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Portions of this talk page have been archived.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 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14

No mention of Aladdin

Clay Aiken appears in the 1992 Walt Disney animated feature film, Aladdin, performing the song "Proud Of Your Boy". I don't see any mention of this in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.226.205 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not in the film. He is on the DVD singing Proud Of Your Boy and that information is included in the discography. The song was cut from the original version and only added back as an extra on the DVD. Maria202 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heading information

Can someone please correct the intro to say that Clay was appointed to the Pres Committee in 2006, not 2007. Thanks. 69.19.14.20 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. Maria202 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Presidential committee

The additions to the entry regarding the Presidential committee are original research and have been removed. That is, there is no reliable, published source indicating that there is any question or concern on the part of the committee or any official entity regarding Aiken's participation in the committee. Just an FYI (irrelevant to Wikipedia, but since you are concerned), other, informal sources indicate that he has attended these meetings, and an earlier inquiry from a blogger resulted in a letter from a committee representative verifying his presence which subsequently made the rounds of the blogs and boards. -Jmh123 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Aiken was appointed to the committee, but it is also verifiable that he hasn't attended the meetings. Wouldn't the minutes of the committee in question, which are easily accessible and part of the public record, be considered a reliable source? Aiken's non-attendance is a legitimate point to raise in a section devoted to his activism, and supported by verifiable evidence. To leave out his attendence record leaves the reader with the implication that his involvement is greater than it actually is. Your FYI is, as you point out, wholly irrelevant without anything other than "informal sources making the rounds on blogs and boards", and it contradicts the minutes that are available as a public source. I am inclined to reinstate the relevant passage, however I will hold off for the present in the interest of seeing what others think.Adamsappleturnover (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If a journalist wishes to pursue this, and then writes an article, then that article will be a reliable source (if the publication is reliable, and the information is independently verifiable). What you are doing is speculation based on incomplete information. -Jmh123 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Adamsappleturnover, As stated in the December 7, 2006 meeting minutes, only those wishing to be identified are listed as attendees. They specifically recorded this to explain why Clay's (and others) names may not be included in the minutes. Therefore it is verifiable that the minutes are NOT verifiable evidance of lack of attendance. Especially since there is significant casual evidence showing that he has attended at least some, if not all of the meetings. Why is this an encyclopedic issue anyway? Is there eviedence that the committe has concerns. No. Then why are you trying to CREATE concerns? That would be new research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Triage (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Following Triage's comment, I looked at the minutes for that meeting, which would have been his second. The minutes state: "Executive Director Sally Atwater convened the official quarterly meeting of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities on December 7 at 3:00 PM, which was held via conference call.* This list may not be comprehensive given that it is composed of only those who identified themselves as participants."[1] -Jmh123 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There are only two facts that are verifable. The appointment to the committee and only those wishing to be identified are listed in the minutes. Anything else is original research. Maria202 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be completely accurate, the note regarding the December 2007 list being non-comprehensive only applies to that particular set of minutes, and it would be speculation to assume it applies to all others. In fact, the presence of such a note for that one particular meeting lends more credence to the idea that that is the exception, not the norm. I'm willing to drop the matter, although I would be fascinated to know of the "significant casual evidence" that he has attended. We can revisit this if and when either a representative of the committee makes an official statement, and/or further information comes to light which is then picked up and reported by a reputable news source. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that that statement is in the minutes proves that having your name recorded is not mandatory and I can find no where on the PCPID site where it says otherwise. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, it's an encyclopedia and as such deals only with facts. Maria202 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I just wrote. The statement is only put into the December 2006 minutes, most likely because being conducted as a conference call it would be more difficult for the secretary recording the minutes to note which members were present unless they made it clear. Most of their meetings are conducted in person, and for the vast majority of the minutes you don't see this statement as it doesn't apply. To take a statement about the list of attendees in the December 2006, and extrapolate that Mr. Aiken's name being absent from every other set of minutes must be because he was there, but the committee failed to note his presence, is extreme speculation. I'm not sure why it is necessary to try to argue one way or the other. Until we hear from the committee regarding this matter, or something is printed in an attributable source, I have agreed not to press the issue. The assumption made by many that Clay Aiken is actively attending these meetings is based on speculation as well though, as has been rightly pointed out, the only thing we really know for sure is that he was appointed, and nothing is known beyond that, or of the work he has done with them since 2006, if any. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And the article is limited to that verifiable evidence. Regarding this "significant casual evidence," since you expressed curiosity, I have already mentioned the blogger. There are also message board reports from fans--the meetings are open to the public and the date and time announced in advance. Finally, there is a fan from DC who has a friend on the committee who verifies his attendance. None of which is relevant to Wikipedia. Thanks for agreeing to let this go. -Jmh123 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Post (gossip column) has spoken. -Jmh123 (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And they probably got their lead right from this page. But a gossip column in not a reliable source. Triage (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the Washington Post's gossip column is a reliable source. They're not going to lie about having called and asked. If it is incorrect, there will be a correction published, and/or a response from the committee. -Jmh123 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They called and asked WHO? Their mom? Pres Bush? Groucho? Without knowing who and what they are talking about - it is not reliable. Triage (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we have to throw out the Washington Post's award-winning journalism of Watergate since they didn't reveal the real name of their source, Deep Throat, at the time. Anyway, they did say who they called: the committee and a representative for Clay Aiken, so I would say that they have covered their bases, and I would consider the Washington Post a very legitimate source. I don't think we can pick and choose which facts to believe. I had merely pointed out that his attendance record was "uncertain" and was told that I was engaging in "original research", so the statement was removed from the Wikipedia article. Now, we actually know that Clay Aiken has only attended one meeting, so thanks to the Washington Post, we know more than we did before, and from a reliable source. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Watergate story was only printed in the gossip column, I don't think anyone would reasonably have believed it. So this writer calls "the committee" - hmmmmm, and asks for Aikens attendance record. The response is that the minutes only show him attending one meeting. How is that different from what we knew before? Of course we really don't know what person or what question was asked. Only that it was not strong enough to be printed as news, only gossip. I expect in a few days something will come out, one way or the other to clarify this situation. Triage (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) He just admitted to People that he is not straight.

