release was issued in an attempt to draw attention to Paulus from a different direction when the original story had failed to capture the attention of mainstream media. -Jmh123 15:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but once again you are wrong. If you had done your homework, you would find there are penalties for filing false FTC complaints, as there are penalties for filing false complaints to any governmental agency. 108th Congress S. 1327[108]: REDUCE Spam Act of 2003

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT (b)(4) civil penalties for knowingly submitting a false complaint to the Commission. [13] Your cited sources are internet message board/newsgroup postings and do not qualify as verifiable sources, as opposed to the numerous media outlets that have reported on the complaint. --Rabinid 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I only wish that the FTC would investigate these particular petitioners. It is my understanding that most of the half a million (on average) reports they receive every year are filed and forgotten. As for my citations, not advocating as a source, purposes of discussion only, yada yada yada [tm Rabinid]. -Jmh123 06:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand hwy people are uncomfortable with including refernece to a N.E. article that has a man claiming that he had sex with Clay Aiken. For starters that N.E. is (with all due respect) not the best news source in the county. It got some articles that are good to read for a laugh (alien babies in trailor parks and the like). Also we all know that when a young American celebrity "comes out", it pretty much ruins their career. Yet, "John Paulus" has been getting threats from some diehard Aiken fans about his news report that he had a sexual liason with Mr. Aiken at a hotel. The story has been picked up by some gay press publications. Hence it should be at least referenced. (Browned)

Browned, what gay publications are you referencing? Can you copy a link here for us all to review? Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Browned replies, gay online news organizations have picked up the story, and it is being talked about the the "GayPolitics" message board at WorldCrossing, where some members of the Gay Press listen and contribute. Again, I can see not wanting to mention the graphic detials of the allegation. However, the article should mention the N.E. article, the person make the accusations and then comments made by Aiken in reply. The fact that some Aiken fans are militanly opposed to the mere suggestion that their hero is gay, is initself a problem.

Kate, NEXT Magazine published a cover story with Paulus. Others include Queerday [14] and 365Gay.com [15], Queerty [16], Gay Chicago Magazine and many, many others. --Rabinid 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, broke my self imposed exile to post this. I did a google search for "valleyprettyboy," which is the screenname Paulus claims Clay Aiken used online, and I found this [17] NY Daily News article. I'll note that though the tone of the article is sarcastic it isn't "The National Enquirer says and let us totally cover our asses because we're terrified of the subject matter" like "some" people keep saying every other non-tabloid publication has been. Noteworthy enough for some of you? And that's called referencing people. When CNN reports on a story they say the AP presented it first. CNN's not saying that because they're afraid someone's going to sue them. They're doing it because the AP broke the story first. The story is also in the Washington Blade [18], In Newsweek [19], Out.com [20], Hollywood Skinny [21], and I got tired of wading through blogs at that point. Is that not enough reputable coverage guys? The argument that this is such a teeny teeny story carries no creedence because the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is, come tomorrow if Paulus reneg his story and say he was lying, we have the capacity to actually delete the reference without any effort whatsoever. Furthermore, if it's such a teeny teeny story then why're you arguing so wholeheartedly against it being here in a NPOV capacity? Wanna talk about pushing agendas? I don't want the story here because I think it's true. I don't care if it's true. I want the story here because it's still NEWS and it should be reported. - mixvio 06:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You've misnamed one of your sources. #16 is not Newsweek. In your research you've come across one of the big holes in Paulus' story. He had to change that screenname to another when he found out there were problems with valleyprettyboy as an ID--and he amended his IM "transcripts" accordingly. Keep looking, maybe you'll find the new one, and then maybe you'll find the traces of the creation of that new ID--to January 12, 10 days after the alleged encounter. Could you move your proposal to the bottom of the page please, just so the proposals appear one following the next? Thanks. -Jmh123 07:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. I didn't say it was in Newsweek, I said it was In Newsweek. The name of the publication.

Futhermore, I extensively searched the screenname and found no references to the screenname being switched. Where did you read that? I did, however, find two gay profiles online under that screenname. Both seemed to be from the same person as they contained similiar information and both were shifty about who they were. Quoting one, "i will be happy to send (my pics) to you if you can PROMISE me ABSOLUTE discretion" and "i have a web cam now to prove that my pics are real." Both profiles were last updated on the 4th of february. According to both profiles the user was looking to meet people in Portland and said that the user was only in town briefly. According to Clay Aiken's website he was in Portland in November on tour. The profiles say the user has green eyes, brown hair, 6'1 tall. This bio site [22] also says the same thing.

Whether planted or not I don't care. Nor do I care about Paulus' story. I am in no way offering this as evidence of him being gay, because I'm quite aware of how easy it would be for someone to go in after hearing about the screenname and create fictious accounts either as a joke or to bolster Paulus' story. It could've been Paulus himself. But I'm not here to play his detective, which is why I didn't mention the profiles before. I don't CARE if it's true. That doesn't negate that it's being reported. That's why it should be here. I moved my suggestion to the bottom. - mixvio 08:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• The controversy and story were discussed during the "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" show on NPR this past Saturday. I'm wondering if we can agree this is mainstream yet? --Rabinid 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just listened to the audio clip. The question asked was why did 9 anonymous women file an FTC complaint against Aiken and his record company. The entire Aiken question/discussion was 1 minute and 30 seconds long. [23] It's under Panel Round 2. George W. Bush and his yellow Oval Office rug was the first question so Aiken is in good company. I guess if the yellow rug is mainstream you could say the FTC complaint is also. Maria202 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brown replies, failure to put in a suitable PG-rated statement about Aiken's sexuality undermines the credilibity of Wikipedia and looks homophobic (even if Aiken is 1000% straight).

John Paulus controversy

Let's not forget that Clay Aiken has NOT denied the John Paulus affair, while John passed a polygraph test. Instead, Clay's publicist made up some lame comment about Clay being on Pluto right now. 69.180.8.87 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What in the world does that have to do with it? The tabloids are BEGGING him to address this issue - if he says a word then the mainstream news can report on that and bring up all the sordid allegations. The tabloids really are hoping that Clay will sue so that they can get all that publicity. Not addressing allegations has nothing to do with the allegations being true or false. Michigan user 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that the Wikipedia article need not go into the specific graphic detials of what Mr. Aiken may or may not have done sexually with another man. However, the article should make reference to he N.E. article, (its gotten picked up by other news groups), a general statement of the allegation, the person making it. and then add quotes from Aiken denying that he is gay. I doubt very much that Mr. Aiken is in a postion to "force" himself upon anyone. (Browned). I would also note that it does not show a good side to Aiken fans that they respon to the idea that their hero is gay with violence and name calling...

I took it upon myself to disregard the large argument below (no offense guys) and post here an edited form of the article found on John Paulus’s page. I don’t really believe the argument below really is one; Wikipedia is full of articles citing celebrity controversies that are either dubious at best or based solely on the word of those making the accusations. For examples:

Britney Spears, regarding the alleged sex tape between her and Kevin Federline. // The Colin Farrell sex tape // Allegations regarding Tom Cruise’s homosexuality // The Star Tribune’s allegations against Nick Lachey // and the Laura Albert/JT LeRoy controversy, which, while likely true is still unsubstantiated right now

I argue that this story is news, whatever source it comes from, and it seems to me that there’s a growing amount of evidence supporting John Paulus’ story, whether it’s being reported in the Enquirer or not. I came to the Clay Aiken page to -find- the John Paulus page and was pretty surprised that it wasn’t mentioned whatsoever, but details about the insistence that he’s gay was. I think not including this story is a bit of a bias on the part of those who don’t want to tarnish Clay Aiken’s innocent image, and that reeks of POV to me. - Mixvio 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that every single controversy that you named was widely covered in mainstream news. Paulus has not been. 66.82.9.76 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, Paulus has been mentioned in several mainstream news outlets. - mixvio 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that if John Paulus were to be mentioned here, the proper thing to do would be a one or two sentence summary of the controversy, with a reference to the John Paulus page -- I can't see that basically duplicating sections of that page here is a good idea from an encyclopedic standpoint. For now, I've removed the material you added.
  While boldness is a positive trait for an editor, given the raucous controversy about discussion of Clay's sexuality that has occurred here in the past, and to avoid edit warring, maybe the best thing to do is to continue the discussion here, and try to come to a (new) consensus about the proper NPOV way to refer to the Paulus issue? ArglebargleIV 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you think then editing it down to a summary should've been your move instead of reverting what I added, in my opinion. I'm all for continuing the discussion, however I am baffled as to the continual strife inclusion about John Paulus seems to provoke, and I'm baffled at the overwhelming resistance to it. Just because some people here choose not to believe the story doesn't negate the fact that it is unfortunately one and, as referenced in my argument above, Wikipedia includes stories based on far less evidence. I edited it as a summary, please refrain from reversion if you feel the summary is too long and instead condense it yourself. If you feel the material shouldn't be included I think it's best to state why here (as I, for example, stated clearly why I feel it -should- be here) and I'm more than happy to debate. Reversion, however, isn't an appropriate action in my opinion. - mixvio 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In the process of reverting a stupid change I made (sigh), I managed to revert your latest addition as well. It was NOT my intention to revert your changes again, but on the other hand I'm not going to touch the article for a while. Why don't you write a summary sentence or two? Do you think that it's worth the number of paragraphs you wrote? Anyway, I'm doing a hands off for a while, I really do not want to -participate in an revert war, even accidentally. ArglebargleIV 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the mention of the accidental revert, no problem. I put my summary back in. Do you still think it's too long? I tried to cut it short while still keeping the actual story around... I don't see how that can be achieved by making it any shorter but I'm open to suggestion. I really think this is something that should be included here in at least some capacity. Thanks - mixvio 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is to be mentioned in this article -- and I will not state my opinion on whether it should be or not ...

(1) It probably shouldn't be a section by itself. It probably should be associated with or after the paragraph about the Clay-is-or-isn't-gay controversy, but a consensus would have to be formed for any edits. Personally, I'm not touching that paragraph with a twenty-foot pole.

(2) Maybe a shorter version would be

In January 2006 John Paulus alleged that he had a sexual encounter with Clay Aiken. Several tabloid newspapers have published interviews with Paulus, and he has taken a polygraph examination as part of a National Enquirer investigation, which the magazine has claimed that he passed. To date, Aiken and his representatives have neither acknowledged nor denied the claims in Paulus' story.

(3) I'm not making any changes, however, just a suggestion if a change is to be made. ArglebargleIV 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with that then. Consider it changed. :) - mixvio 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reverting Paulus entry.

There is still not one single bit of evidence that anything that John Paulus said is true. Not one single bit. Tabloid stories are NOTORIOUS for lying. Especially with photographic "evidence". Until there is SOMETHING to change the discussion that we had above - nothing has changed. And we already reached consensus on how we would handle gay rumors. There are pages and pages of debate that went into it. You don't get to just change the agreement.

That is exactly why this story has not made mainstream news. It stinks. And the FTC Complaint hoax does not grant the Paulus story any more validity. When the FTC complaint proves to have some notability - it can be considered for addition. Right now it is just a group of crackpot women that do not believe in their complaint enough to make a lawsuit out of it. If THEY don't think that it is worth it - why should we even notice it. 66.82.9.76 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ETA: On your comment that the story is news: this is not WikipediaNews. If it is still news - then it is probably too new to even TALK about adding to Wikipedia. 66.82.9.76 02:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure your angry, capital letter rant carries a lot of internal weight to you, I'm unfortunately not going to abide by the complaints of IP addresses. If you want to argue, sign in. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy is not to constantly revert a page just because you disagree with something on it. You discuss the issue and then edit the main page accordingly. The pages of pages of "gay rumors" established the consensus that yes, there was enough reason to mention in the article that there is controversy regarding his sexuality.

HOWEVER. This is not in the least what my edit was regarding. It was not regarding a gay "rumor," it was in regards to a specific allegation from a specific person (and as of now, several such specific people) that he had a specific sexual encounter with Clay Aiken. I take no stance, and neither did my edit, on whether this occurance was true or not. As I made clear in the argument at the top of this section Wikipedia is full of similiar celebrity controversies that are based on a lot less proof than this one. Just because you're clearly upset that this might've happened doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily change it.

I would agree that the National Enquirer probably stretches the term mainstream news, but this story has also appeared in the NY Post , which most certainly is mainstream, and also the NY Daily News. Argue all you want, but I'm not including this because it's true, I'm including it because it's a STORY, and Wikipedia is a repository of all knowledge, even the ones that make fans of actors/musicians/politicians, etc upset.

And I didn't mention a FTC complaint at all, nor do I know what you're talking about. Please sign in if you choose to argue further. - mixvio 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in re: the argument that this story is too new to be up here, within minutes of the World Trade Center attacks and the London Train Bombings there were already long articles talking about the events. That's a really poor argument. Wikipedia is full of pages that suggest an article mentions a current event. If that's your gripe, put the tag at the top of the article. - mixvio 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can not sign in. Wikipedia does not play well with Satellite modems. It is a known problem. 66.82.9.76 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately if you continue to revert my changes I'm going to request that the page be protected since I don't want to break the three revert rule. The talk page is the place to air your grievance and continual reversions is not the course you should continue taking. - mixvio 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am trying to get a word in edgewise here - but twice now I have lost long discussions on this page because of your edits. Please back off for a bit. 66.82.9.76 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means, get a word in. I've no desire to stifle debate. However, I'm not backing away from the fact that this is merited on the page and I don't intend to leave it off. I've read the entire talk pages archive and I'm aware of the consensus that has been established regarding his sexuality. My edits aren't about his sexuality. My edits are about John Paulus. If Wikipedia had been around before it was proven that Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinski, I've absolutely no doubt that there would've been a section on his article referencing the ongoing and alleged story. That still makes this worthy of inclusion until proven otherwise. - mixvio 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And you must mean edits regarding this or a similar subject, because before today I've never touched this page, so you can't be referring to long discussions about my edits specifically. - mixvio 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Unbelievable - You just saved this discussion page AGAIN - and I lost my paragraphs in the process AFTER I asked for time. 66.82.9.76 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying this again . . .

• I am not angry or upset (as you seem to think - notice that you use the same capitalization for emphasis). I am frustrated with people who do not read the existing discussion before editing the article. The Paulus topic has been discussed extensively. Because the topic only exists in tabloids and gossip columns it has no place in an encyclopedic reference. Note that every example that you cited was widely covered in mainstream news. The Paulus story has not been. Because it has no substance and they will not touch it. Nor should Wikipedia. 66.82.9.76 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• For you to come in and arbitrarily decide to ignore the discussion that has already been going on is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you want to lock this article – feel free. But lock it in the consensus version as discussed above – not in your favorite version of it. 66.82.9.76 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for eating your replies earlier, I didn't realize you were still editing. However.

I -have- read all of the archives and there's hardly an argument about the Paulus story. The argument is whether he's gay or not, or whether there should be a link to Openly Clay in here or not. This is not the issue involving my edit at ALL. I also cited two examples of the Paulus story that -are- being covered in mainstream media. It's because I saw the story on CNN today that I came to the Clay Aiken wikipedia page and tried to find the name of the guy so I could read the full story; I was pretty surprised to see that there was no mention of it and even further surprised to see the vehement opposition by his fans to such a reference. I say again, there has been no consensus on the Paulus issue, the only consensus has been whether it's fine to leave a link mentioning his sexuality rumors and whether it's fine to leave a link to Openly Clay. Just because you, or anyone else, don't want to -hear- the story doesn't mean that it doesn't belong here. Once again I'm reverting BACK to my edit, which is simple, short and completely NPOV. Please stop removing it, it is NOT a consensus version, it's YOUR version. - mixvio 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'll point out that the argument above, under the Gay? heading, makes a very valid point: If the Corey Clarke controversy was allowed on the Paula Abdul page then there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be here. - mixvio 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Corey Clarke controversy was WIDELY covered by mainstream news. The Paulus story has not been. The only time that the Paulus topic has come close to being mentioned is in relation to that FTC Complaint hoax that you seem to not know about. Will have to continue this converation tomorrow. But lowering Wikipedia standards to the Tabloid level is just not something that we should consider doing. 66.82.9.76 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem unable to read entire paragraphs and instead pick and choose your things to reply to. In my original summary I included links to all places reporting this story. They're now on John Paulus' main page. Two mainstream publications, The New York Post and The New York Daily News, reported this story. Furthermore, I also stated that I personally saw the story on CNN television today.

