Jump to content

Talk:Clay Aiken

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.117.15.4 (talk) at 23:42, 7 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I edited this:

(after Ruben Studdard), but has largely eclipsed the official contest winner in both popularity and record sales.

NPOV, people. Clay may have sold more records than Ruben (has he? can anyone provide documented proof?), but popularity is a subjective term, especially since Clay and Ruben have two seperate fan bases. --b. Touch 11:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that Clay's record sales surpass Ruben's, but since their albums were released quite some time ago, it's been difficult to find evidence. The most recent source comparing the two I could find is from USA Today (April 2004). Ruben's official site states that Soulful has gone double platinum; this RIAA webpage states that Measure of a Man had achieved double platinum by the end of 2003. According to CBS, however, Clay's album has gone triple platinum.
even if Clay outsold Ruben, it should be stated as just that. Record sales are nto a barometer of popularity (Britney Spears is testament to that). Popularity is both subjective and factionalized. --b. Touch 22:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It depends on how "record sales" is defined, though--are we counting the sales of singles and albums or merely the albums? - Gemtiger 07:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found an article from VNU Media Measurement/Nielsen Media. It tells how Clay Aiken's record sales have surpassed any other contestant to date (1/18/05). When is says "combined", I assume that means single sales, as well. Here is an excerpt: {Album sales (Nielsen SoundScan) - to date, the former contestant whose albums have sold the most is 2003 runner-up Clay Aiken. Aiken's combined album sales is more than 3.6 million copies with his debut album "Measure of a Man" selling more than 2.7 million copies (ETA: shipped 3 million-triple platinum). The 2002 winner Kelly Clarkson's combined album sales are more than 3 million, and her debut album, "Thankful", sold more than 2.1 million copies. Ruben Studdard's, the 2003 winner, combined album sales are more than 2 million copies and his debut album, "Soulful" sold more than 1.7 million copies. The 2004 winner Fantasia Barrino's debut album, "Free yourself", which was released December 2004, has sold more than 690,000 copies to date.} It goes on to say: "Aiken's albums (including his follow-up album "Merry Christmas With Love") have spent a total of 42 weeks in the charts." Clay has clearly stated numerous times that "This is NOT a competition." They have different fan bases and appeal to different genres of music.Angelcat4jc
Has it always said the "season's most popular and successful star" or I am just blind? Anywho, that is a correct statement, and I'm quite happy with it, so I'm taking out what I had written previously (which was a total essay), but it still holds true that as of May sales that Kelly has outsold Clay (for future reference). ;) - Reminiscent 20:33 June 26, 2005 (UTC)

Another edit: Clay has a guest-starring role on the NBC comedy "Scrubs" on Tuesday, February 15, 2005. He plays a "nerdy" cafeteria worker who is on the verge of being fired due to budget cuts. He gets a makeover and sings Stevie Wonder's "Isn't She Lovely" in a hospital talent show in order to save his job.Angelcat4jc

Clay will start working on his third album (dubbed by the Claymates as "son of MOAM") in March, 2005. digitalspy article and Launch Radio Network No news on a specific release date, but speculation on the messageboards is that new music will be ready for a Summer 2005 tour starting in May 2005.Angelcat4jc

I put the allegations about Clay possibly being gay back into the article. I'm not saying for once minute that Clay is gay or straight. I simply think this is such an obvious statement that most people would expect to see in this article. Fair or not, Clay is probably the one artist today whose sexuality is called into question more than any other celebrity. When people say that Clay is gay these are only allegations and that's what this article says such statements are...only allegations. The sentence does not say that Clay "is" gay or that Clay is "rumoured to be" gay...it just says that many people have made allegations towards Mr. Aiken. So many have raised questions about Clay that it is impossible to deny the debate. Also, by being located at the end of the article, this sentence couldn't be any more out of the way and unobtrusive. - MatthewUND

I know Clay's popular, but do we really need all the fansite links? Wikipedia is not a link repository. I have limited Internet access, so I can't check the sites out and see which ones are worthy, but I think the number of fansite links on this page is ridiculous. Hermione1980 00:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This sentence keeps getting edited out:

There is a vocal segment of fans who speculate that Clay is gay, but he has denied such allegations said he is not.