The WashPo's "gossip column" is denoted as gossip only insofar as it doesn't report hard news, but rather celebrity news. The items are researched, and true--obviously--otherwise, the paper could be sued. It is noteworthy that while Mr. Aiken may have been named to the committee, he has shown up for almost none of the meetings. This fact has been verified by a WashPo reporter, and is just as newsworthy as his appointment to the commission. For this reason I am undoing the undo to my revision. TommyUdo (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we invert the phrasing to make it less accusatory? Instead of saying "However, Aiken seldom attends Committee meetings, having appeared at only one of the quarterly meetings since his appointment", how about "Aiken is on record as attending one of the quarterly meetings since his appointment"? That's more direct and is unquestionably verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I still don't think a gossip column should be usable as a ref, however, as a compromise I made the change. Triage (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- I'm not thrilled by the citation either, especially since it appears to be partly sourced to (or at least instigated by) some discussion on Wikipedia. While newspapers rarely label their gossip columns clearly and in some cases the distinction isn't clear, this column does appear indeed appear to be a gossip column. In this case, where the journalist reports actually confirming the information herself, it appears to be verifiable and reliable. However many things reported in gossip columns are not notable. If there is an error we can expect the Post will fix it. And if it's notable it will appear in other sources. So for those two reasons, I suggest we remove the material for now, and see if there is anything further reported or corrected to establish its notability and accuracy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. However, I think that someone else should remove the statement, since I have reverted it several times already. Triage (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Will Beback must be unfamiliar with the Washington Post. That "Gossip Column" appears on page three of the Style section during weekdays. The "Gossip" moniker is a nod to the fact that its news items usually concern celebrities with a Washington DC connection, or "fluff" pieces about politicians. It wouldn't, for example, run a Paris Hilton story unless Paris Hilton appeared in DC. The reports are independently verified, and not "gossip" in the traditional sense of hearsay. It's not hard news, but soft news. I concur with the less accusatory wording, but disagree that it should be removed. If it's important to have the Activism heading, it's important to tell the full story. TommyUdo (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will's point. It is my understanding that this conversation started on a blog, attempted to move from there to Wikipedia, failing that, moved to contact with the Post gossip column, and then from the Post back to Wikipedia. That someone should instigate the creation of "news" simply for the benefit of shaping Wikipedia is contrary to the spirit of this effort. -Jmh123 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the WP. A gossip column in a respectable paper won't run unverified rumors, and this assertion doesn't look like one. Let's wait and see how the story develops, if at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Triage, Will and Jmh. Maria202 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I completely disagree, but I'll not redo my edit. The idea that we "wait and see how the story develops" is absurd. It's very doubtful the WashPo will update the story, because it's had the final word. A reporter called the committee and checked his attendance record. There's nowhere else for the story to go. It's closed. Maybe Clay will actually start attending meetings--that would be change in status. Otherwise, it's a fact that he hasn't been present for most of the meetings during his tenure. This is important to properly put his "activism" into context. As a comparison, I'm technically a member of, I believe, four high-level government working groups, but have never attended a meeting. I therefore don't trumpet these appointments in any bio or resume; it would be unethical. I find it wrong for Mr. Aiken to be given "credit" for something in which he has, at best, a passive role, and at worst a nonexistant role. The desire to continue to suppress this information smacks of fanboyism and hagiography. TommyUdo (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In a sense I agree with you. When and if we can get a source that is not a gossip column or blog etc., then I would have no problem with putting in the "non-accusatory" version of the statement. But if we follow Wikipedia rules, we should not allow original research, which is what this started out as, and we need a different source. So for now, we need to wait. Just as as aside, I looked around and there have been non-sourcable comments from meet and greets that Clay found out that these sort of meetigs are more for show and not very functional, and expressed some frustration about it. So from that it is believable that he decided not to spend his time on them. But again, that is just hearsay, and he has not made a public statement. Thanks for not causing huge waves about this. Triage (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the committee isn't a big deal for Clay, and the sheer paucity of comments from Clay about it seems to support this, then I would question its placement in the article under Activism. As the article currently reads, it gives the impression that the appointment to the committee is a significant event in Clay's career, when in fact, it really should be more of a footnote amongst his other achievements in the area of activism. For the record, I have no qualm with the attention given to Clay's Unicef work and Bubel/Aiken Foundation. I just find the Presidential Committee to not be an important part of the Clay story. His choosing not to attend, and refusal to comment when asked about his non-attendence, would really make one question why his Wikipedia article should give such prominence to the appointment. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Activism IS a big deal for Clay. That is known and sourced with tons of examples. And all the rest that you just said is just conjecture, so does not belong in Wikipedia. Perhaps Clay has been working long, hard hours weekly for the committee, and just can not attend the sessions. Perhaps he proxies in. Perhaps when he attends it causes too much disruption, and etc. etc. All of which is just as possible as what you are conjecturing. We need to find a reliable SOURCE, not leap to huge assumptions based on stuff we just do not know. Triage (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The current page seems overly positive in regards to Clay's involvement with the President's Committee. Leaving out his attendance record is in effect not telling the full story. I would propose changing the paragraph under Activism to read as follows:

"In September 2006 Aiken was appointed to the Presidential Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities. The Committee acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on matters relating to programs and services for persons with intellectual disabilities. Appointees serve a two-year term; Aiken was sworn in September 14, 2006 by HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., and has so far attended one of the quarterly meetings."

This is, I feel, a fair reporting of the facts, verifiable, and doesn't make a judgement or express an opinion, but rather, provides all of the information known on the matter, which readers are welcome to draw conclusions about, but at least they will have all of the facts at hand. Rblume (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And who is supposed to monitor and update it if he attends another meeting? And where is the verification that he is not putting in a lot of effort, and just can not attend the actual meetings? And how do we not know that when he attends, the disruption causes problems, and so he works in the background?? I just don't get attendance tracking in an encyclopedia. Especially when the one and only source is a gossip column that got it's information from THIS DISCUSSION. Find a reliable source, and then we can talk about it. 66.82.9.77 (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation finally from Clay Aiken regarding the missed Presidential Committee meetings. I think we either need to update the entry with this new information, or we need to downplay the importance of this assignment. It just wasn't a priority for Clay Aiken, yet the article puts it forth as some great accomplishment, without revealing that Clay didn't follow through.

"It's been two months since we blew the lid off the simmering Clay Aiken scandal, revealing that the most successful "American Idol" runner-up ever has skipped all but one of the quarterly meetings of the Presidential Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities since he was appointed in fall 2006. Much scorn was heaped upon our story by the fanatical Claymates community -- but silence from the crooner and his reps.