To use your own (paraphrased) words, if this is such a non-story, why the big push to get rid of it? You seem to have a personal vested interest in keeping it on; while I am ambivalent to Clay Aiken as an artist or person and only feel that Wikipedia should (and through the few examples I listed as well as many, many others I could search for) report on ALL news, even that which certain fans might find dubious or unnoteworthy because they tarnish their idol's image. Sorry. Wikipedia's not here to make you feel good about your favorite celebrities. - mixvio

Paulus' page was seriously considered for deletion as being non-notable. See the AfDs. Wikipedia is also not here to keep up with every tabloid story out there. It is a matter of what sort of reference we want Wikipedia to be. Salacious gossip - or actual notable topics. For now I consolidated the "gay" topics. 66.82.9.76 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Really you got your way for now. The topic is in the article as you requested. It certainly is not worth it's own sub-section. You are pushing reasonability. 66.82.9.76 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll choose to disregard your vaguely-immature and borderline rude comments and instead say I'm fine with your edits. I only put it in its own subsection because I didn't know where else was best (which was already talked about between myself and Arglebargle, though I'm sure you chose to overlook that bit.) I don't entirely care -where- the information is as long as it's still present. Thank you for your revision, though I will point out Wikipedia policy is also not to continuously revert articles (3 revert rule) but you do seem pretty content to disregard that one to suit your own ends. For now I'm happy where the info is pending a consensus on whether it does in fact deserve its own section or evidence turns up tomorrow saying Paulus is a liar and the information can be completely disregarded. Gay didn't need your derisive designation. - mixvio 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• mixvio, while it appears that you have worn 66.82.9.76 down with your badgering, there is not consensus to add this material. 66.82.9.76 is not anonymous, but is unable to log in to Wikipedia due to her internet connection, as stated several times on this page. For you to step into this matter with such insistence does not show a spirit of cooperation. Discussion should take place on the "talk" page as requested, and not through continually re-adding material that is in dispute. A decision does not need to be made today. I need time to read through all the arguments. The fact remains that previous discussions have not resulted in a decision to add this material, and 66.82.9.76 had every right to remove your additions. -Jmh123 04:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and by that same argument, previous discussions unfortunately didn't result in a decision to leave them off, which is why I put them back on. I see absolutely no reason why a concise, simple and reasonable mention of the story shouldn't be here whether it's considered news enough by some or not. It's a pretty simple thing and it's bewildering to me why two sentences is causing so much strife. - mixvio 04:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is late, I have had a long day, and have just come upon this extensive discussion. I expect a number of good reasons have been presented for not including this material. Surely this can keep until tomorrow. -Jmh123 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And since it was mentioned, the complete whining and violent responses to the story-- so violent, in fact, that it verges on homophobia and is bothersome to me as a gay man, doesn't induce a "spirit of cooperation" either. The compromise is to leave the summary I presented since the option you and 66.82.9.76 seem to offer is completely ignoring the story. Sorry. I could care less whether or not Clay Aiken's gay, I could care less whether or not he chooses to engage in unprotected sex with strangers, but my disinterest doesn't mean there's no story. Rather, you've moved this beyond that by the immaturity I've seen tonight on this issue, and the immaturity I've read that happened in the past over whether "gay" was appropriate or whether a link was appropriate. It's ridiculous, and really you should all be very very embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves for turning this into an issue. I can't imagine even the Michael Jackson page has to deal with this kindof lunacy. - mixvio 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from impugning my character. I have asked for time to read the discussion and respond tomorrow. It is not an unreasonable request. -Jmh123 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't realize that the buck stops with you. Please, go right ahead, if I'd realized you made the decisions on wikipedia I would've waited for you to get online. </ sarcasm>

And I didn't "impugning" your character. I involved all of you in my diatribe. Didn't mean to make you feel personally offended. Take all the time you'd like, but I counted the numbers of "Put it in," "I disagree with those who want it off" and etc in the above Gay? section and it's really very clear to me that the consensus is it should be in. - mixvio 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you Google John Paulus you find 32 news articles (gossip pages) and of that number 5 are not the ex-Green Beret. That leaves 27 by name mentions, hardly news or noteworthy enough to include mentioning him in my opinion. Oops, I forgot to sign this. Also forgot to mention the last mention by name was Feb. 23rd. Maria202 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being completely wrong in your statement, someone else already said we can't use google as evidence that John Paulus is being talked about widely. Ergo, we can't use google as evidence that John Paulus isn't being talked about widely either. - mixvio 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For someone who says they don't care and are getting tired of this you sure did jump on me pretty fast. You can check google yourself and see that I am not wrong. If google was discussed I must have missed it but I will go back and check. By you logic google can't be used to discuss the story either and in that case except for message boards and blogs I have heard nothing about this from anyone I know in real life. Maria202 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, I've nothing else better to do. I meant it was stated that the amount of google results can't be used to determine anything, not the use of google to find results itself. The NY Post article came out in the beginning of March and there was an additional NY Post article about this on Feb 27, I believe. Furthermore, the webcam allegations didn't come out until March and though not all of these have referenced Paulus' name specifically, they all make reference to this being an additional "gay" scandal that he's in. - mixvio 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And a google search on "John Paulus" brings up over 35,400 results. I strongly doubt you sat and looked through every single one of them to reach your determination that only 27 are about this John Paulus in particular. - mixvio 21:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AND, there was another National Enquirer story out on March 01 that talks about new allegations and references John Paulus. [24] - mixvio 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I did not search through 35k+ results. I confined my search to NEWS sorted by date. NEWS is published mentions, whether gossip or hard news and exludes message boards, blogs, etc. Additional gay mentions really is irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not to name John Paulus. Maria202 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not the John Paulus story should be included

So I asked the admins to protect this page because I'm tired of having my edits reverted. A clear decision needs to be made whether or not a link to the John Paulus story should be included in this article. I'm of the opinion that the discussion under the Gay? heading already made it clear that the majority thought it deserves to be included, but for some people that's not enough. So that's what this section is for. I see absolutely no reason why two or three sentences doesn't belong on this page referencing the Paulus story and none of the arguments presented bear enough reason, or common sense IMO, to dispell my viewpoint. The story has been picked up in many news outlets, both tabloid and reputable, numerous, numerous blogs, and I've seen the story myself on television. The argument that this story is "too soon" is beyond ridiculous. The John Paulus page was allowed to stand after the vote for deletion so clearly there was enough people who thought it merited existance to cause a standstill. Ergo, let's try and make a rational and mature decision here, otherwise I'll suggest that this issue be moved to mediation and arbitration, if necessary. Thanks guys. mixvio 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the entire John Paulus topic is tabloid crap and has no place in an encyclopedic reference. I also get a bit peeved about being called homophobic just because I do not think that we should document outright lies for posterity. The gay topic and the John Paulus topic are different issues. When Paulus can offer at least one shred of evidence that anything that he said has some truth in it - THEN we should be having this discussion. Until then I don't think that someone trying to kickstart their gay porn career by inventing stories should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a mechanism to gain some veneer of respectability. There are a lot of outright lies out there on the internet, and I do not believe Wikipedia should be the place to catalog them. 66.82.9.70 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's as much your opinion that this is "tabloid crap" as it's my opinion that the story is worthy of inclusion. Do I think the story's true? Yes, very likely, I believe it is. Do I care one way or the other? Not in the least. That's not why I'm pushing this. I'm pushing it because it's bothersome that anytime his sexuality is speculated there's such a backlash against mentioning it. The fact of the matter is googling "John Paulus" will provide you 45,200+ results. While obviously not half of these are actually about the man, that's still considerable coverage. I do think it morally reprehensible that the man is capitalizing on the story, but Wikipedia is not here to police morals. Wikipedia is full of other such "encyclopedic references" to stories involving celebrity scandal that are based on less evidence than this. Wikipedia is also full of other such references that later go on to explain the controversy ended in the stories being proved false-- I've absolutely no disillusions that were John Paulus to get on television this afternoon and apologize, say he lied, and left it as that you would be all for including a blurb vindicating Clay Aiken from his statements; at the very least I doubt you'd be so opposed to someone else putting it here. I don't think you can claim these are outright lies because neither Clay Aiken nor his representatives have come out and tried to dispell the story in the least. When someone calls Tom Cruise gay he at least threatens to sue them. Really, it's not like I'm trying to leave something about John Dahlstrom. Paulus has volunteered lots of evidence, you're just choosing to be blind to it. And unfortunately, Wikipedia does catalog lots of internet-related hoaxes. - mixvio 13:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, my few-sentence summary of the story in no way could be construed as giving someone respectability. I said it was allegations, I said it was unverified, I said Clay Aiken hasn't responded one way or another. It was entirely unbiased and NPOV, but it should be reported. - mixvio 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tom Cruise history is exactly why Clay's team has not threatened to sue. Tom sued. He won. What did it accomplish? It took a false story and planted it into the conciousness of millions of people who would never have heard of the story except that Tom tried to defend himself. Basically suing caused more damage than ignoring. Tabloids just LOVE to be sued because it is wonderful advertising for them. They budget for it. So you really can not use that as a guage for veracity of the stories. So I think you CAN still claim that these are outright lies. I see no reason for rewarding the guy by giving him the attention that he is desparately seeking. He just wants to get his toe in the door. Then he can leverage that to widen the exposure to sell more porn. Michigan user 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Paulus has offered no evidence that I could not have typed up on my laptop. You would have to be really trying to believe the story to believe that his IM or email "evidence" has any veracity in it. He has offered no other evidence except his story, and his story mutates daily. I see no reason to report every crackpot story out there. At this point I see no reason for acknowledging this story at all. Michigan user 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And if Wikipedia were the place for you to demonstrate your criminal forensics skills, I'd agree with you. I'm not asking the mention be put here to take a stance on whether or not the story's true; FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, it's two sentences. Wikipedia is, in fact full of crackpot stories on plenty of other articles. The opposition to this is SOLELY by his fans, SOLELY because they're his fans, and not for any reason further than that. The people arguing against this are the same people who argued against in the debate for a reference to the rumors about him being gay. Get over it, and grow up. - mixvio 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your mature way of showing cooperation and gaining consensus?? But blowing up and swearing at me? And after that little explosion, and telling me to "Get over it, and grow up" you expect your statements to be convincing? Surely you do not expect Clay's enemies to come here and try to prevent a smear campaign from succeeding - do you? Why are we even going over this again? This conversation already exists on this page. You really need to settle down. Michigan user 15:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgive you for assuming my emphasis was a blow up. In fact, I find this whole thing more humorous than irritating; it's juvenile. And again, my "get over it" comment was directed in general, not to you specifically. Sorry for the confusion. We're "going over this" again because, though the above conversation indicates in my mind that more than enough people felt the Paulus reference belongs, there are a few of you seeming blind to this and instead complain that the consensus is it shouldn't be here, based on faulty logic and arguments that have no prescedent on any other page on Wikipedia. I reopened the argument as a newcomer. - mixvio 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm beyond cooperation really when my edits were violently refused and disregarded multiple times. That's why I asked the page locked. It's clear that the opposing viewpoint isn't interested in cooperation either or they'd abide by their own complaints and rules. - mixvio 15:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well everyone else seems to think that we did have consensus and that you were the one who was disreguarding it. Repeatedly. "Violently". However we are still willing to talk about it. I just completely disagree with you. Michigan user 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In this argument in particular, "everyone else" appears to be you and two other people. I'm referring to the argument above under the Gay? heading, not my own particular contribution to the discussion. That discussion in particular, while not overwhelming, has more people saying the Paulus reference should be in than those against it. And I only readded my edits after they were repeatedly deleted by two other people. Hardly "violent." My reason for adding this section was so that the consensus determined could be clearly so those against or for the Paulus reference would clearly see where the opinion is, and there wouldn't be the need for continual reverts. Like I said, the Gay? heading suggests, in my mind, that Paulus should be mentioned. - mixvio 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• You claim to have seen this story on CNN yesterday. I have made extensive inquiries, and can find no verification for this claim. Could you elaborate--time of day, regular CNN or HN, reporter, program, etc?

• An argument that it is done elsewhere in Wikipedia is not a valid argument for including gossip here. Editors for each entry make those decisions independently. In my opinion, if Wikipedia is to be respected, it must maintain a higher standard; tabloids, shock jocks, and newspaper gossip columns are not valid sources.

• Regarding your "google test", see Wiki:Search_engine_test, subheading "Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography": "The simple Google test by number of hits is not applicable to people or titles within a number of internet-based businesses, notably (but by no means restricted to) pornography. This is because an entire sub-industry has appeared with the sole purpose of increasing the number of Google hits certain subjects receive. They achieve this by use of a number of techniques, including multiple mirror sites, and spamming of notice boards and Wikipedia. Also, pornographic actors tend to appear in production-line quantities of entirely non-notable films. It is therefore necessary, as per Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies, for the researcher to prove that the actor or actress has established notoriety. This usually requires finding journalistic coverage, independent biographies or extensive fan clubs." Lucas has a vested interest in advancing Paulus' story, and the two of them have done an impressive job of it. That doesn't mean they should be rewarded with yet another venue in which to spread their lies.

• A word about your accusations of homophobia: no one I know cares whether Aiken is gay or not. What I do care about is that Wikipedia not be used by those who wish to employ this publication to "out" him. I support an individual's right to define his or her own sexual identity. Paulus' allegations extend far beyond the claim of a sexual experience; it is the nature of those claims and the manner in which he has prosecuted those claims (Howard Stern, Lucas Entertainment) that make his story disgusting, not the suggestion that Aiken is gay.

• As for your claim of majority support, you need to be aware that there is one individual arguing for inclusion under multiple IDs and anonymous IPs. Use of sockpuppets to create the illusion of a majority in order to advance a point of view is considered bad form here. In addition to myself and Michigan user, Katefan, Hermione, and Will Beback have also argued against inclusion of this reference. -Jmh123 16:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of conversation above:

Omitting the Paulus mention at this time:

Jmh123 "Even if it became a "big news" story, if it is not substantiated or if nothing meaningful is added to the story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedia-worthy."

Hamiltonian "if it becomes a bigger story, I would argue it'd be worthy of inclusion"

Katefan0 "I see no reason to include the musings of every crackpot who calls into Howard Stern or is paid off by the National Enquirer" "There's no consensus currently for adding this information."

Will Beback "Since we don't have a reliable source for the info, I think we should omit it."

Michigan user "The rumors about Clay being gay have been pushed before - that is WHY we reached a consensus on the handling of it. More unsubstantiated rumors do not change a thing."

Paulus mention supporters:

Rabinid - the guy who created the John Paulus page to begin with.

Mixvio - You.

Abstain:

ArglebargleIV "I'm doing a hands off for a while, I really do not want to -participate in an revert war, even accidentally."

Michigan user 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'll respond to you both in one post. Jmh, it was a brief mention on American Morning yesterday at approximately 7 AM, somewhere thereabouts. The story was very short, which is why I came to Wikipedia because I wanted to learn more about it. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a mention on the CNN website regarding this, which is why I referred to it anecdotally.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I think this is the best place to put this as the discussion has moved on. Complete, word-for-word transcripts, including all banter, of the 8 half hour segments of CNN American Morning on March 9 show no mention of Aiken or of anything relevant to this discussion. [25]-Jmh123 04:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the transcripts myself already. They're about the main story segments, not the side ones. I already told you I couldn't find it. Are you insinuating that I'm lying about seeing the story? I have to assume so given you chose to bold your comment. - mixvio 18:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The transcripts are complete; they include all banter between anchors, side stories, weather reports, every word spoken on CNN American Morning that morning. When you stated that you had seen this on CNN I was surprised, as I was aware of no such mention; there are many, fans and non fans, who are monitoring all media closely for any report of this story. I sought to confirm your statement in a variety of ways. I can find no other source for this. The only television mention of which I am aware is VH1's "Best Week Ever". -Jmh123 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your second point. Wikipedia is not a collection of articles assigned to editors to do whatever they please; there are prescedents, there are stylistic agreements, policy rules and guidelines. Saying that what's done on one page has no bearing on this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is intended to function as a single organism, not a jumbled collection of pages under one banner. Furthermore, while most things in tabloids or Howard Stern (whom I dislike, personally, and never listen to) are dubious at best, they do sometimes print things that turn out to be true. You cannot categorically disregard it just because it's not 100% proven yet. As I've stated many, many times, Wikipedia has many pages that include such references and they're allowed to stand. You can't throw this out because it's convenient to your point of view. Find me a clear policy that says what happens on one page stays on one page and I'll change my mind but I found no policy supporting your statement.

I didn't say it was a google "test," I pointed out that there's a lot of buzz about the story while you seem determined to relegate this to a few fringe websites. That's unfortunately not the case.

You consistently use phrases like "spread their lies" and words like "disgusting." This REEKS of POV. Like I said previously, Wikipedia is not here to be moral police. There are lots of articles on this site that I find uncomfortable and would delete if I were the Wiki-God. But I don't, because they're reporting all sides of issues, whereas your statements are violently oppressive to this solely because you don't like the story. That's not your job nor right. I personally think the man is manipulative and an asshole for capitalizing on what's nearly a blackmail situation. However, that doesn't mean a simple reference isn't merited. The Paulus page exists and survived deletion. Refusing to mention the story here is solely because you're trying to hide the story, and unfortunately it's not your reponsibility, nor Wikipedia's, to protect the reputations of celebrities that fans enjoy. Wikipedia is intended to provide all accounts of its articles and there's clearly enough buzz going on to merit a few sentence summation of the alleged controversy. I'm not asking you to provide links to the webcam photos. My summary was as concise and NPOV as I could get it and you're all just being unreasonable.

The sock-puppet thing is ridiculous. In the Gay? heading there are only two unregistered IP addresses posting comments, both of whom have enough of an individual voice to me and only one, 207.200.116.204, has anything about vandalism, etc, and that's because it's an America Online IP address. Neither have any accusations about being sock puppets nor is there any accusation of that in this talk page until two moments ago. You can't decide that they're sock puppets because they disagree with you; by that measure 66.82.9.70 may as well be a sock puppet because there's as little evidence to his/her identity as there is to 207.200.116.204's, and both of them are cited for vandalism in their talk pages. I'm not saying 66.82.9.70 is, however, and nor should you claim two other people are so arbitrarily.

And michigan, your "summary" is ridiculious. Let me repost an actual one:

Omitting the Paulus mention at this time:

Jmh123 "Even if it became a "big news" story, if it is not substantiated or if nothing meaningful is added to the story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedia-worthy."

Katefan0 "I see no reason to include the musings of every crackpot who calls into Howard Stern or is paid off by the National Enquirer" "There's no consensus currently for adding this information."

Will Beback "Since we don't have a reliable source for the info, I think we should omit it."