I personally think it's unlikely that he is gay, but the fact is, the allegations speculations have been made—repeatedly—and one tiny sentence at the bottom of the article is needed to acknowledge this. The sentence is NPOV, states the issue clearly and concisely, and I really believe it needs to stay. Hermione1980 14:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded to remove the word allegation which is not NPOV. You do not allege someone is a hero, you allege they are a villan. Allegation is inherently perjorative in its connotation, even if not in its denotation. Jliberty 15:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that the word "allegation" was removed in the article's final sentence. I wasn't really thinking about the connotation of the term when I put it in. I certainly didn't mean any negative connotation. Now, if we could just get some of these anonymous "Claymates" to stop removing the sentence... --MatthewUND 19:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added to RfC

This page has now been added to RfC, due to the continued reverting of the sentence There is a vocal segment of fans who speculate that Clay is gay, but he has said he is not. It's been deleted/undeleted three times today. An anonymous user has deleted it three times, and two other users have reverted it. This sentence has also been reverted/restored before. 22:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • From RfC: Well, I don't see the harm in including it. I am not an American Idol fan, and don't particularly follow Clay Aiken or anybody else from the show, but I've definitely heard the rumors and I'd say most of my friends have as well. Totally unscientific, but anyway. I don't see the harm in presenting the information as long as it's in an NPOV fashion. It's even been lampooned on Saturday Night Live. In fact, maybe that's the best way to get at the reference. I can't remember now all the context, but I'll see if I can dig something up. Anybody else who feels like looking, dive in. If people keep insisting on reverting despite the current consensus to keep here on the talk page, I'd recommend maybe protecting the page. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:42, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I just RV'ed the deletion of the sentence and left a message on the user's usertalk page to please come talk to us here so we can get a consensus. If they ignore the message and continue rving then I think maybe we should report him or her for 3RR and possibly ask for the page to be protected. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • The anon user just removed the information again. Then added back "Line removed by scanning utility." (?) This smacks of a new user to me. I warned them again on their talk page. If it's changed again, I'll report them to 3RR. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:31, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Same thing. I've reported them for 3RR. Someone else should revert the change again. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:37, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I've now requested the page be temporarily protected. I hope I didn't make a mistake in doing that… Hermione1980 00:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering that, for whatever reason, the admin who blocked him apparently only blocked him for four hours, and that now we have a phalanx of other anon editors with the same agenda so it doesn't even matter, it was time to ask for it to be protected. I can't make any changes myself until this afternoon because my last revert was at 4pm, but once that happens I'm going to shore up that line a little bit. Maybe it'll be less objectionable to them then (but probably not). · Katefan0(scribble) 15:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

For those anonymous users who seem to so fervently disagree with the line in question, I would invite them to take a look at this website: Openly Clay. This is a popular fanboard that has over 61,000 posts by people who speculate that Clay might be gay. They are involved in extensive "shipping" and analyze each little aspect of their idol's life. If this kind of board doesn't count as a "vocal segment" questioning Clay's sexuality I don't know what could. --MatthewUND 17:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness. The original anon ip has been blocked for 48 hours, and the page is now protected. Once it's been long enough for them to lose interest, I propose this: Some have speculated that Clay is gay, though he has denied such suggestions. In fact, Clay good-naturedly lampooned the rumors by playing a member of a gay chorus when he appeared as a musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show. [1] · Katefan0(scribble) 20:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Second Katefan's suggestion. Hermione1980 21:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sentence is a very good compromise and couldn't be mistaken by any reasonable user to be slanted or offensive. Thanks Katefan! --MatthewUND 03:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I third or fourth it? As a Clay fan? Gemtiger 05:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to alter the article in the normal wiki-fashion, the article is now unprotected. Yell if the vandal returns. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Clay Aiken's Wikipedia Commentary/Accomplishments

Everything that has been written about Clay has been a wonderful and a true listing of his accomplishments. These are FACTS. The SPECULATION about his sexuality is NOT A FACT - so why include it in this document at all. What a let down at the end of the report to even mention the SPECULATION of him being Gay, which leaves such a negative assumption/suggestion after all the truly wonderful accomplishments previously listed. Yes, Clay has denied the fact that he is Gay, why not just believe him! That topic just does not belong with his accomplishments listed on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, Clay is a Christian. He openly discusses his faith and credits his accomplishments to Gods plan for his life. A true Christian believes only in the union between a man and a women.

Clay is NOT GAY. Get over it! Those comments just have no place here!