So we asked our colleague J. Freedom du Lac to confront Aiken during a scheduled Q&A for the Post Rock music blog. Aiken explained he's just so busy :"The last time I had two days off in a row was October. I was on tour throughout the country through Christmas, then I went straight to Mexico for UNICEF. [Then] I went straight to New York for 'Spamalot' . . ." Okay, gotcha. He added that "if there's something I can do remotely, I would've been happy to do it." Well, guess no one told him about the conference-call option." - Reliable Source - Washington Post - April 24, 2008 Adamsappleturnover (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

People Magazine has just reported that Clay Aiken claims he was "too busy" to attend the meetings. That makes two sources, correct? I feel it is going to be hard to continue to maintain the illusion that Clay is an active member of the committee at this point. Shall we still keep the fact that Clay was appointed, but follow up with the information that Clay stated that he was "too busy" to attend any of the meetings? What is the consensus? Rblume (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

relatives

Is Don Aiken who resides in Durham and was married to a Lelia Hobgood Aiken who passed away a few years ago, Clay's uncle? Lelia is a cousin of mine and I was just curious. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.204.46 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aiken and Jaymes Foster

Here's a cleaned up version of the text from [[User:]], with proper footnoting. (Why the link to britishcampaignfurniture.com was there is beyond me.)

On 29 May 2008, TMZ.com reported that Aiken and his executive producer Jaymes Foster are expecting a child in August. The was confirmed by Bill Vigars, a business associate of David Foster, confirmed the TMZ report in an interview he gave People magazine, forther explaining that Jaymes Foster had been artificially inseminated.

• just to show the references :

This appears to be moving past the rumor stage, although it's still developing. It should go somewhere in the article, but not in the early life section. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now there is a conflicting report in a Canadian newspaper that says Jaymes is pregnant but Clay is not the father. True or not I have no idea. Agreed it shouldn't be in the Early Life section. I reverted the entry yesterday when it was just TMZ reporting it but now it's all over the news media with most still crediting TMZ as the source. So far there is no official source. People come here looking for facts and at this point we just don't have any more than what they could find by using Google. ETA: It appears that private medical data was leaked and I'm not sure where Wikipedia stands on including that. Maria202 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm removing a portion of the statement from the article just because of possible legal ramifications.

"Criminal Penalties. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA faces a fine of $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment.89 The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to ten years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. Criminal sanctions will be enforced by the Department of Justice."

Maria202 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not possible for us to get into trouble for reporting what someone said in People magazine, even if the original source can be traced back to a possible HIPAA violation. The law and the penalties apply to those who have normal access to the information, and are required to safeguard it, which we aren't. On the other hand, if that is coming from a HIPAA violation, it's going to be hard to eventually source the claim further, other than saying that "Such-And_Such says that JF had CA's baby via AI, but there is no confirmation". Removing the statement as you did is certainly best for now. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While there are two sources, Newsday just quotes People. I restored the AI bit, which is reported in both. We're not disclosing anything- we're reporting what has been published in publications that have hundreds of thousands of readers. However, I think that this entire topic may be better omitted until it's been confirmed by someone from Aiken's camp. Right now it's just a claim by a brother. There'd be no harm in waiting a week or a month so that the facts can be better determined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the entire topic. There are several sources that are reporting that while Jaymes is pregnant, Clay is in no way involved. Which is exactly why we should not be putting "breaking news" into articles. Triage (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is such a ridiculous conversation. It is all over the news that Clay the Gay Aiken has donated his sperm. Get over it. You people take yourselves and this page way too seriously. I can't believe he has been allowed to breed, but it appears to be true.

What Wikipedia takes seriously is sticking to factual verifiable information in an encyclopedia article while maintaining respect for the individual involved. Maria202 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maria 202--you must be the venerable keeper of Wikipedia. Undoubtedly some pathetic Claymate who has nothing better to do. Why not talk about how People and other magazines are reporting that Clay's "fans" support this apparent impregnation with Clay's seed, however, every regular blog out there (not fan sites) show that people are utterly disgusted by the possibility that Clay has potentially fathered a child. What will his Southern Baptist parents think of him fathering a child out of wedlock with a 50 year old woman? By the way, you don't get much gayer than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.168.89 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia report the opinions of a bunch of irrevelant bloggers? So what. The world is full of bigots - nothing new there. And their opinions are not based on fact, just thin air. When there is verifiable informaation, then we will include it. Until then - it is just gossip that may or may not be true. However in either case, what is gay about In Vitro Fertilization for a 50 year old? Not much chance of her getting pregnant without it at her age. But it is her personal medical information, not public domain. Heck, even if Clay and Jaymes have been lovers for years, she would probably need IVF if they wanted to have a baby. But -oh yeah - you are not interested in common sense. Just smearing gossip around. Sigh. Triage (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ignoring the sniping from the IP peanut gallery....
  