Michigan user "The rumors about Clay being gay have been pushed before - that is WHY we reached a consensus on the handling of it. More unsubstantiated rumors do not change a thing."

69.19.14.42

Paulus mention supporters:

Hamiltonian is NOT against it, he/she argues it's worthy but that he/she wouldn't handle it. Read more than just the inital post.

Chiefnayr - "if Corey Clarke makes it onto Paula Abdul's page, then this Paulus guy should make it onto Aiken's."

Rabinid - though I didn't see any basis for you claiming he made the Paulus page, neither here NOR on the Paulus page.

Mixvio

207.200.116.204

71.126.151.95

Abstain:

ArglebargleIV I'm willing to count this as such, though Arglebargle in the end agreed my summary was fine.

• In the end I believe this matter should likely be referred to mediation or arbitration. I remain unconvinced that your (in the general sense, lest someone feel I’m picking on them again) arguments are based from anything other than a desire to protect poor, poor Clay Aiken and unfortunately that line of reasoning is insane to me and doesn’t move me to disregard my stance, nor is that what Wikipedia exists for. If I could see a reason to not include the information that was not borne out of some revolting reaction you all seem to have internally at the thought of Clay Aiken potentially engaging in a sexual act with another man, I’d be more inclined to drop it. I don’t, however, and since the opposition to this is coming from those who opposed mentioning rumors of his sexuality I detect an ulterior motive that bothers me immensely. I’d go so far as to say I don’t think rumors of Clay Aiken’s sexuality belong whereas this has more basis since it’s potentially verifiable. Again, I’m only trying to input a few sentence link to the main article, I’m not asking that you write “CLAY IS GAY” in bold and 14 point typeface. I don’t intend to change my mind based on repeated examples of crying and faulty logic and my patience level is enough that I’m content to have a moderator handle this because I feel that you’re all being petty and unreasonable and I don’t think that sense is going to prevail in this debate. - mixvio 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we need to allow adequate time for other participants to include their opinions. But on your re-vamped summary - the IP addresses just can not be used because there is too great an opportunity for sock puppetry. And you moved Hamiltonian in error. He definitely said "This story seems to have generated a few dozen "legitimate" news stories. Enough? I don't think so. ". The Chiefnayr could possibly be included even though his argument is not valid in Wikipedia. And it is easy enough to determine Rabinid's participation in the Paulus page. Go look. Michigan user 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said read further than the first post. He later clarified that it seemed to be reported in more places and was gaining momentum. And Chiefnayr is totally valid, like I told Jmh, show me a policy stating otherwise and I'll change my opinion.

And I'm happy to wait and allow adequate time, hence me saying I'm patient. But I also don't see my opinion changing and I'm sure none of you do either. - mixvio 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiefnayr's contribution was unsigned, and later "signed" by bot. He has exactly two edits at Wikipedia, one being the comment on this page. References to sockpuppets can be found in the Paulus deletion debate. As Michigan User has stated, you need only look at the history of the Paulus page to see who initiated and is the primary contributor to that entry. I will ask you again to please refrain from making offensive statements about me or any other participant in this discussion. -Jmh123 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But not here. And, interestingly enough, none of the IP addresses who commented in this discussion also commented on the Paulus page, talk or deletion. While I'm sure there's likely a giant anti-Clay Aiken conspiracy with vast resources to mimic IP addresses and so forth, I really think the paranoia is unfounded. I'll also point out that you conveniently ignored my challenge to provide a policy re: other pages. I'll state again that I didn't make any offensive statements about you specifically and if you take offense at my opinion about this infantile debate then unfortunately I can't exactly help you. I'm not here to coddle anyone. You unfortunately can't try to keep the Clay Aiken page and the John Paulus page seperate entities yet argue references between the discussion. That flies in the face of your own logic. If you choose to acknowledge the John Paulus debate then I can't see how you refute it belonging here. Either you treat the Clay Aiken argument as its own being and leave whatever "evidence" you site from the Paulus page out of the debate, or acknowledge they're both intertwined. Acknowledgement of such would only stand to reason that this page deserves a link to the Paulus article. - mixvio 18:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not "conveniently ignore" your challenge. You are so prolific in your postings that it is difficult to keep up. If you read this page, you will find this statement by Katefan0 right near the top: "With so many disparate users working on disparate articles, Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent. It's not really useful to compare one article's treatment with another, or try to force one article into another's mold." Katefan is a long-time editor and Wikipedia admin, and I am satisfied with her take on this. Not buying your other argument. An argument for deletion here is relevant to an argument for deletion there: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Paulus. As I do not have too much time on my hands, I am off to do other things. Later. -Jmh123 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Katefan's job as an admin unfortunately isn't the same as an agreed-upon policy. That's what I asked for. I'm sure you're satisfied with her take, because it's convenient for your point of view. However I asked that you provide me a clear Wikipedia guideline or policy, of which there isn't one. Consistently mentioning your long days or lack of time whenever you choose to leave the discussion is really irrelevent and pointless, in my opinion. Do you mean to guilt trip me or insinuate that I'm forcing you to participate? I'm not exactly sure of your purpose, but it seems pretty passive-aggressive to me. Please don't complain that I'm hurting your feelings (when I'm only ever directing something to you when I cite your name specifically) and then try and make me feel bad for having an opinion in this debate that I choose to defend "prolifically." - mixvio 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, much as I appreciate your kind message on my talk page (and thank you for it!), what I said above is really true. Wikipedia is inconsistent. If you have a problem with a discrete article, fix it. But we don't templatize articles. The bottom line is that there's no consensus for inserting the Paulus information; that's the pertinent policy that's in play at the moment. I still don't think this information has risen to the level of public discourse that it deserves mentioning here (or anywhere -- note that I voted delete on John Paulus). Everybody, just take a deep breath and try to pull the claws back a minute. And just for the record, I'm no fan, I think Clay Aiken is insipid and boring (sorry to those who disagree), so try not to paint everybody with such a broad brush. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the only real argument I can pull out of this that approaches reason is that the story hasn't been printed in enough "reputiable" places (a subjective consideration at best) to merit mention. Fine. Then you post something stating that the story is unverified as of yet, you point it out to be printed mostly in tabloids at the moment, you refer to the fact that other than "no comment" Clay Aiken's spokespeople have only made one actual response to the story. You don't, Don't, DON'T, categorically refuse to post it because you don't care for the subject matter of the story. I'm bewildered as to why this is so difficult to comprehend. The horrendous opposition is solely manufactured by those who're fans of his (and Katefan, though you agree in this instance this debate is being perpetuated by those who initiated the gay rumors debate, something I think you were for inclusion of) who don't want a few sentences to tarnish their idol's rep. Sorry. That's not what this site is here for. There's no reason why a summary shouldn't be here and I fail to see any relevent justifications to the contrary. - mixvio 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you personally disagree with someone's reasoning, consensus still is not with you. And that is what this site is for. Sorry. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you. And just because one more person agrees with a particular viewpoint than the alternative doesn't suddenly grant that viewpoint rightness. - mixvio 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Consensus? It's unfortunate, but fairly immaterial, that you disagree with the majority view. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have, and since you decided to link the policy, I'll point out that you don't have consensus. Consensus isn't majority, which, you don't even have there. In the above summary of opinion (and I'll even be so gracious to omit the IP addresses from the decison) there's a dead tie between those who want Paulus in and those who want Paulus out. Consensus is an agreement by all parties involved and barring that you've got to go with the supermajority policy. You have neither. - 72.225.254.43 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. - mixvio 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've made my position on this topic plainly clear. There is no valid reason for an NPOV mention of this controversial topic to not be included in the article. Regardless of how distasteful some editors may find the inclusion, it meets all qualifications of Wikipedia standards and it is relevant to the article. --Rabinid 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the controversy (Paulus, web cam photos, FTC, et al) was reported by US magazine in this week's issue as well. --Rabinid 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabinid, I tried to search for a reference to this in US Magazine and I couldn't find anything. Is any of this online anywhere? - mixvio 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't find an online source to cite but this is is the US magazine reference:

Is Clay's career in trouble?

In February, former Green Beret John Paulus claimed to have had unprotected sex with Clay Aiken, 27 (who has denied that he is gay). Now a tabloid has printed shots of a Webcam striptease the singer allegedly sent another man. (Aiken's rep had no comment.) Reaction was swift: the New York Post reports a group of ex-fans filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, claiming Aiken's innocent Christian image was false advertising. Can Aiken hang on to his career? "Everyone is worried", a pal tells Us. "Nobody wants to see Clay go down. He is a great guy and an amazing talent."

There is an accompanying picture captioned "The Idol season two runner-up is working on a new album, due in the spring." --Rabinid 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article already addresses the rumors about being gay. I see no reason to detail the particular rumors - as it adds nothing of value. Wikipedia should not be the place to go to look for dirty details. If we detailed every rumor out there for every celebrity we would overwhelm the actual information. 66.82.9.79 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And my edit wasn't about the gay rumors. My edit was about the Paulus story. Just because you don't like the Paulus story doesn't mean you've got the right to censor it. If this is all that you and the opposition is going to cling to, I move that the matter be sent to mediation. - mixvio 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• "No Comment" from Clay Aiken's rep does not make fact out of the unsubstantiated claims made by John Paulus to the NE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not a platform for tabloid speculation or gossip blogs. The gay rumors have already been addressed, I see no reason to add more. Maria202 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone against this needs to stop lumping Paulus in with the "gay rumors." They're mutually exclusive of one another.

The argument that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts is also rather debateable. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary with definitions and so forth. It's a comprehensive collection of information around a subject and unfortunately for those of you who feel some bizarre protection for Clay Aiken's public image that collective information should include everything about a subject, in this case the snowballing accusations regarding his sex life. I'll point out that the Bill Clinton wikipedia article lists every single one of Clinton's alleged affairs. Of the five people Clinton was accused of having affairs with, he only admitted to two. The Paula Jones case was settled out of court and later summarily dismissed on the basis of being groundless, while the Juanita Broadderick and Kathleen Willey cases have been knocked down many times. Are you going to argue that these stories aren't speculative and gossip as well? I'm sorry folks, you can't have these ridiculous double standards. The Paulus story isn't something relegated to the fringe of the world's consciousness, it's being widely reported and it's being buzzed about all over publications that handle celebrity stories. It deserves to be here, it deserves to be mentioned as an as-yet unsubstantiated story, and everyone else who wants to protect Clay Aiken should perhaps invest their time and energy into something that's a worthwile pursuit. - mixvio 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone who wants to smear Clay Aiken with unsubstantiated rumors should perhaps invest their time and energy into something that's a worthwile pursuit. What is your vested interest in pushing so hard. Not to hard to find out -is it? 66.82.9.54 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My "vested interest" in this is because I feel that this issue is being censored by fans of his who don't want it included solely because they're fans of his and don't want to hear the story. Unfortunately it is news whether it makes some of you feel unhappy and trying to ignore it isn't an appropriate response. And really, "smear" Clay Aiken is rather dramatic. What I edited in was a very simple two sentence summary of the charges, fully pointing out where it's been reported so far and fully pointing out that as yet it's just an accusation. If I wanted to "smear" Clay Aiken I really don't think I would've been so PC about it. Rather I really won't stand for censorship on any issues, certainly not a Wikipedia article being hijacked and protected by fans of his. What do you think I really stand to gain from a very simple and demure link to Paulus' article? Seriously, that's almost laughable. - mixvio 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think Clinton's peccadillos have gotten too much attention, feel free to go edit that article. But articles here aren't templatized, as I've mentioned before. As for suggesting that everyone who disagrees "wants to protect Clay Aiken," I would suggest that's not really assuming good faith of folks who have been contributing here for quite some time. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said to Jmh, show me a policy or guideline that says that. I think what's fair in one article is fair in another and until I see evidence suggesting otherwise I don't think it needs to be debated. I respect your role as an admin but unfortunately in my mind the opinion of one admin on this issue isn't enough. Sorry. :/ Furthermore, since the vast majority of people involved in this particular debate are the same ones who were involved in the same debate against inclusion of the gay rumors, and the vast majority of those involved in this particular debate are involved solely out of a vested interest in their celebrity's well-being (by their own admission) I don't consider them to be acting in good faith. Also, that is a guideline/suggestion and it's not rule. - mixvio 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Show you a policy or guideline that says what? That Wikipedia works on consensus? It's right here. Wikipedia:Consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. And you're right, it is only a guideline. But the three revert rule is not, which is one mechanism by which consensus may be enforced. So if it comes to that, then the consensus will win out, though I'd prefer that not be the case. Your comment about my opinion being the only one in play is disingenuous at best. Hermione1980, also an admin, agrees with me, as do two other established users (Jmh and Michigan user). How is this only my opinion? Consensus isn't with you. Pushing the issue by filibustering or weak attempts at wikilawyering aren't going to further your cause. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You do not get to decide what does or does not need to be debated. Sorry. And I do not consider you to be acting in good faith either. I consider you to be acting in self interest. But it is not your place to pass judgement on other editors validity. Because if it gets down to that - we would have to question YOUR validity. 66.82.9.54 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm totally making this into an issue out of self-interest, while you so obviously have absolutely no interest in this at all. I wouldn't for a moment think that you're arguing against inclusion because you're a Clay Aiken fan. Oh wait, I probably would because you're an IP address that's not contributed to this debate at all until now. Interesting how similar your IP address is to the ones that left all of the other 66.82.9 comments. And interesting that they're all advocating the same stance. Wanna talk about sock puppets? Hmm.... And I never said I was acting in good faith. I think this debate is infantile and retarded. Take from that whatever you want. - mixvio 01:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

HUH?? It is not all that interesting, you just have a short memory. I AM the same person as those other edits. At least the 66.92.9 edits. We've had this conversation before - you know Satellite modem etc. *sigh* I never saw a policy or guideline (that you are so fond of pointing out) - that says that a fan can not contribute an opinion on an article. Did I miss something?? And if you are not acting in good faith - then you need to remove yourself from the conversation. 66.82.9.54 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No I don't. And if you don't want people to think you're being shifty you might want to, satellite modem or not, leave some sortof a signature. - mixvio 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the whole, I have enjoyed the articles as they have been presented by Wikipedia. But until now, I've never felt compelled to add any thoughts of my own.

I'm not even going to go into the myriad of other articles which have information which could be considered alleged or misconstrued, since this discussion has been down that road before, and it's a dead end. From a neutral standpoint, I can see both sides. However, the fact remains that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a press release. It should not serve to either accuse or adore. It should simply state the facts as they are known, and leave the reader to develop his or her own conclusions.

The defense that acknowledging this information could result in Clay Aiken's reputation being tarnished is irrelevant in this forum. If preserving Clay's reputation is the sole purpose of this article, then it's my opinion that the entirety of the article be scrapped, since that would render it pointless. Refusing to reference an allegation in this article when it has been referenced in others on this same site is as illogical as it is unethical.

I'm of the opinion that a short mention of the story, with the appropriate disclaimers, should be included. - Dooder 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Never had even one other thing to offer Wikipedia except this opinion?? Now suddenly you want to offer your opinion. . . OK. At least you can sign in - so that is good.

The disconnect here seems to be that Mixvio et. al. are starting from the premis that the story is true, and that it is being suppressed. Which irritates them.

The others seem to be starting from the premise that the story is completely fabricated and does not deserve to be acknowledged because it exists only for attention seeking purposes.

If there was any proof at all that Paulus story could have happened - then I could see a mention of it. If Clay's team rebuted the issue - then I could see mentioning it with balance. But with absolutely NOTHING except the word of a guy who admits that he is kickstarted a gay porn career that he has been thinking about for years - it seems ridiculous to allow him to control Wikipedia for his promotion purposes. 66.82.9.54 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually of a third opinion. Other than honestly not having an opinion of whether or not the story is true (to be honest, I have doubts), I think that the story has been covered to what I might describe as a medium level of notability. What I might offer as a compromise is a mention that in addition to SNL, Mad TV et al., we should mention that tabloids and internet gossip sites have also speculated about his sexuality. If the story breaks bigger (regardless of its actual truth) then a fuller mention will definitely be needed. On an unrelated note, why no mention of Clay's birth father and his mother's second husband (who may or may not have adopted him - I only have a vague recollection of a story from around the time of his season of Idol which was covered, amusingly enough, in a tabloid I believe)? --Hamiltonian 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am ignoring the LONG post below - because I have better things to do with my life that read a thesis. 66.82.9.54 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So Hamiltonian this is the current text:

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

The revised text that you are suggesting would be something like:

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality, and in one case a person interviewed stated that he had sex with Clay, although there was no proof provided. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

Would that cover the current stories?? 66.82.9.54 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point about the father and step-father. When the artile gets unlocked - I will correct that omission. 66.82.9.54 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also ignoring the long post below. I think a new catagory should be started for RUMORS and all the gossip/rumor/speculation moved there instead of interweaving it with Post Idol Career. I have no problem with mentioning tabloids printing unconfrimed stories, they've done it before and will do it again. I do not care for the wording above. Maria202 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

wow - Brand new users are just popping out of the woodwork tonight. Hi Maria. 66.82.9.54 02:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi back at ya. I've been reading here since the beginning and finally had to jump in. As for text, I like this wording better. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there was no proof provided. Maria202 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - that is better. Then it would read:

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there was no proof provided. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

How is that?? 66.82.9.54 02:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there is no substantiating proof. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4]. Alledgedly the NE has proof so the no proof provided statement could lead to problems. Maria202 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please forgive the following long post:

In the interest of full disclosure, not that I really feel I’ve got to justify my position, mind you, I’m willing to provide 66.82.9 ‘’et al’’ a walkthrough of my thinking. I came to this page because I saw this story on CNN before work and I was curious as to what it was about. Seeing no mention of the story I became more curious, and after tracking down the name of Paulus I went about preparing to leave a reference.