I wish you would just write about Clay as the wonderful, caring and "want to make a difference" kind of guy that he is. KJ-MN; June 12, 2005; 1:00 pm CST

Wikipedia does not strive to give a "positive" or "negative" impression of anyone. Our goal here is to present everything in a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Indeed, if we just said point-blank "Clay Aiken is gay", that would be neither a fact nor NPOV. However, the speculation exists and is widespread; therefore, it is encyclopedic enough to merit a mention in Wikipedia. And this comes from someone who staunchly believes Clay is not gay.
If you disagree with the premise of being NPOV, I'm sorry, but I must respectfully ask you to abide by the consensus established here to include it (see section "Added to RfC", earlier). I am glad you came to the talk page to discuss it, though. Is there possibly a way the sentence can be worded to make it less offensive? Hermione1980 19:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To the above: thank you for coming to talk. If you like Wikipedia, maybe you'll consider creating an account and staying.
As Hermione said above, the point of an encyclopedia is not to present someone in as glowing a light as possible. It is to present the truth of someone, as accurately as possible and in a way that takes no sides, either positive or negative. Where there is positive to mention, it should be mentioned. Where there is negative to be mentioned, it should be mentioned. We are not here to whitewash the truth nor to do a hatchet job on someone, or to otherwise present someone in any certain way except from a neutral point of view. The speculation about Clay Aiken being gay exists and is quite widespread; it makes sense to treat it in this article. Why deny it's out there? Some would argue that it's better to include that information in the article so that the article can also include the counterpoint -- that Aiken has refuted it repeatedly.
And, this is appropos of nothing in terms of Clay Aiken, but there are plenty of gay Christians out there. A true Christian believes that all of God's children are deserving of his love and teachings. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with this handling of it, as the sexuality or speculatory sexuality of most other celebrities is mentioned in their entries here, especially if it is noteworthy - and in Aiken's case, it is. Aiken knows who and what he is, and it is to his credit that he simply no longer discusses it.
  • Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or the National Enquirer? Questions about a person's sexuality has no place in an encyclopedia when the person featured has been forced to declare his sexual preference to appease the likes of tabloids. I am disappointed with Wikipedia. If this is the liberal bias that it is going to show, I can in no way recommend it to my students as an authoritative resource. Instead, if they want to read about pop culture, they should turn to the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Yes, I am a school librarian with an MLIS. Your web encyclopedia was a major topic of debate at the NECC convention. And although, you have a variety of supporters, there are a large group of educators, special interest groups such as librarians (SIGMS) who have decided to continue to discuss whether they can in good conscience recommend the web site to their students. It is this type of speculation, that does not by any means state a fact, that causes most of the educators to shy away from allowing their students to use this as a resource. "Encyclopedic enough" must be your standard which in my opinion equates to just "good enough." I am glad that print encyclopedias do not adhere to that standard. M Silgals, July 3, 2005.
Wikipedia openly states that it is not censored. If that has the possibility to offend your students' sensibilities, then perhaps it's best you made that choice. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) July 4, 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Indeed, I will take your suggestion to heart. Whenever I post to the listservs for the American Library Association, and its special interest group, the American Library Association of School Librarians, I will convey your position against "censorship." Both entities are advocates of choice. Yet, they are also aware of the need for school librarians to be fully aware of the fact that a resource is not censored and that it may contain objectionable materials. In other words, few librarians, once informed that you allow speculation in your articles, will take the risk; they will not see your "encyclopedia" as an authoritative reference material. Wikipedia is basically one big blog. M. Silgals July 5, 2005.

section break

I can't agree that the existence of Openly Clay is any sort of legitimate reference point in a search for relevence on the question of whether or how to mention the gay speculation. Openly Clay is a small group of women who are dedicated to proving that Clay is gay and their primary focus is in writing slash fantasy pornographic fan fiction and shipping Clay with any male they fancy. A handful of people focused on this purely selfish entertainment out of literally hundreds of message boards devoted to Clay that do not question his self-identity, is not representative enough to consider it "widespread", although the Openly Clay group do try hard to spread the gay rumors at every opportunity.

In all fairness, if a celeb has been rumored to be gay, then all of their profiles should mention it. If you do a search on the names below, all of them are currently suffering the same fate as Clay and their profiles don't address it. Why pick on some celebs and not others?

Hayden Christensen:

A Socialite's Life: Hayden Christensen Kisses Ewan McGregor Hayden christensen is not gay !!!! I've seen this thing (==>picture) at school and I felt bad ... HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN :. HE DOES NOT GAY. AND I LOVE HIM !

Marcia Cross:

EXCLUSIVE** ABC to repeat Marcia Cross "View" appearance "I'M NOT GAY!"

Kevin Spacey:

Mirror.co.uk - News - All News Archive - KEVIN SPACEY MUGGED AND ... DOUBLE Oscar star Kevin Spacey has been brutally mugged. ... Spacey, who has constantly fought off rumours that he is gay, was not available for comment

George Clooney:

b-gay.net on-line Magazine gay profiles of the world gay profiles b-gay.net on-line Magazine Celebrating gay and lesbian ... With the newfound exposure, George Clooney was finally a star and finally made the ...