The problem here has moved past "the opinions of a bunch of irrevelant bloggers" (TMZ.com in particular) -- People magazine's short questions of a friend of David Foster's is more than that. The question now is the evaluation of disagreeing sources -- some usually reliable sources say yes, some say no. I think that until further information comes in to settle it OR the story hits a nationally prominent level (neither of which has occurred), then nothing about this should be in the article. At that time, we can re-evaluate. (Please note, however, that the story can be reported in this article even if no confirmation or denial comes from Aiken's camp if enough reliable sources come through, which, again, hasn't happened yet.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, Fox News is not nationally prominent? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361402,00.html Quite frankly, the lack of inclusion of this news event STINKS of blissful cover-up and denial by the owner-editors of this article. People, do a Google News search. It's time to write a NPOV synopsis of this event for inclusion. Proxy User (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link isn't a news report, it's a commentary about the rumor, and it's more about Jaymes Foster than Aiken. Due to WP:BLP, reliable sources are needed to mention the story inthe article. I feel the sourcing is close (especially the People magazine report), but not close enough to satisfy most people here, and to avoid edit-warring it can wait until better sources arrive. Wikipedia isn't a news source, it can wait to be right. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that the "editors" who control / own this article are dead set against inclusion of this notable event. Sad, really, denial of factual reality. It reduces the value of the article because it taints what is there with the dishonesty of censoring what is not.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=26917

A spokesman for Foster's music mogul brother, David Foster, has confirmed that Jaymes, 50, became pregnant through artificial insemination and is due to give birth to the 29-year-old "American Idol" star's child in August. Bill Vigars tells People.com, "The story is true... Clay is the father. She was artificially inseminated by Clay. She's due in August... She looks great, glowing and very happy.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/friday/news/ny-etclay305706749may30,0,5171452.story

Clay Aiken is going to be a father, People magazine reports. "The story is true," Bill Vigars, a Vancouver-based rep for David Foster, told People of the TMZ.com report that Aiken, 29, impregnated David's sister, music producer Jaymes Foster. "It is true Clay is the father. She was artificially inseminated by Clay. She's due in August."

http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=10756

Last week, singer and American Idol alum Clay Aiken (29) announced that he is having a baby with his best gal pal, music producer Jaymes Foster (50) via artificial insemination.

This article is not an encyclopedic biography, it's a Fan Site. Ah well, live in your fantasy. Proxy User (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just the opposite. Fan sites are the first to report rumors. As an encyclopedia, we should wait until the facts are well-established. Due to the nature of pregnancies, we can expect that more information will be forthcoming. There is no harm in waiting a week or a month. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bologna. Fan Sites (like this one) seek to keep "embarrassing" details out regardless of the factual basis. This IS a Fan Site the way it stands right now. Proxy User (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the information is true, and will be glad to put it in when we get solid confirmation. But I STRONGLY feel that it should not be in this article - which is an encyclopedic summary - not a news tracker - until there is confirmation from a source that is not 4 degrees removed. Right now we do not even have a statement from a rep for Clay or Jaymes. Just statements from the rep of a brother of the mother - who then said that he was mis-quoted and tried to get the story revised. That is NOT solid enough to put in a factual article. Everyone elses expounding on the topic is even more removed. We have NOTHING from anyone actually involved. Sheesh. Triage (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Triage and Will Beback, I agree with everything you both said. Maria202 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, if "Clay or Jaymes" never make a public statement about it, the owners WP:OWN of this "article" will not allow the information to be included? That just screams FAN SITE! WP:FAN Proxy User (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what your objection is to waiting a decent interval in order to allow the details of the story to be confirmed. This is a long-term project. Why does this edit need to be made today instead of next week? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's been a week since the original report, and there have been no denials from the Clay camp. I think we can now assume that the reports are not just a rumor and are worth mentioning. FYI, it caused a noticeable blip in Aiken's search ranking.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to post something as fact when there has been no confirmation made by the 2 people involved. There are other articles that have sources just as creditable denying Clay is the father, and the article also states that the person People.com used as their original source(Bill Vigars) has said he was misquoted [3]....why the need to rush to add something that has not been confirmed by anyone other than people that would themselves have reason to seek PR for their own personal projects. Even the Calgary Herald that first reported the rumor was true has since change their mind and are reporting the rumor is false [4] Moretothislife (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) moretothislife