I read the talk page and was presented with six pages of archives over arguments by fans of his who for whatever insane reason felt that a brief presentation of the rumors of him being gay was somehow wrong and didn’t belong here. By those fans of his who felt that somehow questioning his heterosexuality was somehow a bad thing that should be quashed and stomped on and hidden until people stopped talking about it. As a gay man it troubled me immensely that apparently some people can’t like an artists’ products separate of the artist themselves. I like Lauryn Hill’s cd but I find her as a person to be rather racist. I wouldn’t have lunch with her but I’m fine with myself for buying her cd because I liked the music.

So I left what I felt was a very unbiased account of the story. After talking to Arglebargle I edited it down and left a link to the main page, which I also felt was reasonable and unbiased.

I was immediately attacked by 66.82.9 very irrationally and came to realize that this issue is considered a sacred cow by his fans. I won’t have my words censored by anybody, nor do I think this story should be hidden under the rug because some people find it a touchy subject. 66.82.9 isn’t contributing an opinion, rather he/she is determinedly digging in on this because he/she’s a fan. There’s a big difference.

Personally, I have Clay Aiken’s cd. A few songs are even on my favorites list in my ipod. I could care less who he sleeps with. That doesn’t mean Paulus isn’t a story. I also live in NYC. I’ve met Michael Lucas and run into him on many occasions. I personally find him to be an insipid prick of a man incapable of posing for a photograph without pursing his lips into what I presume is what he finds an attractive look. I would certainly not go out of my way to throw him any “free advertising” so I hope that all of my detractors realize that’s not why I’m for inclusion of Paulus’ story.

I am for it because I think it has as much merit as Jude Law’s nanny belongs on his page, as much as the controversy belongs on James E. West’s page, etc. I don’t think someone’s extramarital affairs, homosexual relationships, drug abuse problems or anything on one’s personal life should really be the sensationalistic news it is, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still NEWS. Just because a story upsets you personally doesn’t give you or anybody else the right to call it non-news because it isn’t on the 24 hour cable news networks in breaking headline fashion. Just because you like a musician or painter or actor’s work doesn’t mean you should feel personally attacked when they do or don’t do something that makes headlines or when someone else accuses them of doing something.

I’m not starting from the premise that the story’s true. I could care less if the story’s true. I’m starting from the premise that plenty other accusations are on plenty other wikipedia pages, much to the detriment of those who are fans of these people I’m sure, and they’re still allowed to stay on the pages. Whether the “disconnect” is because this is about an alleged affair regarding another man I’m not sure, but I really do suspect that if a woman came out and made the same claims there wouldn’t be such an aversion to the story being included. While I don’t care whether or not Paulus’ story is true that doesn’t change that it’s reported enough that I managed to hear about it. Furthermore, no one else on “my” side has said this is true. We’re saying it’s being reported and should be here. The fact that it’s not is because his fans are crying foul and complaining. That IS suppression.

If we’re going to go with the argument that the Paulus story should be ignored because it would be giving he and Michael Lucas free publicity, then I think it necessary that 66.82.9, Jmh and Michigan go forward with the following edits:

We should remove the article referencing the upcoming Half-Life 2 expansion because that would be giving Valve software free publicity. We should also remove references to Damien Rice’s new album, as well as the upcoming album by the Dresden Dolls. For that matter, we should remove links to all musician pages, actor pages and writer pages because leaving these things up provide free publicity for their various past, present and future artistic enterprises.

We should remove the articles on abortion and capital punishment, because this is free publicity for those viewpoints for and against. We should remove the articles on rape and pedophilia because this is free publicity for those who might be looking for methods to commit such things. We should remove politician pages because this is publicity for their legislative opinions. Same for paper press, printing press, computers, Microsoft, Apple, iPod, Creative Labs, Kellog, Kraft, Kleenex, cd-rom burners, flower arrangers, wedding planners, Broadway musicals.

Just to be safe it’s probably best to shut down Wikipedia because once I set my mind to it I realize this site is nothing but one big ad.

Really now. We can’t be afraid of mentioning a story because it might benefit some who we’d rather not be benefiting. I don’t think anybody here is going to read Clay Aiken’s page and be compelled to buy John Paulus’ videos online. Rather I think anyone who might be compelled to buy something of his would read this story and realize that he is clearly capitalizing and go somewhere else. Be that as it may, it’s still NEWS. We’re not here to assign morals to the news, Wikipedia is supposed to include the good and the bad, the black and the white. That’s what NPOV is. The objection to including this story by Aiken’s fanbase is coming from clear, clear, clear POV-related places. - mixvio 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. Both of you grow up. (Right. "Both." Mhm.) I disagree with your "compromise," which any child can see is pushing your biased point of view. I'll continue to advocate that the article be protected and if I see that text added I'll delete it myself. I'll not accept a compromise that tries to ignore the Paulus story so broadly. Ignore that. - mixvio 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK - So this is the working version.

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there is no substantiating proof. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

If you have something to contribute Mixvio - please contribute. But the threats are not appreciated. 66.82.9.54 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I choose, thanks. And we're stretching the definition of "threat." I'm not accepting your edits as consensus because an anonymous IP address and a convenient new user who happens to have the same stance as you and conveniently has the same argument as you and conveniently writes the same as you happens to pop up right in the middle of this discussion. Synchronicity abounds! You're only helping to further my opinion that this page is owned by "Claymates" who get icky feelings inside when someone talks about his penis. - mixvio 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio - you are violating the "No personal attacks" policy. Please try to work nicely. 66.82.9.54 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. - mixvio 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Every legitimate print media that has reported this has confined their reporting to mentioning that a story was printed in the NE and they have covered themselves by using the word alleged. The compromise text that you do not like is doing the same thing. Fact - a story was printed. Fact - no one knows whether it is true or not. I would still like to see this removed from Post Idol Career and put into a separate catagory called RUMORS. Maria202 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The original placement of the paragraph was negotiated and consensus agreed to last year. The placement was intended to be inline with the history of his career without standing out like a red light. 66.82.9.54 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Maria202 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• :: I do hope that you won't take offense at this but I unfortunately feel that you and 66.82.9 are the same person. "Assume good faith" or not, your appearance is rather too convenient to me. For example, when 66.82.9 and Maria talk “amongst” each other, responses are rendered in minutes every time. The time between when either of them respond to me is much longer. As such I'm not responding to arguments posited by you. Nothing personal.

I've put an informal request in for mediation because I personally don't see this progressing any further. I refuse to accept a compromise that washes the story out since I specifically want this story in, not a watered down mystery synopsis of his sordid past. I think the arguments to the contrary aren't logical and are instead solely because you're fans of his and your reasoning is the textbook definition of POV.

I will be continuing to monitor this but since I don't imagine any of you will come to your senses relatively soon, and I am frustrated by the inanity of this debate, I'm abstaining from discussing this further until the mediator becomes involved. I've made my case and any rational person can see there's no reason why the text I suggested shouldn't be inserted. Sorry if that makes any of you feel bad about yourselves, it's truly not my intention to challenge your collective self-esteems. - mixvio 04:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well you are wrong. I have nothing to do with Maria. But the admins can determine that easily enough. Which is exactly why I checked her status and questioned it when she showed up (see above). And Maria's appearance is no more convenient that Dooder's up above. I would love to have an admin facilitate this conversation. Then perhaps there would be less sarcasm, lecturing and personal slams. 66.82.9.54 04:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dooder isn't, however, continuing to contribute and respond to my every statement, as Maria is. And you didn't "question" it, you said hi. You did question Dooder, though, with as much sarcasm and veracity as I question you and Maria. I disregarded Dooder's stance even though I agreed with it because I disregard new users, IP addresses (which you'll remember from our earlier conversation), and sock puppets whether they're on my side or not. That's why you'll not that he/she didn't get a hello from me.

And really, there would be as much sarcasm from me admin or not because I don't feel this debate is based on a mature subject with mature people and ergo doesn't really earn much respect. Sorry if you disagree and feel that Clay Aiken's sex life is the stuff of stern reflection and quiet stoicism. Can't really help you if you feel lectured and I haven't personally slammed anyone. You might have a problem with my response and you might disagree with what I'm saying but aside from telling you to grow up when you decided to ignore my post a few bits back and then move it to the bottom of the page with several carriage returns so it was out of the way, I haven't said anything to anyone that could be construed as a personal attack. Insulting perhaps, but like I said before I'm not here to win votes on the annual Wikipedia hugs contest. That having been said, and as much as I'd love to turn this into a debate about how I'm a big mean monster, this is my last response until the mediator gets involved. Much love. - mixvio 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that you are being paranoid. The whole purpose of that comment to Maria was to POINT OUT that she was a brand new user. Which was exactly the reason for my comment to Dooder also. But . . . whatever. 66.82.9.54 05:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit concerned about having an admin check out my ip. Your entitled to your opinion even if it's wrong. Believe me, you have not made me feel bad about myself. I choose not to respond to verbal putdowns or get involved in petty arguments. I've been reading this page and reading the edit wars ever since Clay first got a page on Wikipedia. Yes, I am a fan. So what? Even though I'm newly registered here, I have as much right to voice my opinion as anyone else. Maria202 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your proposed compromise paragraph completely disregards the substantiating proof of the published IM chats, the reported polygraph test and washcloth, not to mention the published photographs and reported other men. That is then as unacceptable as ignoring the admittedly controversial topic completely. Again I take no position of the veracity or not of Paulus claims, or the other allegations, but it does a disservice to ignore them. --Rabinid 05:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not produce IMs - he produced a typewritten transcript that he SAID was the IMs. He would have to go to the ISP provider to get the actual IMs, and verify the source IP. I can type up that kind of IMs as easily as he can. And they can say whatever I want them to say. No one has ever seen any washcloth - and he has not provided evidence that it has anything but his own stuff on it. All bluff - no substance. The article never once said what questions that he was asked during the polygraph test. The NE WANTED him to pass this test. (But I can see adding a comment on this - since it did happen). The "webcam pics" have nothing to do with Paulus, and are obvious photoshop jobs. I could do a better job. And since the sources are anonymous, I have to assume that Paulus et. al. was the source. You would have to WANT to believe this story to believe what he has offered as evidence. Really all he has offered is his story. And it stinks. 66.82.9.54 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, I am sorry for your pain and I regret that we do not understand one another. This is not the place to try to heal that breach, however. I will be succinct: I am not anti-gay. Aiken could come out tomorrow and I would happily report that here. Groups or individuals with an agenda of using these pages to forcibly out him, however, have been and will continue to be met by me with considerable resistance. The public's "gaydar", jokes, rumors, gossip, tabloid trash--these do not determine a man's sexual identity. Aiken says he is not gay; I accept that. I regret that this resistance has been interpreted as homophobia by you or any other.

As for the proposed text, here's my contribution:

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In January 2006 an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer, and picked up by other tabloids, newspaper gossip columns, and radio shock jocks. Aiken has not yet commented on the allegation. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

I'm still not entirely happy with this. My argument continues to be that, as an encyclopedia it is not Wikipedia's job to stay abreast of the news, & certainly not rumor and gossip. There is a disconcerting trend in that direction within the media, and I would like to see Wikipedia take the high road rather than be part of that trend. Inasmuch as it has been careless of the reputation of others, the reputation of this publication has suffered [26]. There is an arc to every story, and the arc to this story is not yet complete. I would prefer to wait until that is the case, rather than providing space for speculation. -Jmh123 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• If it’s really necessary for this to be hidden deeply into the article so no one will find it, this is the ONLY wording (or something similar) I will find acceptable:

There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In January 2006 John Paulus (main article: John Paulus) reported an alleged sexual encounter to the National Enquirer. It was picked up by other tabloids, newspaper gossip columns, and radio shock jocks. Aiken has not yet commented on the allegation.

If you’re going to reference the date then you’re referencing the specific example and there’s absolutely no reasonable reason why you can’t reference his name. Let's not quibble with petty details, all right? To do otherwise is suppressing the story and I’m not satisfied with that. - mixvio 07:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - we can pull the date also, if you insist. I firmly do not think that Paulus should get any benefit from spreading his lies. His particular name is really not the issue anyway- is it?? It is the story that you want on the Aiken page. 69.19.14.44 12:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is the only wording you find acceptable because you want a link back to the John Paulus page. I do have to wonder why you are so vested in having his name appear. Let's call a spade a spade. The National Enquirer printed accusations made by John Paulus regarding an alleged sexual encounter. So far there is no corroborating evidence nor any witnesses. At this point Paulus's only claim to fame are his accusations and that my friend is nothing more than tabloid fodder. Maria202 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said to 69 before, please explain to me what benefit you really think I'm capable of garnering through Paulus' identity being here. If you can't, stop being so ridiculous in your suggestion that this is why I'm pushing it. Furthermore, please explain to me what benefit you think Paulus is going to get with his name here? Like I stated previously, not wanting his name here because you don't want him getting free advertising isn't an argument and it only further expouses your completely non-neutral viewpoint. Every page on Wikipedia is free advertising and unless you're advocating the removal of all such instances this stance is irrelevent to the discussion. I want his name in because the point is I want the story WITH him in. I don't want a sneaky sentence that hints about the story but misses the point because his Claymate fans are uncomfortable with the subject matter. That's the same as describing the appearance and taste of a chicken to someone but refusing to call it a chicken because you don't want Purdue to get a customer. Anybody who reads this Wikipedia article and then buys John Paulus' pornography was going to buy his pornography already. I'm flabbergasted by the lack of reason in this discussion.

Furthermore, Paulus has presented evidence and two other people have come forward with allegations. Just because others in this discussion are apparently advisors to CSI:Miami doesn't negate the fact that evidence has been positioned. We're not here to investigate his claims, we're here to present it. This is where the breakdown occurs. You don't want the story here because you don't think it's true and you don't want any untruths in the Clay Aiken page because you feel like your star's image is being attacked. Whereas I and the opposition don't CARE if it's true, we care that it is now a news story being carried in many outlets and it deserves to be mentioned in the article in a NPOV capacity. "IN January 2006 someone claimed that they may or may not have slept with Clay Aiken BUT THERE'S NO PROOF WHATSOEVER AND HE'S A TOTAL LIAR LIAR POOPIE HEAD" isn't NPOV. - mixvio 16:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a benefit that I think thta you are garnering:

You believe that celebrities do not have a right to "stay in the closet", that they should: "use their stature for the benefit of all of us" [[27]]

You believe that Clay is gay - because, well - just because you do: "I say if people like Clay Aiken choose to stay in the closet, as I fully believe he has . . . "

You believe that this story will help "out" Clay, which is your POV goal. It does not really matter if the story is true or not for your goal.

What is weird is that Clay HAS responded with a polite denial to the point of exhaustion. Only in the face of outright rudeness has he responded in kind. And he has refused to allow the possibility of being labeled gay to coerce him into removing his gay employees - because that would just not be fair. Yet the treatment that some portion of the gay community has given him has done more to set back their cause than they could ever get out of one celebrity advocate. 66.82.9.55 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes me grin. No dear, thank you for taking my actual statements out of context. If you bothered to read the entire entry instead of looking for sound bites you could cut and paste, you would've seen that though I do believe Clay Aiken is gay, I could care less. Believe it or not the majority of those in the gay community don't sit around devising elaborate schemes in order to out the celebrity segment. If you'd bothered to read the entire entry you would've seen that I reiterated exactly the same stance there that I've maintained here all along. And I believe you've finally pointed out your POV and your lack of "good faith," since I'm sure hunting down my website surely has relevence to this discussion. I'm frankly surprised no one thought to google my screenname before now. Don't be so childish. I couldn't care whether he's in the closet or not. What's YOUR goal? - mixvio 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I'm unfortunately aware of the insignificance a lowly wikipedia entry has in the world. If my "goal" were really to "out" Clay Aiken I think my efforts would be better spent saving up for a full-page ad in the NY Times and a billboard in Times Square. Some of those involved in this discussion unfortunately forget that the end of the world doesn't reside in this entry. So amusing.... - mixvio 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'll point out something interesting I happened to discover. Earlier in the discussion I mentioned finding gay profiles online that, whether they were orchestrated or not, supported the claims that Clay Aiken's been online to meet gay guys. One in particular mentions him having a webcam, which he says he can use to verify that his photographs are real. This profile in particular hasn't been updated since Feb 04. The webcam story didn't begin circulating until a month later, in the beginning of march. I've been unable to find a single story that reported the webcam pics prior to march 01. Meaning that someone couldn't have read the webcam story and then gone online to make a fake profile. For this to be fake you'd have to assume that Paulus or someone else was willing to go through the trouble of creating a fake profile online with the webcam information, waiting a month to mention it, then creating fake webcam photos to send out to tabloids and hope that someone happens to search for the profiles to find the planted information (since the profiles I saw in particular have never been mentioned anywhere. Only Yahoo's been mentioned.) I dunno. I guess you have to wonder how determined someone is and how crazy they are. I'm just putting this out here because I found it to be amusing. I don't care one way or the other. - mixvio 19:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out that Lucas has a great deal of money at stake here. And he has been orchestrating media blitzes for a long time. However in theory the webcam pictures have nothing to do with Paulus. At least that is what Paulus and friends would have us believe. The "Clay is Gay" thing has been going on for a LONG time. Over 3 years there have been hundreds of photoshopped pictures. Everyone knew that. So . . . . what is your point. Just doing a bit of CSI investigating??? 66.82.9.73 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Clay is Gay issue has been going on since he first appeared on AI. I'm aware of that. That's not my point. My point is only suddenly has anybody claimed that they chatted with Clay Aiken on webcam, and that this profile using the screenname Paulus says he used says he has a webcam and hasn't been modified since BEFORE the webcam story broke. So in order for this profile to be fake you have to be willing to believe that someone's going through the trouble of creating a profile with the intention to wait and break a story a month later and hope someone decides to do some searching. I would be more inclined to believe the profiles were frauds if the webcam story was accompanied with "The source says they found Clay Aiken's profile on so and so website under so and so screenname." However, it wasn't. The webcam story says Yahoo and no screenname. I'm not arguing that someone wouldn't go through that trouble but I do find it a stretch. If I were going to manufacture a story about a celebrity, a story that's much to my detriment at every turn (and you can't argue that Paulus' story doesn't reflect very negatively towards him, from the chatroom hookups to the unprotected sex to the way he's used the story to popularize himself) I'm sorry, but I would choose to attack a celebrity who's one, more famous, and two, more attractive personally. I'm willing to believe that someone would go through the trouble to create such a story filled with such profiles, but I'm sorry, I find it difficult to believe they'd go through the trouble for Clay Aiken.