Anthony Federov:

WOW Report: The St. James Version Extra: Idol Thoughts anthony federov - climb every mountain one of the most twisted tv moments of the ... So Anthony is gay right, is this something that needs to be questioned. ...

Oprah Winfrey:

RE: Even Ass-Kissing Liz Smith... Wasn't Liz the one who wrote a blind item implying that Oprah was going to come out?


Vin Deisel:

I've heard he came out years ago on Oprah. This was before he was well-known. Considering he refuses to answer about his orientation should tell you something.

KatienVin wrote: WillowMoonGoddes wrote: kinkiiman wrote: Does anyone out there know if Vin Diesel is Gay, a friend of mine said they say him in an interivew and they asked him and he refused to answer???? Hi! I have not heard anything definitive about Vin being gay, I have seen all of those rumors and people claimin he is "inside" hollywood. I also know he hangs around a lot, I repeat a lot of men, and have ya noticed when he isn't doing charity work, or what not, he's NEVER around women??? He was also seen taking a pic at the Mynt in Miami's south beach not too long ago, with a very gay looking gentlemen at the club?? Does this and more add up to he's gay? No,but so many flags pointing to the answer "hell yes!" To list them all would take a long time.


Matthew Broderick:

"I've heard Matthew Broderick gives fantastic ****..."

Someone posted on a thread a while back that his technique was quite good. I'd have to sample for myself, however, to be sure."

To continue to question anyone's orientation is purely gossip.

Sectioning

I've broken the article into sections, since it was getting too long for one continual piece. I've also added material on his performances on Idol, which was surprisingly absent. Wasted Time R 28 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)


Question and caution

MatthewUND, I'm curious about your adamance in adding the sentence in the first place, and your reference to Openly Clay as some sort of landmark in your case. Why are you so interested in including this material and why do you see this message board as some sort of validation? There are many Clay Aiken message boards and they are just as "vocal", and all fan boards engage in the "shipping" and the analysis of every minute detail of Clay's life. Openly Clay is intended as a refuge from homophobia, and a place to show Clay himself that if he IS gay, he has a core fanbase that won't desert him, and that embraces all expressions of sexuality including strap-ons and porn.

Also, it is very likely that this page will have to be locked down now that Clay fans have located this discussion, you will be bombarded here with board wars and fan in-fighting that will get quite ugly. Clay would be horrified by what his fans do to each other "in his name."

Anonymous, you don't need to "caution" me. First of all, have you ever heard of a signature? Adding a signature to a comment is standard practice here for anyone who wants to stand behind what they say.
Clay Aiken may be gay. Clay Aiken may not be gay. No one knows except Clay Aiken. It would be wrong to state in the article that "Clay Aiken is gay." However, no one has ever attempted to do that since I've been watching the article. People have only tried to add the small bit of information in that some people speculate that Aiken is gay. This speculation (fair or not) is so widespread that it is worthy of inclusion here.
I was never so "adamant" about adding the sentence. I just added one small sentence that is a fact (many people DO speculate about Clay). That's all I really ever did. Another anonymous user thought that repeatedly deleting the sentence (without adding any reason why) was a great way to spend a day or two. I, and several other people, saw that deleting a sentence just because you don't like it was inappropriate behavior here on Wikipedia so, as they kept deleting it, we kept putting it back in. I was not so "adamant." I just didn't think that an anonymous user's opinion of the sentence should cancel out all other opinions.
You define Openly Clay in much too harsh of terms. It is not as explicit as you would have others think nor is it the opinions of a select few. The board has had many users (gay and straight, male and female). Most of these users don't state that, without question, "Clay is gay." Instead, it has become a place where those who aren't "traditional clay fans" (conservative Christians who do not approve of homosexuality) feel free to visit with other like minds and engage in a much more worthwhile experience than what they feel they are presented with on other Clay boards. It is a large group of fans and it is a vocal group of fans so, yes, it is a worthy point of reference in this discussion. MatthewUND July 4, 2005 07:27 (UTC)

MatthewUND, you speak as though you have personal experience and knowledge of Openly Clay. Surely then you are aware of just how explicit the members-only section of that message board really is. You try to minimize the nature of the board while touting its relevance to the general population and popular culture. The 13,14 and 15 year olds that are members, and have access to the members-only area, are exposed to slash fiction, confessions about perverted sexual fantasies and photoshopped images of homosexual acts. This small message board's population is not representative of the general public. Openly Clay has 313 registered members to date. Clayboard has over 13,000, The Official Fanclub that launched June 28th 2005 has 6,667 members on their message board as of today. There are hundreds of message boards devoted to Clay, there are websites devoted to assisting the un-initiated in finding their way through the miriaid of choices.