Perhaps we could instead put in a story saying "Rumors that Clay is having a baby with Jaymes Foster are false [5]). That is just as documented as the other version. Who gets to pick?? Triage (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one source against dozens or hundreds. The comment by Cook appears to qualify as a minority vewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment by Vigars is ALL that there is confirming it - there is no one else. Then it was repeated 100 times. That is not the same as 100's of sources. And he retracted it. He says that he was confirming that Foster is pregnant. Not that Clay is the father. Which exactly agrees with what Cook says. Where is a second source confirming that Clay is the father?? For that matter, at this point, where is the FIRST source, since he denies ever saying it, and tried to get the story pulled? Triage (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know Vigars asked People.com to pull the article saying he was misquoted. They refused. I think it was the NY Post that stated David Foster said there would be no comment until the birth. Jaymes and Clay have not commented nor have their representatives. That leaves us with one verifiable fact, Jaymes Foster is pregnant. The rest is rumor and POV commentary on that rumor. If Clay is the father, good for him. If he is not have we been fair and accurate or are we guilty of spreading gossip and turning it into fact. The baby is due in August so what is the harm in waiting for a reliable and verifiable source. I don't understand the rush to get breaking "news" into an encyclopedia article. Maria202 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maria, how do you know that Vigars asked for the story to be pulled? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Will, I'll see if I can find where I read it but there is so much out there it's hard to keep track. CNN Headline News is running a piece on why Aiken won't comment on his personal life if anyone is interested. It seems to be running every half hour. Ironically, Aiken was quoted on Channel Newsaisa[6] as saying “That’s what’s so great about America,” he said, laughing. “One of our valuable amendments to the Constitution — freedom of the press — is also one of the crappiest. You can write anything you want. You don’t need to have any proof or any truth to what you write.” This showed up on the morning of the 29th and the TMZ leak on the afternood of the 29th. Maria202 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Found it. "Earlier, website People.com quoted David Foster's agent, Bill Vigars, confirming the reports. Vigars has since denied making the remarks and asked People to pull the article." It came from the Times Colonist Published: Friday, May 30, 2008[7]Maria202 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the same single article that is the only one which contains any denial. The right way to handle this is to say the brother says one thing while the former sister in law says something else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The brother did not say anything except that there would be no comment until after the baby is born. His REP made the statement about Jaymes, which was embellished to contain the comments about Clay. And are we really going to put a statement in an encylopedic reference based on one person's statement, a person who is not even a rep for the parties involved, and who tried to get the story pulled?? Not a single other confirmation or endorsement? Just a best friend saying that for a fact it is NOT true. In what way is that factual?? That is just pandering to the gossip mongers. IMHO Triage (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We can assume that spokesmen speak on behalf of their clients. This has been widely reported and the only denial comes from a former sister in law reported in a small newspaper in Canada. We can always update and correct the story as more details emerge. But this story does not appear to be just a spurious rumor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vigars is not Jaymes Foster's rep. He is the publicist for David Foster's charity. Maria202 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was fine for waiting to see if more information or a denial, but I haven't seen any. Presumably Aiken's people have heard about this and could easily have denied it. All we need to say is that it's been reported, which is undoutedly true. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Will, why do you feel you need to do anything?...nothing has been confirmed by anyone, the only person who reportedly confirmed anything has since said he was misquoted, and he is not even a representative of either Jaymes or Clay. I would hope that tabloid sources and attention seeking bloggers are not what we use to confirm real news, or make additions to what is suppose to be an encyclopedia of facts. And to say we can add something and then remove it later if it proves to not be true is really unfair..isn't that the same as closing the barn door after the cows get out...the harm will have been done. To remove the reporting of what amounts to gossip was the right and ethical thing to do. Moretothislife (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)moretothislife