And where's your proof that Lucas has any money at stake in this? What "media blitzes" are you talking about? Sounds to me like someone's got some personal beef with him. He told me I have a small penis, you think I'm out to promote his movies from that experience? If he suddenly felt that Paulus were his cash cow I think he would've stuck him in more than an audition movie and a single scene in another movie. I think he'd repolish his website to announce proudly that yes, the illustrious John Paulus is exclusively signed to his studio. You're stretching it. Michael Lucas has nothing at stake in this and whether Paulus' story checks out or not has absolutely no bearing on the people who'd buy his videos. People don't generally tend to buy porn because of the checkered past of the performers, they buy it on other "facets" of the performers' identity. Like penis size, muscle mass, attractiveness. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that or not, but porn star bios don't generally rank highly on Amazon.com's sales reports. - mixvio 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Lucas' stake, see his official home page: [28]. Note that Paulus is featured on the top right hand corner, as well as in the listings on the right hand column. A Paulus DVD is due March 15, and has been advertised in sponsored links that come up with Aiken searches on various search engines, as well as on the Perez Hilton site, and so forth. Lucas accompanied Paulus to his Howard Stern interview and has probably arranged for a lot of his publicity on radio, internet sites, tabloids, etc. See the bolded passage above about the Wiki:Search engine test and gaining publicity for porn stars. -Jmh123 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but the web cam has been part of urban legend on gay gossip sites for years. There are a number of ID's purporting to be Aiken's floating about, and impersonating Aiken online has been a popular "entertainment" for years as well. Many have claimed to have talked to him, and to have received publicity photos "proving" his identity. The only thing new about the whole mess is that one person has claimed to have actually met Aiken in person and had relations with him. -Jmh123 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me a single story. Searching "clay aiken" + webcam did not provide me a SINGLE link that was written before march 06. I searched through many of them in order to be sure I was on firm ground. - mixvio 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one: [29] August 29, 2005. Scroll down to the first comment. -Jmh123 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that then. The screenname has been available prior to the march webcam stories. That still doesn't render anything true or untrue, though. You're all lost in this quagmire of whether the story's real or not. I don't know any way to express the fact that I don't care any more vocally. I want the Paulus story to be included because it's news and it's available all over the place. I'm pushing for the inclusion because a group of his POV fans don't have the right to stifle it because they don't want it here. I don't care if Paulus is a saint incarnate and couldn't tell a lie. I don't care if he wanted to date Aiken. I don't care if Aiken's really some devilish moral pit of deception and manipulation. I. Don't. Care. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong when so many other Wikipedia pages have equally-tabloidial stories on their pages. - mixvio 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The screenname and the webcam story that you just claimed did not appear until March 6 of this year. If you don't care, why are you trying to find "evidence" that you think proves Paulus' story? -Jmh123 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Lucas isn't profiting from Paulus. Check out the dvd description straight from Lucas Entertainment "A tight-bodied stud gets caught up in a massive tabloid scandal, losing his job in the aftermath. In an exquisite career overhaul, former Green Beret, John Paulus, fulfills his porn dreams ". Maria202 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But Mixvio - you have to understand that I have fought to keep similar stuff off other articles also. Because I do not believe that malicious gossip (or any gossip) has a place in Wikipedia. I strongly want Wikipedia to be a respected source of information, and cheapening it like this damages that goal. The issue is much bigger than Clay Aiken and his particular problems. Just because like-minded folks and I can not keep all the garbage out - does not mean that it is not a goal to strive for. 66.82.9.73 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to find evidence that proves Paulus' story. Again. That's your assumption because you have a vested interest in showing that I care so much about this being true. I was pointing the profiles out because it amused me. Nothing more than that.

Lucas isn't profiting from Paulus any more than he's profiting from any other model signed to his studio. You're really overreaching the market share that Lucas has. Most other studios hold him in high contempt for his treatment of models and his behavior in the industry as well. He's only advertising Paulus as any other person in a similar situation would be advertised. I think it's unreasonable to claim otherwise.

And I'm going to request that you stop claiming the "gay agenda" card. Using someone's affiliations to discredit their argument is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. While I'm sure that the same can be said for my discrediting your arguments because you're Clay Aiken fans, I feel that the paranoid gay agenda claim carries more weight. Otherwise I might abridge my opinion that your edits to the page are from those with a strong bias to a homophobic POV agenda. - mixvio 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well Mixvio - I might oonsider your request to not use the "gay agenda" card - except that it seems to fit so well in this case. And perhaps it SHOULD carry more weight based on this statement that you made: "I hate Clay Aiken....He's got a good voice, but I'm sorry, he's a faggot. We can smell his scent. We recognize our kind." [[30]] Sort of makes a person think that you do not have a NPOV. 66.82.9.73 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on contributors. Don't cast aspersions on peoples' motives. We're all allowed our opinions. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that my personal website has no bearing on this discussion, certainly not an entry I wrote two years ago. That comment was sarcastic anyway and you'll note that I also said I copied the cd into iTunes, a detail you chose to leave out. And I don't understand why you feel it necessary to continue quoting and linking it, since the same opinion there is the same opinion I continue to maintain here. I'd go further to say the constant linking probably could be construed as a personal attack as well. Regardless it doesn't really look good for your argument that you've resorted to miscategorization and taking statements on my personal site out of context. A lesser person might take offense, but I think it just proves my point that you're motivated to defend this out of some personal crusade you seem to have to protect Clay Aiken's good name. Shrug. - mixvio 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I just found an article posted in the NY Post on Feb 13 that says RCA put Clay Aiken's album release on hold until the John Paulus allegations blow over. You don't think that sort of a story merits being included either, right? - mixvio 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep - in the gossip column the speculated about that with no source. However the same week Entertainment Weekly printed a story saying that RCA says that they plan to release the CD in the May timeframe. They actually cited their source. So do I believe the NY Post gossip? No - I don't. 69.19.14.24 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RCA just announced the release date is June 20, right in line with the projected date. Seems the NY Post had incorrect information. - Maria202 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I really do love how comments posted on the Perez Hilton blog get picked up by the NY Post Page Six and become news. Gotta love it. Maria202 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I really do love how people have a problem with a specific person, IE Perez Hilton or Michael Lucas, and then choose to disregard everything one or the other of them happen to say because they don't like them. I don't go to Perez Hilton or Michael Lucas for my news, celebrity/tabloid or not, but that doesn't change the fact that I highly doubt Perez Hilton is out with photographic equipment and microphones to get the "scoop." He's consistently critisized by other users for stealing stories from other pages, so do you really think this story originates with him? No, it doesn't. It came from someone else and he repeated it. - mixvio 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I DID NOT say Perez Hilton posted the comment, not did I make any personal remarks about him. I said it was a comment posted on his blog, as a matter of fact it was repeated several times. Anyone can post there anonymously. Secondly, I have been following this story from the beginning, including reading every comment on Hilton's blog so I am totally familiar with what was said and where it was said. I've listened to most of the radio interviews with Paulus and read the tabloid stories so I do know what I'm talking about. Maria202 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mhm. - mixvio 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that some of those involved here, no longer being able to attack the Clay Aiken page militantly in order to make sure the gayness stays off of this page, have moved to the John Paulus page and I had to ask that that one become protected too because they were arbitrarily deleting the Clay Aiken-related story from there as well. While it really, truly pisses me off, I also find it hysterical that this singer means that much to them. - mixvio 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep insisting this is about gayness - when in fact it is about gossip, and how it should be handled. Michigan user 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. - mixvio 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have been keeping an eye on this page ever since the Paulus scandal began breaking. It seems that I have a far longer-standing record with wikipedia than most of the people involved in this edit war. Many of them seem to be here SPECIFICALLY due to the fact that they are fans of Clay Aiken, and they feel some fan-worship need to protect him from gossip. This has gone on long enough.

Wikipedia is a source of factual information. It is a FACT that gossip, whether true or not, is going on right now. It is APPROPRIATE to include this gossip in the main article, because it is an integral part of Aiken's history as a celebrity. Whether or not that gossip is TRUE is irrelevant to whether the fact that gossip went on should be mentioned. Stating that gossip occurred is not akin to stating that the gossip is true.

Aiken's "gay-gossip" has gone on for far longer (and far more prominantly) than most gay-gossiped celebrities. That makes it even more appropriate for mention than some celebrities who have experienced it less - yet have it mentioned in their articles. (Robbie Williams comes to mind.)

I am neither a fan of Aiken nor am I a "hater". I have never heard a Clay Aiken record, so I have no opinion on him as an artist. All I am concerned about are the facts, and the fact is, this gossip is ongoing.

Paulus' claims grow more and more extreme by the day, with him now claiming that he has in his possession a wash cloth with Aiken's semen on it. This is unequivocably the MOST EXTREME "gay-accusation" ever made against an allegedly heterosexual celebrity. Even Tom Cruise never had someone claiming they had DNA evidence that they experienced a sexual encounter with him. So at this point, EVEN IF ALL OF THE CLAIMS AND GOSSIP PROVE TO BE UNTRUE, it is a historically signifigant moment in both Aiken's and in celebrity history.

There is absolutely no justification for NOT including a mention of this gossip/the Paulus incident in this article other than, as previously mentioned, some desperate need to protect Aiken from the facts. The FACTS are, the gossip is going on, and it is severe, and it is signifigant.

Obviously no one is suggesting a section be added that says "Clay Aiken is gay because so-and-so said the following things." But it SHOULD say "Aiken experienced what may be one of the most signifigant cases of attempted "outings" of a celebrity when in 2006 so-and-so made extensive claims that he had a homosexual experience with Aiken. These claims included X, Y, Z including a wash cloth with semen. As of March 2006 there has been no evidence to support these claims, but their severity is one of the most aggressive campaigns to assert a celebrity's homosexuality in recorded history." Or SOMETHING like that. Pacian 10:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The "gay-gossip" issue has been discussed before and consensus reached. It IS referenced in the article - because it IS notable. The Paulus story is just some person trying to get attention at Aiken's expense. It is unsubstantiated, and just a passing footnote of NO notability in the history of Aiken. I do not see that it is worth calling out any more that the passing gossip that Aiken and Kim Locke were romantically involved. Time showed that it was a non-issue - not worth being mentioned in an encyclopedic reference, any more that this is. 66.82.9.80 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Might be wise to look into the history of accusations against celebrities before tossing around phrases like "most aggressive...in recorded history" and "MOST EXTREME...ever." Overwrought responses like this do not convince. I think it is essential for a Wikipedia contributor to be careful with his/her research and his/her statements. I have lost patience for contributors who play fast and loose with the facts. For the record, Paulus' claims do not "grow more extreme every day"--he hasn't spoken about this in several weeks, and the washcloth, or towel, depending on the report, has been a part of his story from day one. There is no way such "DNA evidence" has any forensic or legal validity, as I am sure JP and the National Enquirer know full well. As you are a long-time participant in this publication, would you please look into the work of contributors Katefan0 and Will Beback, who have opposed any mention of this story at this time? Neither are fans, and both are long-term and respected participants in Wikipedia. -Jmh123 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Teacher category

Many sources credit him as a teacher. His university major is special ed. His autobiography states that he taught special ed at Brentwood. I say we add Category:American teachers to this article. -User:Carie

I have mixed feelings about this. I see that there are a few others in that category who are more notable for other things, such as Laura Bush and Strom Thurmond. I could go either way with this. I wonder if there's a policy or accepted standard regarding the number of categories per entry. -Jmh123 07:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is a good idea right now. He said he's certified to teach in NC and that's why he was able to tutor Gregory. I'm not clear on the difference between being certified and being licensed. Maybe at some future date when we have more facts available. Maria202 03:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Paulus info -- quick check

Mixvio and the anon are rather prolific. They are having an interesting debate between themselves about what should or shouldn't go into the article, but others have opinions too. So I'd like to use this section to assess what others think, since Mixvio seems to feel that there's no consensus on the issue. Please make your opinions known -- no debating here leading to enormous threaded discussions, strictly a place to express your personal opinion please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think the Paulus information belongs in really any way, shape or form. I also don't agree to changing the long-held consensus paragraph about Aiken's gay rumors, except maybe as Hamiltonian suggested, adding something like "and in tabloid magazines." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Katefan0. Michigan user 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree as well. -Jmh123 16:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree vehemently. - mixvio 16:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Katefan0. Maria202 16:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. Any proposed changes should be open to mediation and admin staff to weigh in as this coversation and edits to the page are being controlled by POV fan editors. --Rabinid 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• (Abstain because I am just a lowly IP address) However edits to the page are being attempted by editors with a strong bias towards a POV gay agenda. 66.82.9.73 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to insert a mention of the FTC thing and was instantly reverted. That's wrong. I gave source info and it was non point of view. Now the page is protected. What's going on? --Wayeast 20:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(The page has been protected for several days. Please read this page for more info. Your one and only edit I notice.) 66.82.9.73 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Mixvio that it seems extremely POV to not include this story. The argument that Paulus' story is not credible is irrelevant and POV. Same goes for the argument that it is credible. Just report the news stories and let the public decide. Leaving it out serves no purpose. By the way a couple weeks ago I put in a quick reference to all this and was quickly reverted by kate I believe. If anything I must say you censors do move quickly. 67.183.15.135 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NB: 67.183.15.135 was blocked for 24 hours on a 3RR violation after refusing to discuss his edit in "talk". -Jmh123 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We can see that ourselves from the user's talk page. Kate asked that this be used solely to post opinions, and the continual actions by you and 66/69 etc at pointing this or users' first edits just looks catty and reactionary. - mixvio 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And your comments don't?? This is an anon opinion anyway - so it won't carry much weight. Michigan user 13:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. And this person should carry as much weight at Maria202 does. I'll point out that this person's at least been editing for longer than she has. - mixvio 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - right. Dooder and Maria about balance each other. If this anon counts then the other anon should not have to abstain. Just saying. Michigan user 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested 66 abstain, I'm more inclined to include her vote since she's been involved in the debate all this time. But regardless of what "counts" or not, Kate did this to see whether there was a consensus or not. Consensus does not equal majority. Clearly there IS no consensus because just as many people agree with me that this article's been hijacked by fangirls and fanboys as people agree with you that the story's irrelevent. So I don't care how many "votes" you have. That's irrelevent. What's relevent is my point has been proven, there is no consensus. - mixvio 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well typically they wait a week or so to arrive at a conclusion to allow users time to discover the question. Then if indeed there is no consensus - we will just go back to wordsmithing. Michigan user 17:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we won't, the matter will go to formal mediation or arbitration. My interest in dealing with a protracted debate with Claymates has unfortunately grown thin. - mixvio 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If a consensus is reached, there's no need for mediation. The arbitration committee would reject this faster than you can say boo. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant if a consensus isn't reached. And to me it doesn't look like a few more days of polling is going to change that. - mixvio 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. POV to not include the story; it does not confirm that Aiken is gay, nor does it deny it. As long as the story follows policy (researched and properly cited), then I see no reason to pretend that it never happened. A better example: the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake scandal. They say it was accidental; others say it was intentional. We'll never know for sure, but that's no reason to just not mention it because it did happen. Tell the story and let the readers make their own conclusions. To do otherwise screams of fangirlism. Jennifer 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with mixvio. It's not the purpose of this site to make judgments on these allegations, or to determine whether or not they're accurate. A short blurb about the incident should be included. Dooder 02:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Katefan0. This is not notable, did not happen in a verifiable manner, and appears to be a publicity hound seeking attention. If it happened on national TV during the Superbowl halftime show then it'd be different. -Will Beback 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what I will agree to: (1) For right now, definitely add something like "and tabloid magazines" or "and the tabloid press" or "and the tabloid press and radio deejays". (2) If in a month (say mid-April 06) the story still continues to generate media interest - even at the same level as it is now and regardless of whether it's true or not - then I will support its inclusion of both John Paulus' name and a short description (2-3 sentences) of the story. If it doesn't that means the story was non-notable. If it does, then it indicates sufficient notability. There is no shame in being "behind the curve" on such news in an encyclopedia. (More generally, I would support a seperate section dealing with "Aiken in the media" or something like that. The way the "paragraph" is written now, it seriously disrupts the linear flow of the section.) --Hamiltonian 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The controversy and story were discussed during the "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" show on NPR this past Saturday. Can we agree that it is mainstream yet? --Rabinid 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that, since the story broke in January and it's now mid-March and it's still being discussed, the story clearly continues to generate media interest. However I'm not unreasonable, and given a guarantee by the opposition that as long as the story-buzz is at the same level as it is now, I'd be open to waiting until April to insert this. Though I will be honest, I feel that they would try to invalidate the story then as well by saying it's not in enough places. - mixvio 20:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely how it should be -- revisiting the issue, I mean. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's organic and always evolving. And Hamiltonian is right -- there's no shame in an encyclopedia not being ahead of (or even "even with") the news curve. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And I fully agree, but I have significant doubts that they'd really agree to it being revisited. I think they want to sit on this until it goes away or becomes so huge that there's no ignoring it. Both of these approaches are wrong in my opinion. - mixvio 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the entire purpose of waiting until the middle of April to re-visit the question of whether to add the sentences about the Paulus claim, is to give it time to find out if it is truely notable or not. So it does not make sense to say that the story "going away" from lack of notoriety is wrong. That is one of the possible outcomes. 69.19.14.28 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Put a one or two sentence summary mentioning the story, saying that Paulus alleged that this happened and Clay's representatives refused to comment. Anything more gives undue prominence to the story. Hermione1980 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think Hermione makes a good point - it should be limited to the bare facts, such as they are, of the scandal, i.e. the allegation was made, it got widespread coverage in tabloids, talk radio and newspaper gossip columns, and Aiken has not responded to it. It doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, any more than that. I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that just because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it should somehow wait until the "news" has played out before pondering what, if anything, to record. Many articles concern "current events" and are updated daily, hourly and sometimes by the minute. (Whoby 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

And, you know, that's all I want too. My edit was three sentences saying the story, it was Paulus' allegations, it hasn't been proven, Aiken hasn't responded. I didn't want a three paragraph essay, I didn't want list of evidence supporting the story, I didn't want a pro-Paulus slant in the least. I wanted it presented. I think it's unreasonable that his fangirls and fanboys are fighting this minute change. - mixvio 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Hermione. I will continue my reasoning below, so as to respect Katefan0's request. Michigan user 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

resuming the debate

Moving debate off the quick vote section, as originally requested by Katefan.