The 313 deluded souls who populate Openly Clay must not be allowed to have this much influence. I have personal knowledge of the contents and the intent of Openly Clay and if Wikipedia treats it as a credible source then the decision makers here are completely un-professional and irresponsible.

Matthew also stated that the conservative Christians object to the content and the speculation. He neglects all other demographics, whether they be religous or political. Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Kaballists,according to Matthews statement, must either agree with homosexuality or they are not a population worthy of note. Let's not forget that a large portion of the population is made up of atheists and agnostics. Do they also approve of under-aged kids participating in gay porn and gossip mongering?

Shame on Wikipedia for adding the speculation in the first place.

If all celebrities who have endured speculation are not saddled with the gossip, then none of them should be. This gossip does not belong among factual data.

User:Miklos Szabo July 4, 2005 11:02

Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel that there may be something in uncensored material that could possibly offend your senses, then perhaps you may prefer to visit another website. Thanks. As for the gay speculation, it's not a small thing. It's rampant in the popular culture discussion about him. That makes it relevant, and besides which, gives a chance for the counterpoint, which is his denial. · Katefan0(scribble) July 4, 2005 18:35 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your rant, katefan0, was aimed at me but its arrogant, aggressive, obnoxious and irrelevant. If you surround yourself with people who are focused on the type of gossip that focusses on speculation about a celeb's sexuality, then of course it will be common in your circle. The speculation does not come up in my circle of friends. Who is more representative then?

User:Miklos Szabo July 4, 2005 11:48

I'll ignore the insults. It's irrelevant whether it's common in my circle, your circle, or in outer space — the speculation is obviously common enough knowledge in popular culture to have garnered mention on Saturday Night Live (several times -- including once when Aiken was a guest star), and to result in a fair bit of coverage in the press, including the Washington Blade, DC's gay publication [2], and of course it's all over the blogosphere. Just a quick Google search will show you how much. · Katefan0(scribble) July 4, 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Once again katefan0, you only prove my point. If your only sources of information are gay gossip sites then you are immersed in a specific slice of popular culture that does not encompass the majority. BTW, Saturday Night Live did not make mention of any gay speculation when he was a guest star. The gay men's chorus was a reference to Megan Mulally's stint on Will & Grace. Your interpretation is not the defining one, but I do realize that your compadres at Openly Clay prefer to see it your way.

Did I mention that the Openly Clay members are dedicated to perpetuating and disseminating the belief that Clay is gay?

Upon searching "Clay Aiken" at Washington Blade. I found a January 2005 mention of his upcoming appearance in Scrubs and a discussion about Clay's publicist turning down an interview with the Wash Blade.

Even the readers of the Wash Blade are not convinced he's gay. Read the quoted part below. BTW these are all of the comments. I did not edit them.

Clay Mates defend gay press snub Re “Those feats of Clay” (Dish, Jan. 21)

"Why does Clay Aiken need to do a interview with the gay press? Some people just can’t seem to accept that the man, his family, and even his friends have all stated that he is nothing but heterosexual? Maybe they have their own gay stereotypes. If someone falls into one of them, that means they’re gay. Or maybe they’re jealous that Clay doesn’t just make the 14-year-olds scream. He is one of the only pop stars who can make females of all age groups weak at the knees, and scream with excitement without having to take off as much as his shirt. Let us females just love him!"

"What does Clay’s sexual orientation have to do with anything? Do you really think people who listen to his music expect to sleep with him? “You people” (whoever you are) have made jokes of the people you continue to “support.”"

"Honestly, why do some people want to force people to think Clay Aiken is gay? He says he isn’t. He is completely amazed at all the attention he is getting from girls and women because he says he has always been a “nerd” and sees himself as one when he looks in the mirror. Why should he want to appear in an article in a gay magazine? Clay is a decent, Christian, wholesome guy."

"The writer should check the facts before writing a story like this. Clay Aiken may not even be aware that gay magazines are trying to get an interview with him. The editor was in contact only with his publicist and those words were from the publicist and not Clay himself. "

"Perhaps the reluctance to grant interviews to the gay press is in the quote, “We tried to get an interview with the sexually ambiguous pop star.”"