This matter has been reported in hundreds of places. What harm do you think is going to happen if the reports are mentioned in Wikipedia? What cow are we going to let out that isn't out already? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Will, it has been reported on 100's of gossip sites and blogs...so would you like Wikipedia to be reduced to the same caliber as a gossip site or would you prefer to maintain some creditability as medium that only reports the facts?... what you want to include is a rumor...pure and simple, it is gossip. What harm can there be?..well I think most people with any sense can see tabloids for what they are, but if you report a rumor in Wikipedia then it turns tabloid gossip into fact for some...there in lies the harm. It will be a sad day when Wikipedia decides to use or acknowledge tabloids and attention seeking bloggers as a reliable source of information. Can you explain what harm there is in waiting to hear from the 2 people it concerns the most, or at least wait to hear from Mr Aiken who this entire entry is about...it is called having some respect and integrity, something I realize is rare these days when it comes to reporting the newsMoretothislife (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You really have got to be kidding me with this discussion. It has been reported by Time, Newsweek and a myriad of other reputable, verifiable journalistic sources. That certain editors seek to bar an inclusion that that the information has even been widely reported reeks of fancruft of the highest form. To some extent or another, what is all news before it is reported? Rumor or gossip. I'm curious how these editors will regard this information once a baby is born or when it is verified to these editors satisfaction (and I'm starting to seriously wonder if they would ever be satisfied)? What if Aiken and Jaymes never make a statement? Is it wrong to report the pregnancy of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, even if they never made a statement?71.133.240.91 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has been a game of everyone repeating a source (Bill Vigars) who has since denied confirming anything. Everything else has come from people who have been on PR Junkets, and they have never confirmed anything either, just commenting on something that is being told to them by the media as though it were fact. The fact remains nothing has been confirm by anyone. Unfortunately we live in an age that allows false statements to go around the world a hundred times in a matter of minutes, and the truth has to play catch up. Wikipedia is an Encylopedia of facts, not an Entertainment News Magazine. If you want to read celebrity gossip there are plenty of tabloid rags and blogs you can read, where truth, integrity, and respect mean absolutely nothing, and it is all about getting a juicy piece of gossip with no regard for who they hurt, or whether there is any truth to what they write, it is only about the attention, and the money. It is unfortunate that some of the news agencies that once honored truth in journalism, no longer chose to do their own homework to find out what the truth is but instead repeat gossip without doing their own fact finding.Moretothislife (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)moretothislife

It's a cruel world. However it's the world we live in. If TIME and Newsweek are repeating this then there is no longer any justification for omitting it from the article. I don't see how anyone will be hurt by having WP mention that it has been reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know of no report from Time Magazine, and Newsweek repeated what was quoted from Bill Vigars, who says he was misquoted..so where is the confirmation from a reliable source??. It amazes me that some of the people coming in to post their desire to have a gossip entry added don't bother to sign their entry or provide any other confirmations other than repeating a source who has since said he was misquoted...The story with Bill Vigars can't be deem reliable since he has retracted what he said, and all those commenting are basing their comments on a false report. All those that would have any real knowledge have refused to comment...even in a court of law, a jury is instructed not to consider a person's choice not to testify as an admission of guilt. Many people chose not to comment on gossip. I really don't understand the burning desire to have an entry that at this point remains gossip, added to an Encyclopedia that is suppose to have factual information.Moretothislife (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your failure to understand that noting that the information has been widely reported is factual and does not further any speculation whatsoever. Let's look at it this way: Say you are correct. It's all a false report and turns out to be completely erroneous. That would also be both factual and notable as well simply because it has been so widely reported. 71.129.44.251 (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a note of the gossip at all would further speculation. As I said before, those that are hungry for gossip have plenty of tabloids and bloggers to satisfy their appetite, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is intended to record actual facts, not be a source of advertisement for gossip that is floating around the internet, and to make mention of a unconfirmed story making its way around the internet, only draws attention to it...why is that so hard for you to understand?...and unfortunately gossip usually is widely reported thanks to the internet, but that doesn't make it worthy of being noted here or anywhere else.Moretothislife (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that your sole controibutions to this project have been seven talk page postings protesting inclusion of this information. Do you have a policy basis for your objections to the inclusion of this widely-reported information? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Being a person who has grown tired of turning on the news, only to see gossip and entertainment news taking over the majority of the airtime, has maybe caused me to grow impatient with seeing it spill over into what is suppose to be an Encyclopedia of facts. Unfortunately Will, it doesn't matter how many times it is "widely-reported", it is still the same story that has no legitimate confirmation, which makes it gossip no matter how many times it is repeated, or by who....My policy?...I am a lover of the truth, I like facts, and I am willing to wait until I hear some "real' facts out of respect for those involved before I report something. I am a bit of a political activist and have been given information I could have reported that would have bolstered my case against those I was fighting against, but it was hear say, and I didn't have enough to really confirm it, and I know the difference between right, and wrong. Repeating, and making note of gossip is wrong no matter how you may try to justify it. And in this age of the internet where something can go around the world in a matter of seconds, I think journalist have a duty to be more diligent in their fact finding, because it is much harder to correct an error once it is made. Once again, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a gossip news site and I would like to see it respected as such.Moretothislife (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