• Mixvio, adding a section heading at any point is not moving a post. I did not move your post at all. Katefan asked us not to debate in that section--simply to express our votes. As the previous section of debate was getting too long, setting up a new subsection outside of the "quick check" within which to continue is not unusual practice at all. Re-sectioning "talk" can be done by anyone, for a number of different reasons. If you wish your post to remain on the other side of any new section, so be it. I'll start again here.

• Mixvio's first edit [31]. Six paragraphs. -Jmh123 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)-Jmh123 07:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before Jmh deleted it, this was the first edit of several revisions as myself and Arglebargle discussed what should be included. The last edit I made before asking the page be protected was significantly less than that. - mixvio 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. if only you weren't always so wrong. You deleted the entire paragraph beginning with "And, you know, that's what I want too," took it out of the context it was in, and moved it to another section. You and 6 seemed to have no problem interjecting comments that had nothing to do with the votes when you took it upon yourselves to point out the first-edits of everyone who wasn't voting on your side, or when you took it upon yourselves to point out that one user was blocked temporarily for adding edits that you had a problem with. So really, don't try to take the high ground in this. Furthermore, Kate participated in the thread after Rabind posted about NPR, so if she wanted to delete, move, restructure anything that didn't pertain to the votes it was HER place, not yours. - mixvio 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what you deleted and moved was not part of the debate. It was a specific reply to what Whoby said. It didn't need to be moved because it wasn't "continuing" anything. I was replying to him. - mixvio 07:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted nothing, I moved nothing; I followed standard procedures in adding a section heading. I had no intention of undermining your argument, and thought the continuity was obvious. You registered your displeasure, and I did not object to your reversion, so it is not clear why you are still arguing about this. -Jmh123 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• As you say on your mediation page, there is not yet a meditator, so I won't take this debate there, but you have made several misstatements in the comments section on that page. It's the FTC not the FCC. The FTC complaint took the form of a press release that was sent to hundreds of media outlets; these outlets that did pick it up snarked on the ludicrous notion that it presented. There is no seriousness to this FTC complaint. There is no quoted statement by RCA representatives that they are delaying the album. Check your sources again. Rumors are not official statements. Billboard magazine today reiterated what has been stated recently in Entertainment Weekly, and in other outlets: the album will be released in May or June, exact day not yet decided. Like it or not, these publications are far more reliable and more likely to be presenting fact than gossip rags. There is no evidence whatsoever of an album delay. As for the Lewinsky comparison, I agree that this story will have reached notability when Aiken is impeached. -Jmh123 08:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mixvio you are too funny. Earlier you said deleting, moving or editing your comments was vandalism yet you deleted mine. Maria202 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. You must be confusing Jmh's edits with mine. - mixvio 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused. My edit - [32] - your delete [33]. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it accidental. Maria202 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I did remove that, because it wasn't an edit, it was reverting back to what Jhm had done with my post. You didn't contribute anything else and since it was redoing the vandalism to my comments that Jhm had done I removed it as well. - mixvio 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gossip

• I disagree with Hermione. I do not believe that every bit of unsubstantiated gossip that comes along, and that the tabloids have a field day over, is worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia. That is the issue. At what point is malicious gossip substantial enough to deserve to be documented. I realize that it is very difficult to put threshholds on such a nebulous topic. But on the other hand, I do not believe that every passing tabloid story deserves a place in an encyclopedic reference - even if such gossip DID indeed happen. The world is full of tons more gossip that real stories, and we could get overwhelmed very quickly. Michigan user 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What Hamitonian has suggested is that time is the qualifier by which we might judge the noteworthiness of gossip. It is a valid suggestion - although certainly not the only possible solution. If we give this particular bit of unsubstantiated gossip another month to see if indeed it is just a passing fancy of the tabloids, to see if it has faded away from the public conciousness - at least we will have attempted to provide due diligence on the topic. If indeed there is still substantial mention of the gossip at that time - then perhaps I could concede that it is time to put in the 2-3 sentences that Mixvio worked on. [34] (Although my personal opinion is that if it is unsubstantiated it should NEVER be in Wikipedia - because it is just a step up from vandalism). Michigan user 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Browned user. Their has been some speculation about Mr. Aiken's sexuality. While he has said that he is not gay, the N.E. has published a story, picked up by other media, from some one that claims to have been Aiken's bottomer. This type of information IS included in other Wikipedia articles (see article in President Clinton, Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drugde).

(Note: There is no user registered with Wikipedia with the user name Browned user). Michigan user 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

He means Browned [35]. He's contributed in the past and I think he has trouble leaving his signature. - mixvio 17:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about him being gay. It's about the widespread availability of the story. It should be here because it's pertinent. - mixvio 17:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You say it is pertinent. I say that it is not. The issue at hand is whether being widespread in the tabloids is a valid reason for including unsubstantiated gossip in Wikipedia. I do not believe that it is. Michigan user 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And that's fine, because pertinent is subjective, but you'll see that the majority who's voted so far disagrees with you. - mixvio 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I totally disagree with your accounting. Michigan user 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then you're blind. It's eight to five. - mixvio 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the personal smears out of this. Who are you counting how . . . because I don't see that. Michigan user 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• You'll note that I was more gracious in my accounting than others have been in the past. I included everyone, even the anons and the users with no edits up until they decided to get involved with this debate and suddenly had a mastery of the Wikipedia interface.

Against inclusion

Katefan0

Michigan user

Jmh123

Maria202

Will Beback

For inclusion

mixvio

Rabinid

Wayeast

67.183.15.135

Jennifer

Dooder

Hermione1980

Whoby

Hamiltonian agrees to including the entry by mid-April

6 abstained but pushed against

- mixvio 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• So for what it is worth - I think that it is evenly split. Not that that is all that important. So let us get back to talking about whether Hamiltonian's suggestion is valid. He suggested waiting until mid-April and then LOOKING to see if the entry should be included. Michigan user 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as I said already, but I don't believe the Claymates will be. I think they'll argue even then that the story's not important enough. I don't think anything will appease them short of Clay Aiken holding a press conference on C-SPAN and until that happens they'll drive this into the ground. - mixvio 18:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from the personal interpretations of other peoples opinions. They could just as easily make fun of your opinion. Let us just not go there. So let us try it this way. Can we try another quick check.

Quick Check

The question is how would you feel about a moritorium on this decision until the middle of April, and then if the story has the same level of "buzz" as it does now - we will add the reference, if the it does not, we will have consensus to leave the reference out. Michigan user 18:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, as long as the addition of the reference is not a foregone conclusion. Michigan user 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto. It's already dying down. Maria202 18:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree only in the sense if the story's around in April then we all agree to include it with no further argument. I don't agree to stop debate now only to resume it in a month. I have a life. - mixvio 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• As Michigan user. Seems reasonable to me. This is a long-term project and I don't think this information is ripe for inclusion at the moment. However, that's not to say that I don't think it could be down the road. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree also. -Jmh123 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree of course with this silly poll. Who's going to judge how much "buzz" it has? This same silly "consensus" of Michigan/kate/jmh? I'd put more faith in a baked potato to make the unbiased call on that one. Furthermore Michigans quick check proposal and his subsequent vote in the quick check don't even match up. If youre going to write a poll like this at least adhere to your own rules. Basically Michigan user is proposing that we wait until april then maybe we'll still leave it out even if there is buzz. This is yet another evasion or stall tactic. Lastly who cares how much "buzz" this story has, thats irrelevant. Common sense people...common sense. 67.183.15.135 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Mixvio cares how much "buzz" there is - because we modified the statement to use his wording. And I am all for leaving the reference out now once and for all without revisiting the topic, if you don't want to revisit the issue in April. 66.82.9.80 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's so silly it's almost funny. You're going to wait a month to see if a news story is going to have less or more coverage than it does today, and assuming it does (which it will - of course it will - a month will have passed) you're going to feel better about pretending that it didn't happen at all? That's a solution which is engineered with one outcome from the start. Any news story/breaking news/"buzz" will be considerably smaller a month after, or two months after, it breaks. (Whoby 21:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Side discussion on wording of the Quick check

• No, that is not what Hamiltonian suggested, nor was this what I agreed to. He said that as long as the issue maintains the same level of publicity in April we would add the Paulus reference. We don't need another meaningless poll. - mixvio 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm - yeah - that is what I said. If it maintains the same level of publicity we add it. If it does not then we do not add it. Michigan user 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what you said. Your phrasing makes it look like it's a discussion of dropping the issue for now and picking it up again in April. Whereas Hamiltonian's suggestion, and the one I support, is to wait until April and put it in if it has the same level of buzz then as it does now. Not reopening debate in April. - mixvio 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please. You're making this unnecessarily tendentious. Regardless of your (or anyone's) interpretation of what Hamiltonian said, the suggestion under discussion right now is simply to reevaluate this information's inclusion in April, including the possibility of not including it, as well as the possibility of including it. We aren't drafting a suicide pact. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well since I did not make myself clear apparently - I will re-word the original question. Then could you please edit your comments here to leave only what pertains to that. Michigan user 18:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I understood you the first time. Maria202 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're not agreeing to a "suicide pact" as Kate puts it, then what's the point of these? The story came out in the beginning of January and now, three months later it's still around. The Downing Street memo was a vital piece of American news that completely dropped out of consciousness within even a month after being reported on. If we're not going to agree that if the story's still around in April we should put it in the article then I see absolutely no sense in agreeing to resume the possibility of not including it a month from now. That's what this current argument is for. - mixvio 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. Time to let others discuss theirs. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The first 4 pages of Google news (sorted by date) for Aiken contain NO mention of this. Maria202 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Although to be fair, the entire first 2 pages are multiple copies of the same article. Moreover, I found this, which is coverage of the "webcam affair" from the Globe & Mail, one of Canada's largest and well-respected newspapers from March 11 [36]. While not about Paulus per se, it might be indicative that the "gay rumours paragraph" has to change. (Just noticed that the link requires registration. If you go through Google News and type in "Cruising the twilight of the idols", iy should work without registration.) --Hamiltonian 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course they think the whole thing is not noteworthy at all: "How could it possibly matter if the entire American Idol team were gay?' Michigan user 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Which nicely illustrates the whole conundrum we're in - she's noting something's unnotability by noting it, thereby making it notable. Heh. --Hamiltonian 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL - Michigan user 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused as to what I'm agreeing to or disagreeing to, but I don't see the purpose of waiting a month just to debate it further. The allegations are out there. The story has been published and discussed in countless reliable and verifiable places for weeks now, let alone the unreliable sources. The level of "chatter" a specific topic has in the media after 3 months does not, and has never determined, under Wikipedia standards, it's validity for inclusion. This is neither breaking news nor simple hearsay gossip from either a fan message board or a friend of a friend. --Rabinid 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And as we said above just the existance of unsubstantiated gossip is not necessarily enough to merit adding it to Wikipedia. No matter how many people talk about it. And the story first hit the press Jan 20 or so, about 7 weeks ago - not really 3 months. I do not believe that the story as it is ever belongs in Wikipedia. It is unproven gossip of no merit. However I am trying to work with Mixvio on a compromise that I do not fully believe in, so my concession is to say that if this tabloid fodder stands the test of time, he can add the 2-3 sentences. If the story fades in as short a time as one more month - then what were we cluttering up Wikipedia with it for anyway. Michigan user 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I found this from the London Telegraph, the UK's largest and well respected newspapers (and that was picked up by Australia's and India's largest papers as well as others) on the story [37]

Moreover, I found the full FTC complaint (not just a press release)[38] --Rabinid 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bwahaha - I did not realize that you could submit an "official" complaint to the FTC without even fully identifying yourself!!

[quote]Nine Aggrieved Consumers

Susan J. Patricia A. Jacquelyn C. Karen G.

Raleigh, NC Raleigh, NC Durham, NC San Francisco, CA

Phyllis S. Carol M. Karen G. Linda F. Kim M.

Boston, MA Boise, ID Los Angeles, CA Scottsdale, AZ Newark, NJ

[/quote]

Might as well put in Jane Doe. Just astounding. Of course it is not like they believed in their hoax enough to actually see a lawyer or anything. And entering a complaint is free. OK - back to reality. Michigan user 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamiltonian said "Although to be fair, the entire first 2 pages are multiple copies of the same article." Quite true as that is the norm with actual news. The difference lies in the fact that these are all legitimate newspapers and the article is in the entertainment section where as the other was mostly in a few tabloid type papers and appeared in the gossip section. I am an ex-New Yorker and am very familiar with The New York Post. Maria202 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"The story came out in the beginning of January and now, three months later it's still around." Incorrect. The first story was published in the National Enquirer on January 25. -Jmh123 02:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can I say yet that all of this makes me want to die? - mixvio 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been following this story and discussion since it began. To an observer who used to participate here in the past, it is obvious that some people very definitely do have agendas. Don't know what purposes they think are being served, but it does stand out. The information about "the incidents" is total fabrication at this point in time. There are NO facts of any of these allegations. To include them in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference location it totally crazy. Do you realize how many places, schools, people, teachers, etc. have now forbidden their students to use this sight for reference information because of all the misinformation that is here---the rumors and gossip that have made it appear more of a joke sight than a truly good reference site. Is that what some of your goals are? If this is only to be for fun and up-to-date rumors, then I guess you are getting your wishes. If it was meant to be a legimate sight for REAL information about people and things, then you are starting to lose it due to things such as this. Stories that have no validity or basis for validity should not be included under anyone's name or site location. I don't care how many tabloids and blog sites on the internet include rumors and gossip--it does not make it valid or give it any type of legitmacy. The entire Paulus issue, the web cam stories, and the FTC complaint are all still total rumor and gossip in every way, shape and form. None can be proved as occurring or having any basis. And for some to say they don't care--it should be included anyway--is utterly absurd. You are saying you don't care if this site becomes full of lies and tall stories---you want it included because people said it. I find that very sad and disappointing. My vote it totally keep this entire bunch of rumors out of the site until something is offered in the way of substantial proof or information. To allow lies to be included, that may or may not harm someone, is against decent human nature, and not necessary. What happened to humanity? What happened to people not being guilty without having to prove innocence?