User:Miklos Szabo July 4, 2005 1:13

It's really immaterial whether people believe he's gay or not. The article doesn't take a side either way. However, it does show that it's a matter of fairly widespread public discourse, which is exactly what the article says. · Katefan0(scribble) July 4, 2005 22:06 (UTC)

The article was published May 30 2003. Over 2 years ago and nothing since then other than a request for an interview. It is old and even the Wash Blade doesn't find it a topic of interest anymore.

User:Miklos Szabo July 4, 2005 3:13

That's not the point. The point is the speculation exists and we should cover it. Have you read the paragraph in question? Here it is, just in case:
Some have speculated that Aiken is gay, though he has denied such suggestions. In fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the rumors by playing a member of a gay chorus when he appeared as a musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show. [3]
Let me analyze this. "Some have speculated that Aiken is gay" means, in this case, a bunch of dudes have said, "Hey. Clay looks like he might be gay." "He has denied such suggestions" means Clay heard the dudes saying that and came back with, "Wait a minute, no I'm not." "He good-naturedly lampooned the rumors" means he finds the rumors laughable. I haven't got a clue what the SNL thing was about — I don't watch it — but most of the time, if some rumor has been going around about you and you do what the rumor says on SNL, that means the rumor isn't true. Look at the mess with Paula Abdul last year.
I think I've stated this before, but I'll state it again: I personally do not think Clay is gay. However, I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill about this paragraph. We've already had one revert war over this paragraph; the page was protected; Katefan subsequently rewrote the paragraph once to make it less objectionable; and at least four editors have agreed to include it. If you feel you are on the right side, then by all means, you can file a request for comments and get the opinion of the community as a whole. Hermione1980 4 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the info.

My question upthread was never addressed. Why are other celebs who are experiencing the same or even more intense speculation about their sexual orientation in the current popular press not showing the speculation reflected in their profiles, yet there is a fight to keep the "less objectionable" line in Clay's?

Less objectionable still sucks, btw, just a little less. My problem with it is that it perpetuates and legitimizes the gossip. Many teenagers will wonder why the mention was included if it were not true. The gay rumors are fading in the press yet Wikipedia insists on keeping the subject alive.

User:Miklos Szabo July 4, 2005 4:03

Fine. You find the same number of fans that have made such speculations for other celebs, you put it in their Wikipedia article(s). The only reason it's not in their articles already is that no one has put it in. The reason it's in this article is because there is such an active fanbase that does such speculation. Wikipedia is not "keeping the subject alive" — it's only documenting that the subject exists.
Like I said before, if you don't like it, by all means, file an WP:RFC about it. And I find your line about "Less objectionable still sucks" to be objectionable, btw, as I find "sucks" to be an inappropriate word in this context. Should I censor out that line because I find it offensive and because someone else might run across it and be offended? Hermione1980 5 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)


I notice that there are no less than eleven links to fansites. This strikes me as excessive, so which ones should make the cut? --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)

  • Clay Nation News, Clayversity, the Clackhouse, Openly Clay, the Clayboard and the Official Fanclub Board pretty much cover the spectrum of what a curious Wiki user wanting an entry into his fan board world would need. I would eliminate the rest that are listed, and add this ezboard site http://p081.ezboard.com/bchautauqua. It is a comprehensive, chronological archive of concert and appearance dates, setlists, and recaps. It is very complete and a useful reference. --User: WebTraveler July 5 2005 16:51

Listed fansites

My general opinion is that the last three should be cut immediately, since they're not even dedicated URLs: it speaks of amatuerishness. What about the rest? I'm not really equipped to judge their value.

And come to think, what IS the value of linking to a fansite? What is there that is missing from/unavailable to this article? --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

  • I don't think you're equipped to judge their value, period, as you seem to know little about them. The domain Snowcream.net is owned and operated by the admins of Openly Clay and is used exclusively for the Openly Clay board. The board may not have registered the domain name "Openly Clay" but the board is as professionally run as any other. And as mentioned previously, it is the only board that allows open discussion on all subjects and has no censorship. The Lecherous Broads may only be part of Diaryland, but they are one of the most popular Clay sites, and very different from other sites. Clay Nation News is also different from other sites and should be kept. As to the rest, most of them are indistinguishable from the others.


I know I'm not equipped to judge their value, because I wrote I'm not really equipped to judge their value. Reading comprehension is not big with you, apparently. You DO seem to have specialized knowledge, since you write they are one of the most popular Clay sites. Is there a Clay Aiken site Neilsen ranking that you're drawing on for this, or is it merely handwaving weasel words? Would you mind providing some verifiable data or comparisons instead of the angry handwaving?