AIFan

I'm not even touching this. - mixvio 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Due to the fact that I have a real life and this argument has consumed a lot more of it than I care for it to, I'm leaving the discussion indefinitely. Make no mistake, I don't do this because I feel my stance is incorrect. I do it because I'm exasperated by the resounding lack of maturity and extreme hypocrisy by many involved in this debate. I'm leaving because it's approached even the limit of my willingness to waste my time. I think many of you are children, and you can whine and bitch about this being a personal attack all you want but I could really care less by this point. Your quest to hold wikipedia to the overwhelming double standard of militantly protecting the reputations of celebrities you feel personal affinity for has damaged and crippled the project far worse than the inclusion of "lies" ever possibly could have. I hope you're satisfied. I hope that keeping three sentences out of the article was really worth it to you. Maybe you should do some soul-searching and examine why it was. - mixvio 19:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After doing a great deal of soul-searching, I examined my motives, and have come to the conclusion that there are some matters of principle that are worth standing up for. One of those matters, for me, is the issue of allowing unsubstantiated gossip to smear a person's reputation. Whether it be about sexual identity, chemical addictions, faithfulness, gambling, whatever. If it is just unsubstantiated gossip - we should not be facilitating the spread of that gossip. I feel very strongly about this. Not only on this article, but on any article. 66.82.9.80 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think the whole debate is crippled by a fundamental misunderstanding about what is exactly on the table. The Aiken fans feel that this is an attempt to add a rumour (Aiken/Paulus) to his biographical entry as fact, and quote gossip as the source. I don't see that at all. The issue is whether to record the fact that the scandal (which is a real, quantifiable event, even if you don't believe it) exists, not the allegation on which it is based. The scandal exists. Full stop. If it didn't, there wouldn't be 20 people in this forum arguing about it. The article should record the scandal, and note that the allegation on which it is based has not been proven. It's as simple as that. No essays, no long hurrahs. (I would even suggest the Paulus article should be culled back to the bare bones.) The whole notion of letting the level of "buzz" determine its ongoing validity is comical. We don't talk much about the moon landing much in the press any more, but that shouldn't be grounds for its removal from Wikipedia. (Whoby 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

The moon landing was a huge story when it happened. The Aiken-Paulus-webcam amusement is happening now. My question is whether it's notable enough even when its happening - if it's not notable enough now, it can't be included. If it is, then it can. (And the level of Buzz on the moon landing was very high - 1/3 in fact.) --Hamiltonian 22:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Larry King just asked Simon Cowell on CNN about the Aiken scandal and allegations. Mainstream enough? --Rabinid 03:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Larry asked Simon about the "lawsuit" - which we all know is not really a lawsuit at all. He did not say a word about Paulus. And Simon was totally dismissive about it. The FTC complaint addresses the issue of Clay being Gay. The article already addresses that topic. 69.19.14.42 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Tabloid-Style 'Larry King Live' Is Losing Viewers and Credibility", Wall Street Journal [39]. Published Wednesday. Just sayin'. -Jmh123 04:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Once again the point has never been about the credibility or content of the allegations but the fact that it is being reported and discussed in numerous mainstream verifiable sources. Regardless of your belief in the content, or the journalism credentials of Larry King, previously a marker was held out that it wasn't on CNN so the news somehow wasn't mainstream. That marker has now been achieved and yet some would still seek to construct further qualifications toward obstructing any reasonable mention of the subject(s). That is not only POV but also reeks of censorship. --Rabinid 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That marker has NOT been achieved - Paulus was not even mentioned. Your comment is totally irrelevant. Michigan user 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling this a news report? [40] Should some actual reporting, that is, some investigation and not mere repetition of someone's allegations--have taken place somewhere along the line, maybe some of us wouldn't be so resistant. There is a difference between news and gossip. The LKL reference is cursory (less than 30 seconds), occurs in the context of a celebrity interview, and is absent any specifics. It is not a CNN news report.

It's a catch-22. Mainstream NEWS apparently deems this story unworthy of investigation, but without that investigation, the story is skewed. Wikipedia does not permit original research, and is not a news organization. Some of us are aware of facts that belie JP's claims, but we cannot put them here because they have not been reported in the media, because no one in the media deems the story worthy of investigation (though some seem to find it fun to gossip about). This is why I keep saying that we must allow time. We are not in the news business, we are an encyclopedia, and we can afford to wait until the story can be evaluated in perspective. -Jmh123 07:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Rabinid - are you saying that a mention of an FTC complaint in some way relates to the PAULUS story?? Surely you would not want us to think that the Paulus camp had anything to do with PLACING that story do you? If not, then it is unrelated news, and has NOTHING to do with the current issue - which is about the 2-3 sentences relating to the Paulus story. SO - what is your point?? The LKL mention had NOTHING to do with the Paulus allegations, it only relates to a hoax put out by some "fans" that we have not even really discussed here. 66.82.9.62 11:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is interesting that Larry was willing to bring up issues about Clay with Simon - and yet felt NO need to mention Paulus. Because Paulus was not notable enough. Apparently the bogus complaint was more credible than the Paulus story. 66.82.9.62 11:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of investigative reporting Larry King did not bother to do any investigating himself. If he had he would have known that the "lawsuit" is a supposed FTC complaint filed by 9 women who choose to remain anonymous and that the FTC has refused to confirm that a complaint was filed. Simon Cowell's answer was that it was crazy. Maria202 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I note that the news (FTC, webcam photos, and gay scandal) is the lead story on the Canadian version of Entertainment Tonight today. This is yet another mainstream mention of the content of these allegations. The news is notable for sheer notriety at this point. It is bigger than the Paulus allegations alone. --Rabinid 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep mixing unrelated stories together? Clay is in the news alot. The stories about Clay being Gay have been around for three years. None of this has anything to do with Paulus. Just because Paulus was in the news for a few weeks starting 7 weeks ago (but not hardly at all the last few weeks) - does not automatically mean that all news about "Clay is Gay" suddenly has something to do with Paulus. The FACT is that Paulus was not even mentioned in the ET Canada story. Which means that yet ANOTHER media story felt that he was not notable enough to warrant a mention, even when discussing the gay topic. So it really has nothing to do with the conversation on including the 2-3 sentences about Paulus. 66.82.9.90 03:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ET Canada is connected to Canada.com. The story was not on ET in the US or on the US ET broadcast in Canada. Too bad they didn't get their facts correct and went for the sensational instead. Maria202 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would say that the fact that Paulus was conspicuously absent from the 2 incidents that Rabinid jumped on, actually make the case that Paulus is not notable enough to mention in an encyclopdic reference. -- Michigan user 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FTC Complaint

• Please don't shoot me for spliting the FTC complaint from the Paulus discussion. They are two separate issues. Maria202 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that neither the LKL mention nor Canadian ET is relevant to Paulus. If we were to include a mention of the recent media attention to the "lawsuit/s", we would need to also say that these outlets are reporting the story incorrectly. There was a press release about an FTC complaint which may or may not have actually been filed. In the press release the "9 fans" said they were considering a lawsuit. No one is actually suing anyone. If the "mainstream" media has the facts all wrong, then what? -Jmh123 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that we should wait to see if the "Lawsuit" thing, which is really an "FTC Complaint" thing will end up in SNOPES as a hoax. The whole thing only happend because of a problem with Google Press Releases being compromised [41]. So I think that the topic would be more related to the Google article than here. All of which is "breaking news" anyway. -- Michigan user 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC}

• The press release on the FTC complaint came from a site in the UK called Pressbox [42] where anyone can create their own press release. A second press release taking issue with Simon Cowell for his "it's crazy" remarks on LKL was created yesterday 3/22/06. Google did not pick this one up in their news search. Maria202 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The second "press release" is unsigned and has no contact information. -Jmh123 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no contact information in the first "press release" either. Maria202 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a generic hotmail address at the end of the first release. This is the release in which they announce that they are "considering" a class action suit and a "possible" FTC complaint. -Jmh123 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, mediation has begun at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations. Tufflaw 04:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The guy who requested mediation announced his departure from Wikipedia about a week ago. See his comments on this "talk" page, and at the end of this page: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-07_Netoholic_&_Locke_Cole. -Jmh123 13:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure how this whole mediation thing works - but I posted this over at the mediation page under discussion:

Are we supposed to be moving the discussion over here? All of the history of this is on the Clay Aiken discussion page. Over there we basically agreed to wait a month (to mid-April) and see if the Paulus allegations still appeared notable. At that point it would have been not quite 3 months since the National Enquirer first published the gossip. Frankly Paulus has barely been mentioned by anyone in the last several weeks - so I think that this is a non-issue. Just some guy trying to use the tabloids to jump start his gay porn movie career. Totally non-notable. Since Mixvio decided not to continue the conversation, the only person left that is really pushing for the Paulus blurb to be added to the Aiken article is Rabinid - and that is because he is the author of the Paulus article. -- Michigan user 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think discussion related to mediation with the absent complainant must be moved over there. Having on-going discussion in two places will be too confusing. This whole situation certainly highlights one of the problems with Wikipedia. Mixvio, with virtually no history at Wikipedia, stormed in and raised holy hell over this issue, and received support in the form of getting this page and the Paulus page locked. Now that things have finally quieted down, this mediation he isn't even around anymore to participate in is introduced. -Jmh123 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that people that are refusing to tasteful include references to the specualtion about Mr. Aiken's sexuality, are bigots. The story got picked up by Larry King Live, as some fans have filed a federal complaint against the record labels for misleading them. -Browned

Following WikiGuidelines does not make us bigots, thank you. Larry never said a single word about Paulus. The FTC complaint is a hoax that would never have been noticed except for the fact that Google Press Releases got compromised so that any Joe Blow on the street could push through a press release about any topic that they wanted. -- 66.82.9.59 10:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Browned, calling people who disagree with you offensive names is an ineffective form of persuasion. There's nothing tasteful about Paulus' claims, and they are dead in the water anyway. We already have a general reference to speculation about Aiken's sexuality. -Jmh123 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally mediation will only be attempted if all parties agree to the mediation. Since the "other side's" main protagonist has left, I'm not sure there's much to mediate for now. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the mediator now has work to do. I'm interested to see how he handles it. -Jmh123 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, I'm all for it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope he's got plenty of asprin. - Maria202 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure the mediator will be fine. As confusing as this issue is to some editors on here, common sense usually prevails. Any reasonable person would come across this wikipedia article on Aiken and question why the only noteworthy thing that happened to him in 2006 has been censored. All arguments for or against the credibilty of the scandal are irrelevant and POV. Again...to simplify it for the confused editors...a NPOV reference to the Paulus story, which has been reported in many media outlets now, serves only to inform the public of what has transpired. The intent was never to "out" your idol. Why not allow the public access to the same information that all of us has had access to? Because it is distasteful to you? Sorry...the idea that it is distasteful is POV and not what wikipedia is about. Why don't we just report the facts? Namely that 1) This scandal did occur 2) Aiken's camp did issue a statement about it and 3) Some fans filed a complaint because they felt deceived about Aiken allegedly concealing his homosexuality. --67.183.15.135 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

One can only hope common sense prevails. I hope the mediator's a Neil Young fan or something, personally. - mixvio 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon, if you wish to argue this issue, the discussion is now taking place on the mediation page. -Jmh123 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon, the conversation is indeed over on the mediation page - but please do not mix the FTC complaint hoax with the Paulus incident. They are unrelated. There is nothing in that complaint that mentions Paulus, and gay topic that it does address has been around for a long time before Paulus came along. See the conversation above about the breech in Google Press Releases. -- 66.82.9.84 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection record?

Has an article ever been fully protected for 15 days before? Is this some sort of record? --Hamiltonian 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I want credit if it is! :P - mixvio 23:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah, it's not that great an achievement. It was protected for 11 days last July. Hermione1980 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic (and humorous) that what could have been an understated statement likely lost within Aiken's lengthy Bio page has instead turned into a full page discussion of the allegations (with juicy details and convenient links to all press on the subject, no less)... for all the world to read.

What is ironic is that if you add up all the media exposure that Paulus got about his story and counted words - it would probably not add up to the number of words used in this Wikipedia argument. It was just not that widely reported. However very few folks ever read Wikipedia directly, most of the exposure is when the article itself get printed in a news source with a credit back to Wikipedia. And of the folks that actually read the article in Wikipedia itself, very few ever look at the discussion page. And eventually even that gets archived. --66.82.9.83 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If we remove the protection can people avoid getting into a revert war? There's been plenty of discussion here so the issues should have been covered. I suggest we ask for the protection to be lifted so we can return to editing. -Will Beback 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather it not be lifted until after the Paulus issue is decided. I don't think there're any pressing edits that need to be made to update the page and if there are they can be done by an admin, correct? I think it's safer for either side if we keep the page locked until after we have an agreement on what brought about protection in the first place. While I understand that two weeks is a while to keep it under guard, I think it's better this way and I mean that honestly and sarcastic-less-ly. - mixvio 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is left to decide about Paulus? Are we working towards that decision? -Will Beback 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, an attempt at mediation is underway here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations. -Jmh123 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow. OK, let's leave the protection on for a while longer. -Will Beback 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

logorrhea I needed that laugh. Thanks. - Maria202 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to cure the chronic logorrhea

Here are two more proposals, since it appears mediation was unsuccessful:

With Paulus

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [43], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [44], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus.

One of the most prominent examples of this gossip occurred in January 2006 when ex-green beret turned gay porn actor John Paulus told the National Enquirer and Howard Stern about an alleged sexual encounter he had with Aiken. To date, neither Aiken nor his representatives have acknowledged Paulus' claims, and have instead declined to comment.

Without

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [45], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [46], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. In early 2006, a new series of stories emerged, including alleged sexual encounters with men he met over the internet and an FTC complaint [47].

Even more to read, I know ... --Hamiltonian 05:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I know it seems to everyone that I'm in this to be an asshole, but I'm really not. I understand where you're all coming from as fans of Clay Aiken's even though it comes into conflict with my opinion. At the mediator's request I'm taking time off from editing this to clear my head and stress levels. Though I can't expect the same of everyone else involved, I think it would be nice if a week from now I came back and saw that there had been no discussion while I was on break. I think that we would all benefit from letting this go for a while and discussing it later. So it's Wednesday now, I propose we let it go until Wednesday, April 5th. I hope you all understand this is a sincere request, because despite the animosity I'd rather we came to a civil agreement instead of something being decided out of our control. For my part, when I return I will do my best to curb my sarcastic comments in the spirit of compromise, and hopefully we can all sit down and hatch something out gracefully. - mixvio 05:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am fine with that as long as the article stays locked in the meanwhile. Note that I would go along with Hamilitonians second suggestion. -- 66.82.9.76 11:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bringing over my last suggestion from the mediation with a few modifications, as an alternative proposal. OK with me to let all this go for awhile, providing the article remains locked. Edited to incorporate Maria's revision, which I think is good.

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the mark of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Jay Leno, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night live on February 7, 2004, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. More recently he has been the target of internet gossip blogs and tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter that have been repeated in other media. Early in 2006 he became the target of tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter, and that was repeated by internet gossip blogs and other media. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes." [48] -Jmh123

• I have no problem with waiting until 4-5-06 to continue this conversation. I also think that JMH123's suggestion addresses the fact that there were allegations, and notes the fact that they stayed at the tabloid and gossip level, and then counters with a comment from Clay, which is only fair. -- Michigan user 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Waiting is fine by me. Jmh123's paragraph is fine with me except for this sentence. "More recently he has been the target of internet gossip blogs and tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter that have been repeated in other media." I suggest "Early in 2006 he became the target of tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter and that was repeated by internet gossip blogs and other media." We do need to be clear on when this occured. - Maria202 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

• Okay, so I know I'm early, but it's almost Wednesday. :P Hopefully we’re all sane and rested now. I know that you guys to varying degrees feel that Paulus doesn’t belong at all. I disagree (and were I the only one I’d drop it for the majority viewpoint, but I’m not) and I think he should be included. Unfortunately there’s no way to compromise that, so the only thing we can do (assuming we’re all willing to compromise and hopefully that’s the case) is make an agreement on the level of mention that Paulus gets here. So I offer this as my compromise and I hope that we can work with this before this issue has to spiral upward any further, because I’m sure you guys are just as tired of refreshing your watchlists as I am:

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [49], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [50], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes."

One of the most prominent examples of this gossip occurred in January 2006 when ex-green beret turned gay porn actor John Paulus told the National Enquirer and Howard Stern about an alleged sexual encounter he had with Aiken. To date, Aiken and his representatives have not acknowledged the claims in Paulus' story, and instead have relied on "no comment". Star Magazine did include the following response from Aiken's representative: "Clay's on a flying saucer with his alien parents, busy kidnapping monkeys. We cannot comment till he gets home from Pluto."

While on the whole I didn’t have much of a problem with Jhm’s text, I preferred Hamiltonian’s better. I think it was more neutral; “good-naturedly” tends to lean towards a bias when lampooning was fine as it was, for example. I know Hamiltonian was big on word counts and such but I can’t think of a way to shorten it while still maintaining the spirit of the original paragraph. The Aiken quote needs a citation though, since I don’t know where it came from. So here we are at a standstill. Wikipedia policy states “As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” We can verify that Paulus made the accusations. We can verify that National Enquirer and Howard Stern ran them. We can verify the response (and lack thereof) by Aiken’s reps. It’s not our responsibilities to check up on Paulus’ story to see if it’s true, and I don’t want it included because I think it’s true. I can’t think of any other way to cut the Paulus story down and I tried my best to remove all possible bias or word-choices that could imply I felt the story was true. Because, really, that’s not what I care about at all. So please guys, personal feelings aside, is there any way we can compromise on this text? I’m coming out to you with an olive branch and I’ve really got no further idea how to edit this if we can’t agree and I doubt any of us really have the patience to sit through another mediation or arbitration. Please everybody, work with me. :) Truce? - mixvio 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well I see that your mediation did not work out. So I have to say that I do not think that this topic belongs in Wikipedia at all. This is an encyclopedia - and the topic is a scandal sheet item. To me it looks like a bunch of folks trying to leverage the story for attention. There are already rumors mentioned in the article - they cover this topic adequately just the way it reads now. I say leave it out entirely. Triage 11:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The mediation had no bearing on whether or not it belongs. We're attempting to make a compromise on this before further steps in the dispute resolution process have to be taken and more of our time and lives get taken up by this issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to keep this going if that's what it takes, but I'd rather this be decided by us on our own rather than have the admins weigh in. The mediation wasn't to decide if the issue belongs, it was to get us to compromise. I provided my example here on the assumption that we all really want Wikipedia to work out and are willing to make allowances with things we might otherwise disagree on. As has been made clear twice now, I'm not the only person who feels this belongs here, and I'm not even in the minority. So there's really no way to compromise that. The only thing that can be discussed is how much Paulus belongs here, hence my suggestion. If you disagree with this being here entirely, that's great and certainly your right, but I'd like this space to be reserved for discussion on an actual compromise, not another list of "no's" and "yes's." Again, I'm making the assumption, incorrect/stretched or not, that at the end of the day we all do actually want to get along with one another. If that's not the case I'm fine with asking the arbitration team to review the issue if we can't figure it out on our own. - mixvio 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, actually I agree with Triage that the article already addresses rumors, and adding detail is just gossip-mongering. However in the spirit of compromise I am willing to go along with Jmh123's suggestion, which mentions the episode and the tabloid coverage of it, and includes a comment back by Clay:

Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the mark of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Jay Leno, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night live on February 7, 2004, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Early in 2006 he became the target of tabloid allegations of a gay sexual encounter, and that was repeated by internet gossip blogs and other media. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes." [51]

-- Michigan user 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider Jmh's suggestion a compromise. It's not about expanding the rumor paragraph, it's about mentioning this specific story. Claiming "the rumors have already been addressed" isn't the issue, and a suggestion that omits Paulus isn't a compromise. - mixvio 14:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I honestly just want to get this over with. If the two sides are (a) mentioning Paulus and (b) not mentioning him, then a piped link seems like a compromise:

Due to speculation that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation [52], many do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [53], he lampooned such speculation in the show's opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. In early 2006, it was claimed in both the National Enquirer and on the Howard Stern show that he had engaged in a sexual encounter with a man that he had met over the internet. He describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs] It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs] It’s not so easy sometimes." [54]

Incidentally, I wish to get rid of the phrases "within American popular culture" and "good-naturedly" in any event. They seem weasel-like. --Hamiltonian 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, I appreciate that you are now willing to compromise. Thank you.