The simplest solution would be delete all but the official fan club and be done with it and not ones being pushed by fans as their personal favorites. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)


  • It's you who need to brush up on your reading comprehension. First, I am quite aware you said you were "not equipped to judge" the remaining fan sites listed. I was expanding that to include all Clay sites, as you obviously have little knowledge of them. This was not intended as the insult you took it to be. Second, I was not angry, I was simply giving my opinion on the various fansites listed. Ask any Clay fan about the Lecherous Broads and they will tell you how popular they are. Whenever they update their site it is posted on virtually every Clay board. Obviously I cannot quantify this, but anyone reading the Clay boards knows this. Also, you completely ignored the fact that I was recommending keeping a variety of different sites rather than simply picking ones based on whether they had purchased their own domain name or not. Openly Clay, Clay Nation News and the Lecherous Broads are all quite different from generic Clay boards and as such would have a broad cross section of appeal and interest. Others of interest would be the Clayboard (biggest fan site) and the Clay Dawgs (male Aiken fans).
The only links that are needed are the Official Fanclub

http://clayonline.sparkart.com/?

and Finding Clay Aiken

http://www.findingclayaiken.com/

The rest are personal favorites and are not needed.


  • Please, sign your posts, all of you who didn't. It's hard to tell when one person's comments start and another's end. Keep the official sites — keep, maybe, the three or four most popular (most visited?) fansites — keep Openly Clay for the sake of quantifying that contentious paragraph. That's my opinion. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 15:23 (UT


    • I agree with Hermione1980's assessment, though I still don't agree that Openly Clay's existence in any way quantifies the contentious sentence. That sentence and the fact that the speculation exists qualifies Openly Clay, if anything. Most of the links listed are fluffy fan silliness with no unique content. --User: WebTraveler July 6 2005 14:21

If you decide to include the Openly Clay link you'll be inviting elementary aged and middle schoolers who use Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia to visit a sex site. Its completely inappropriate. Of the hundreds of fansites, that each have their own special flavor, this one is not to be singled out and highlighted. Why not ClayNation Singapore or ClayAikenKids instead? I think you should not link to individual fansites at all. If you consider it then have one of the editors take a good look around Openly Clay. Get the admin to give you access to the members only area. If you don't do that you will be recommending a site irresponsibly. Are you willing to contribute to endangering the welfare of a child and inviting children to view pornography? Be sure you really know what you are doing. Think about how easy it is to ruin a public person. Sure you have the right to whatever you want to print, and you can hide behind your disclaimers, but is it the right thing to do?

This is a good man who tries hard to be a good role model for children. He's a spokesperson for Ronald McDonald House Charities, The US Marine Corp Toys for Tots, he is sponsored by Disney, he contributes to the Disney Hand charities and Youth Service America, he will be this year's Unisef Trick or Treat Campaign spokesperson. He has his own foundation, The Bubel Aiken Foundation, and he founded and implemented Camp Gonzo in several cities for the YMCA and has been on 2 Unicef Field Missions in the past 6 months. He contributes his time and money to other children's charities as well as several Aids charities. This man does not deserve to have his image destroyed in the eyes of the public and particularly children for the sake of a few people who get entertainment out of sexually objectifying him. These people don't care if they ruin him, they just want to have fun at his expense. Its a travesty!

--User: Miklos Szabo July 6 2005 15:19

You seem to be well-acquainted with Openly Clay's contents. I suppose that means you or one of your "circle of friends" are a member, since you keep talking about the members-only section. I am fairly sure there is something in the disclaimer stating something to the effect of "Wikipedia is not responsible for the content of sites linked to in its articles". We are not "inviting" anyone to visit any of the links listed anywhere in the whole encyclopedia. They are only listed here for further reading if you feel like it. Can anyone else involved in this discussion verify your claims about the content of Openly Clay? Hermione1980 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Hermoine1980 said, "However, I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill about this paragraph."

So are you, Hermoine. May I ask why?

You also seem quite a bit more informed about the content of Openly Clay than you let on. I strongly suspect that you are a member and have an AGENDA!

Would you like posts from that site to back up the claims that it is not a good idea to link to it? You'd be amazed at the links to things I could provide you from various members.

There is a very good reason that Openly Clay could not get the domain name for their website, but I won't bore you with the details. It involves a whole lot of legalese and some VERY high-priced lawyers.