I've taken part of Hamiltonian's paragraph and part of Jmh123's paragraph and put them together with my own edits. Now that we have agreed to address the tabloid stuff we cannot limit it to just one story since there have been a few in the past and more than likely will be more in the future. A blanket statement covering both the past and future is, in my opinion, the best way to go. To single out one story and give it more prominence than any other tabloid story is, again in my opinion, subscribing to POV and not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines of being NPOV.

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites[55] speculate about his sexual orientation many[56] do not. Aiken denied being gay to Rolling Stone in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004[57] he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. [laughs]... It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it. [laughs]... It’s not so easy sometimes."[58] - Maria202 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we add a reference or notes section at the bottom of the page similar to what was done on the Kelly Clarkson article. - Maria202 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've always been willing to compromise. That was never an issue. Again, though, this isn't about all the other incidents, and this specific incident HAS more notoriety than the other ones, which is why more prominence is perfectly valid and NPOV. The paragraph as I put it did not limit the story to the one incident, but it gave it more visibility because other tabloid stories didn't also go to Howard Stern and other people who claimed to have slept with him didn't also end up in gay publications like Next and HX. The issue that we have to compromise on is how MUCH Paulus is mentioned, folks. NOT whether or not he’s here. NOT whether or not we use his name. There’s no reason that he shouldn’t be here – as stated previously, Wikipedia’s guideline says that verifiability, not truth, is the determining factor. We can verify that Paulus made his claims, we can verify where they were printed, we can verify what his reps responded with. Ergo, there’s absolutely no reason why it should not be here. Hence, this isn’t the debate now. The debate is how much of Paulus we include and where. That’s why I provided my paragraph as such. If you guys don’t want to discuss that paragraph and instead choose to get back to the debate about whether or not Paulus belongs here when Wikipedia guidelines and standards clearly say he does, when two snap polls show that it’s not the minority opinion that he belongs, then let me know and we can vote on sending this to arbitration. - mixvio 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I could go along with either Hamiltonian's or Maria202's versions. A couple of things though. I think that the quote should be italicized, and I think that there should be a source link back to FindingClayAiken.com after the "speculate about his sexual orientation many do not" statement, because of several comments questioning the "many" - and yes there are many. -- Michigan user 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done - Maria202 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• How about using a similar linking strategy as what was used for the Openly Clay reference?
  
  Aiken has been the subject of [[gay]] jokes by [[Conan O'Brien]], [[Kathy Griffin]], and [[Mad TV]], among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites[http://www.snowcream.net/openlyclay] speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. Aiken denied being gay to [[Rolling Stone]] in June 2003, and, when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004[http://www.saturday-night-live.com/snl/reviews/03-04/mullally/link.html], he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation, and in early [[2006]], a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet.<ref>see [[John Paulus]]</ref> Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as ''"like having a gnat in your nose. ... You just want to kill it."'' [http://www.flymagazine.net/archive_bands_article.cfm?id=e6d73996]
  
  I experimentally shortened Aiken's quote, since it's a quarter of the paragraph text. Possibly the [laughs] should be removed too. I added a source for the quote, and italicized it (although it doesn't show inthe source above) as well.
  I don't like the added link to FindingClayAiken.com -- there's already a link below in the references section, and the point of the inline link to Openly Clay was that it was the only place that everybody eventually agreed on to put it. ArglebargleIV 17:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (slight typo removal by ArglebargleIV 17:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

I struck out the laughs - when you remove text from a quote you need to indicate you did so by using 3 dots ... - Maria202 17:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I put the web site reference in line because I haven't yet learned how to link it to the reference at the bottom of the page. I do think we need the reference to the many other fan sites. - Maria202 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Many other websites are already referenced below, in the fansites section. FCA is a bad link for your purpose anyway, since I have been told that many of the fan sites listed in FCA do not even address the issue at all. ArglebargleIV 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said, while great ideas, none of these things are compromises. They're once again pushing the POV removal of Paulus from the site, and if that's what we're going to argue over, then it needs to go to arbitration. - mixvio 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside: arbcom doesn't accept content disputes, only user conduct disputes. It would be fruitless to ask arbcom to rule on this particular dispute, because they simply don't do those sorts of things. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to stomp on your toes or anything, but I've seen arbitration on content issues before. Perhaps we're thinking of two seperate things then. - mixvio 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not thinking of two separate things. There have been some rare exceptions, but on the whole, they do not take content cases except in the very worst of circumstances (which this is not). Even though I'm an experienced Wikipedian you don't have to take my word for it, but I can virtually guarantee that this case will be rejected. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Not compromising would be leaving the article the way it is with no mention of the recent tabloid gossip. They are compromising by mentioning that the events happened, now you need to compromise by agreeing to not specifically mention the mans name. Otherwise YOU are not compromising at all. You would be just pushing through the statement that you originally penned up above with minor wording revisions. -- Triage 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not leaving the article the way it is isn't even an option, so that statement is pointless and argumentative. The compromise is on how much Paulus is mentioned, NOT, as I've said now repeatedly, whether or not he's mentioned here. - mixvio 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh it is an option - and it is my preferred option. Your bias against it does not negate the option. Triage 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your preference or not, no, dear, it's not an option. If there's one thing we all agree on it's that the page is changing. And pissy users with few edits who come suddenly to a debate really have little say one way or the other typically, nothing personal. I've been nice so far but if you want to continue insulting me and making snippy comments I'm happy to return in kind. Otherwise be nice. - mixvio 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an option. I will be happy to compromise from there. And you can call me Sir. Triage 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, what is your objection to what I did, wrong with moving the direct Paulus reference to a references section, with a link in that section to the John Paulus page? As a reference, I've created a test page, User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken, just so people can see how it looks. ArglebargleIV 18:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection is mostly that I find it pretty ridiculous to talk about the specific incident, put details of the specific incident in the article, put a link to Paulus, but refer to him as "that guy" or "some guy" or "an ex-green beret turned porn star" just because they don't want John Paulus specifically. I don't see what the sense in that argument is aside from just splitting hairs and arguing for the sake of arguing. It's like giving gay people all the same benefits of marriage but refusing to call it marriage. I don't see the sense in that. - mixvio 19:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not gay people that are the issue here. It is liars, like Paulus, that do not deserve to be mentioned. -- Michigan user 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was about gay people, I used that as an example. But again, it's your opinion that he's lying. But regardless, that's not the requirement that Wikipedia considers for mention, nor is the morality of his actions a qualifier for inclusion. - mixvio

ArglebargleIV, my problem with your suggestion is that using John Paulus as a reference is not verifiable and is not a published source. To do it your way we need to use the National Enquirer with the issue date (Jan. 26,2006) as the reference. - Maria202 18:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Granted, it's not a reference, and it shouldn't go in the references section, but I think it should go somewhere. A 'See also' section, perhaps? What I was trying to do was to split the difference -- one side wants John Paulus mentioned directly in the text, the other side wants Paulus not mentioned at all. Personally, I think that the existence of the particular rumor should be mentioned here, and that there should be some linkage between it and the John Paulus article. I wanted to provide a link to the John Paulus article without mentioning the name directly in the text, in the hope that it would be the beginning of a compromise, and perhaps a 'see also' section would do as well. ArglebargleIV 18:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ArglebargleIV, Can you edit your test page to have the link to the NE Article just like the Openly Clay link (in-line - not referenced below). And I think that you cut the quote down so much that it loses the snark factor, it sounds more like he is irritated rather than laughing. -- Michigan user 19:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is absolutely no way any of you will accept John Paulus being referred to by name, ridiculous as I really think it is, I am willing to accept Arglebargle's text provided the footnote is changed to a link in the sentence. All right? - mixvio 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• The inclusion of this claim by Paulus violates the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guidelines in that Paulus has "an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias," and there is no independent source to verify his claims. While the verifiability guidelines do state that verifiability rather than truth is the criterion, the Verifiability guidelines also state that, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Those third-party sources do not include gossip columns in reputable newspapers, or references to gossip, stated as gossip, in other media sources. In addition, the story violates the guidelines for biographies of living persons WP:LIVING which state that, "There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude," and "Do No Harm."

• From this perspective, to mention the story at all is to compromise. Mixvio, in your proposed version, exactly what are you giving up? May I remind you that you too were "a pissy user with few edits" when you entered this debate, and that your participation in Wikipedia since that time has been almost exclusively limited to Paulus-Aiken. Please be civil.

• I see no need for a link or reference to Paulus, not do I view this as a matter of "splitting the difference" between mentioning Paulus or not. Even if I did agree with this assessment, a choice between a direct mention of Paulus in the text with a link, versus a hidden link to Paulus and a repeated link to Paulus mentioned by name in the reference section is hardly "splitting the difference." I support Maria's version. I also shortened the Aiken quote just a bit from Maria's version. I think we can leave out the ellipses as it is the parenthetical references to laughter that are being omitted. Arglebargle, I disagree that "FCA is a bad link for your purpose anyway, since I have been told that many of the fan sites listed in FCA do not even address the issue at all." The point being made is exactly that--that 'many fansites do not speculate about his orientation'. I also changed the RS phrasing a bit.

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites [59] speculate about his sexual orientation, many [60] do not. Aiken stated that he is not gay in an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [61] he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." [62] -Jmh123 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we change this sentence "While a few communities among his internet fan sites [63] speculate about his sexual orientation, many [64] do not." to this sentence? "While at least one community among his internet fan sites speculates about his sexual orientation, most do not." (With the references I'm too lazy to copy.) I only know of one and saying some to me is misleading. - Maria202 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I know of one other, Maria, and there may be a few more small boards that do. -Jmh123 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ducky. - Maria202 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not support that change -- that sentence, in particular, is the thir rail for that paragraph, and trying to whittle down the meaning would be a problem. I still don't think a second link to FCA belongs there either. (Oops, forgot to sign this.. ArglebargleIV 02:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

I was here for the formulation that paragraph, and I do know how important every word was to someone. I have no objection to retaining that sentence as it is, and without the link. I do believe that we should be moving towards a full revamping of how we approach the issue of his orientation/the gossip/jokes/tabloids in the context of this article. There's virtually nothing about Aiken's personal life in the page, which is one of the reasons the article is so difficult to modify on this issue. Should we add more, create a new section? What kinds of things should be included? Several suggestions have been made for inclusion which have more to do with his personal life than his career (or at least his pre-career life): the boy's choir, the two fathers, religion. The addition of some sort of mention of business decisions vis a vis American Idol was also suggested. I've been looking at the standards for citation (notes, references) as well; we could do a better job with that than we've been doing. The Clarkson page is in the process of being reworked in accordance with Wiki:featured article standards, and it looks great. I, personally, don't have much interest in writing these new sections, I have to say, but those who suggested them or others who are interested would be very welcome to jump in and do so. -Jmh123 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't participating at the time but I was reading the feud. I also know how important this paragraph is and I'm not about to argue over any of the existing wordage nor make any changes to it without a consensus. One reason there is so little about his personal life is that he guards his privacy. - Maria202 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• : I'm not going to argue whether or not it belongs here with another person. Nor is another person going to bitch, whine, complain, etc about anything I say without having the hellfire of god descend vocally on their heads. I have come to this very nicely, very politely, and in the face of that you've all been argumentative brats. DEAL WITH THAT REMARK, because it's fully true. Those of you who aren’t know you aren’t and have no reason to feel offended by my following statements. I have not insulted anyone, and you can look back at my edits under this section to see that it wasn't until Triage (who came suspiciously out of nowhere with much animosity given the fact that he/she hasn't been involved in this debate at all) made several inflammatory remarks that I even replied with the minimum of annoyance. The point of the break was so we'd start fresh. Clearly none of you are interested in starting fresh. Clearly none of you care about ending this peacefully and politely. So here we go.

• : TWO SNAP POLLS HAVE SHOWN THAT YOUR OPINION THAT PAULUS SHOULDN'T BE HERE IS NOT THE MAJORITY, IS NOT THE CONSENSUS, IS NOT CORRECT. I will not be told otherwise that this issue is within YOUR control, that to mention it at all is a compromise, because that implies YOU are right and YOU have the power. YOU HAVE NONE OF THESE THINGS. I will not be told that I should walk on eggshells around you because this issue is in your hands. IT. IS. NOT. IF I were the only one who thought Paulus belonged, I would back out in lieu of the majority viewpoint. If only myself and another thought Paulus belonged, I would back out in lieu of the majority viewpoint. That is not the case. So get off your high horses like you're the emperor and I'm begging for a petition. I'm not. You are nothing in this. Go ahead and bitch about what I say, I couldn’t flipping care less. You've earned it. - mixvio 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Two snap polls have shown that including Paulus does not have consensus either. I concur with the version proposed by Jmh202, with the edits proposed by Maria202. - 69.19.14.18 00:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to have consensus. But you all certainly do, and you continually act as if you're in control of this issue and I have no recourse. I've submitted a request for arbitration on the matter, I don't think a solution is probable between us. - mixvio 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph using references

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites [65] speculate about his sexual orientation, many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004 [66] he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, a series of stories emerged alleging sexual encounters with men met over the internet. Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it."

References

• Regardless of the RfA by mixvio I think it's best to continue working on reaching a consensus. I've incorporated most of the changes we've discussed in the above paragraph. I also switched around the third sentence because I thought it read better. - Maria202 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph2 using References

Shouldn't we change all the references over to the proper citation format, like so? I also am offering a suggested edit in the language of the NE phrase:

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation , many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof that "Clay is Gay". Aiken describes the incessant jokes and gossip as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it."

References

Sorry, Maria, I can't figure out how to keep it from modifying your reference section! Pretend the first two references aren't there in mine, and the last four in yours. Grrrr. -Jmh123

Don't worry, the software is scanning through and picking up each coded reference. It won't happen when there is only one reference table defined. Yes, we should change the article references but lets just concentrate on this paragraph for now. While I agree with Triage and would prefer none of this, I can live with your sentence change. - Maria202 13:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts. This series of stories was not the "first" so that statement is incorrect. How about this instead: Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in the January 26, 2006 issue, The National Enquirer launched a new series tabloid stories alleging proof that "Clay is Gay". This satisfies Triage's statement about tabloid rumors being in the reference section, which I agree with. - Maria202 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your second edit. I changed my last version and the test page as per your suggestion. See note below about still preferring no mention. -Jmh123 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated ArglebargleIV draft page

Updated the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken page with the version from Paragraph2 to see the references as intended. Although it is out of line to have all those rumor reference articles in an encyclopedia. -- Triage 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the font size but I still don't like it. - Maria202 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the other two references to the same format on the test page to provide a full visual. I think it's fine. I do like the change in the sentence as it zeroes in on the metaissue without providing salacious detail, and specifically states the media source, article name, and date. Just in case it needs saying, my preference remains to not include gossip and rumors on the page. The difficulty in changing even one word in the original paragraph nearly a year later highlights how important it is that we all agree on any new additions, because it won't be easy to change in the future. -Jmh123 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that there is nothing stopping someone from coming forward in the future with more salacious stories and we wind up with an article that is nothing more than gossip mongering. - Maria202 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the 2 references to the American Idol paragraph for the visual. - Maria202 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm having no further part in this because you, Jmh, 6 and so forth are not working in good faith, are not interested in working for a compromise, are only interested in pushing your own bizarrely personal agenda, are only interested in changing the paragraph to further distort the issue to support YOUR POVs, and I'm done with it. I will wait to see what happens with the RFAr, and rejected or not I will follow all further avenues until they're exhausted. Your viewpoints in this are null and wrong and if complete strangers who have nothing to do with the discussion can see that you're all stark raving mad, I rest my case. Do whatever mock "compromise" you want but it doesn't have my support and I'm sure it lacks the support of all the other rational individuals who see that you've hijacked and compromised both the spirit of Wikipedia in support of your Aiken-God and completely destroyed the validity, responsibility and point of the project. I'll continue to argue that the page remain protected so you cannot further corrupt it with your strangeness and I'll do everything in my power to prevent the four of you from enacting any further damage. You wanted a battle, here it is. - mixvio 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Raleigh Boy Choir

Can it be added to early histor that Clay went to for music training and is now an alumni of The Raleigh Boychoir? --Nate D 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to acknowledge your request. - Maria202 16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)