User:Marie Lavaux 6 July 2005 23:59

  • edited to remove content copied from a private, password protected website*

User:Miklos Szabo 6 July 2005

I'd venture to guess that this hand-picked missive is hardly representative of all of the forum's members. · Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 04:31 (UTC)

I would guess that you are a member as well, Katefan. You people don't hide your agendas very well. User:Marie Lavaux 6 July 2005

Uh, okay. What agenda is that, exactly? If I were a member I wouldn't have a problem mentioning it, but I'm not. Personally I find Clay Aiken to be a joke (sorry Hermione); I only came here because about a month ago someone listed it on Wikipedia:RFC. Beyond which, I'm a woman. What interest would I possibly have in a gay Clay Aiken fansite? · Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 04:40 (UTC)
They are all women.
  • edited to remove content copied from a private, password protected website*
  • edited again to remove pointless and obviously inventive domain registry information*
This is getting into fan in-fighting that was cautioned against further up in this mess of edits. As the original matter of the wording of the statement has been conferred on and agreed upon by no less than three editors, I would suggest locking down this page. -- User: WebTraveler July 7 2005 05:00

So much for not believing in censorship. I guess you believe in it well enough when it doesn't suit your purposes. My posts did not quote anything from another board. They were personal opinion, but got deleted anyway.

User:Marie Lavaux7 July 2005

katefan0 and WebTravelor are trying very hard to end this discussion but the truth about the nature of the Openly Clay site can be proven. Hermione asked if anyone can back up the allegations that the members only area contains pornographic language and images.

Entire edits have been censored and deleted to the point of removing signatures so that it looks like they never existed. A few were censored but the signatures remain. It is not a true reflection of how much is missing and the explanations for the edits are not true. The domain name registration info for snowcream.net is factual and on record with dreamhost.com

I saved this page before the edits. It can be re-created. These people (Openly Clay members) are bound and determined to keep the truth from Wikipedia. The evidence is repeatedly deleted. They call it a fanwar because they want to minimize the impact of the evidence that was deleted and they want to prevent the posting of any more. Openly Clay has a vested interest in keeping Wikipedia from the truth.

User:Miklos Szabo7 July 2005

You might like to be more careful with your allegations -- I haven't deleted any discussions. · Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 16:05 (UTC)

section break and moved text

If you're going to continue to post these ridiculous diatribes that have nothing to do with ANYTHING here on Wiki, at least have the decency to put them at the end of the articles. I still move for protecting this page, it is quickly becoming among the most ponderous, and likely most pointless, of WP:RFC User: WebTraveler July 7 2005 19:37

  • "I have visited this site (the articles at least) many times as Clay's career keeps getting bigger and more diverse. And each time it disgusts me to see the gay reference here. This has nothing to do with his career and why he merits and encyclopedic entry. And to have Openly Clay listed as a fansite is a joke. The entire Clay Nation, with exception of that site, knows that they are not interested in his career or him. Their main interest is who they can match him up with. They write disgusting fiction and photoshop disgusting pictures of him with every male in sight. It has nothing to do with believing in or supporting gays. The fact that he says he is not, he has NEVER been seen in anything compromising (such as their make believe pictures) and nothing has ever been revealed of life to indicate he is gay. Basing speculation on someone's looks or movements is what is homophobic and stereotypical---not the fact that his fans don't want to hear it or read it. I don't care who is or isn't gay. But when someone says they are not, that is the end of the discussion and speculation. Expecting someone to prove their sexualty of preferences is utterly ridiculous. It's like taking the constitutional right of a person, innocent till proven quilty to the extreme---gay until proven otherwise. Well, just how do you prove it to idiots who are adamant in believing it. Even to the point of saying they don't care what he says, if he marries, who he dates---they believe he is and WANT HIM TO COME OUT. These members of this board are mostly loners, depressed in real life--by their own admissions. Read their board and you will see it. Many have been suicidual. They have found a fun game and hobby in running around the web insisting that Clay is gay everywhere they can. They want his other fans to leave the fandom. They love his hairdresser but not him. They are ridiculous and it is totally disrepectful and pathetic that this site takes their word and views (of 300) over the thousands of loyal Clay fans on other boards---that are there to support his career, follow his music, discuss his music and charities. Openly Clay only writes porn fiction and discusses where else and how else to stir up more on the web. And yes, many people have tons of proof of what is behind the "closed doors" at that site. It is not something most people, and certainly not young fans, should be around.

A Fan who cares about Clay --- not a gay agenda."

I am fed up. I leave the decision of keeping Openly Clay as a reference between Miklos, Katefan, and whoever else might join this discussion. All I ask is that the last paragraph of the "Aiken fans" section be kept in the article. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clay_Aiken&oldid=18362163"