the material has been widely reported in reliable sources. The subject has not denied any of it. I don't see any policy which calls on us to delete sourced material of this type. Unless someone can point to such a policy I'm going to re-add the information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable verifable sources no matter who or how many times this gets repeated. TMZ, a gossip site, says "multiple sources" but dosen't name one. People says a "rep" who denied making the statements, says he was misquoted, asked to have the article withdrawn - so all they did was remove the reps name. Gossip is gossip and no matter how many times it's repeated this fails the WP:Verify test. And from the WP:BLP, which I know you are very familiar with, this "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Again, there are no high quality references - just a bunch of media repeating the initial unsourced, unverifiable gossip. The push to include gossip in an encylopedia article goes against every thing I thought Wikipedia did not condone. Maria202 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Any of us can verify that this information has been reported. It doesn't have to be confirmed by the subject in order to be mentioned here. The fact that it has ben reported in probably hundreds of sources without being denied is sufficient. TIME magazine is not a poor source. We can state this in a neutral fashion: "In May 2008 it was reported that...." It is verifiable and newsworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or gossip column, it's an enclycopedia. Where in the guidelines does it say it's ok to repeat gossip? Where does it say it's ok to use information that does not have reliable sources? Where in the guidelines does it say we should disregard the subject's privacy? Where in the guidelines does it say we're a tabloid and can be responsible for spreading titillating claims about people's lives? Like you asked eariler, why the rush? Maria202 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of the subject's privacy would be interfered with if we say that this has been reported? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in here, but I strongly suggest this subject be referred to WP arbitration. This debate is ridiculous. This article and it's contents are obviously being controlled by over "enthusiastic fans". 204.128.192.3 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of the subject's privacy would be interfered with if we say that this has been reported? - Some folks will decide that he is living with someone in sin and condemn him - Some folks will decide that he is having a child out of wedlock and condemn him - Some folks will decide that the only reason that he is using IVF is because he can’t do it the natural way and condemn him - Some folks will think that he is involved with an older woman and condemn him - Some folks will decide that he is just trying for publicity and condemn him - Some folks will decide that he is terrible for bringing a child into the world that he will not live with and condemn him

But of course - Nobody will know WHY it happened – IF it happened – because of course no one knows if it actually happened – And - Of course in late August, when (andif) we find out it was all a mistake – how many folks do you think will find out that is was a mistake– and change their opinions . . . approx zero.

- We already know how many people have done all of the above based on other stories that turned out to be fake/fantasies. But the damage was already done. Are we going to do it again. Because of course it is so EASY to do. Michigan user (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

These imaginary people must totally avoid all news sources, because virtually every news site has mentioned this story. There is no privacy concern in this issue since it has been so widely reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I watch the quite a bit news thank you. In fact a fox news station has since stated the story was false based on the Calgary Herald accounting in which Bill Vigars says he was misquoted and David Foster's Ex wife said the story was not true. The fact remains nothing has been confirmed and this remains gossip. Wikipedia in an Encyclopedia, if you are not happy with what you read here than maybe you should visit one of many tabloid and blogger sites that have no problem repeating gossip.Moretothislife (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Fox station said it was false? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The main FOX News website reportes the story.[8][9] The imaginary readers who find this matreial offensive must not watch FOX either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Imaginary readers???..Will, you disappoint me, you are starting to sound like one of those desperate bloggers that visit this site and post baseless arguments, and inflammatory comments. The two points of reference you included in your last post, once again repeated a source that has since denied he made that statement, and the other point of reference you posted were only comments posted by bloggers...is that your idea of responsible journalism?. As far as which Fox News Channel?...it was Good Day LA that reported the story was false and even one of their own Anchors voiced his disappointment with the fact they had the information that disputed the original story days earlier yet held off reporting it. I don't see overenthusiastic Clay fans controlling what is included in the Wikipedia entry as was mentioned by a nameless poster, but what I do see are some people trying to bully others into including a notation of "widely reported" gossip...This is not being ask as an attempt to be factual, this is an attempt to bring the gossip in a back door, by asking for a notation that would draw attention to the gossip. The editors of this site are not stupid, I think they can see clearly what the motive for a notation of "it has been widely reported" really is. Again it has only been widely reported because in this day and age of the internet, it doesn't take long for gossip to travel, and the all reports out there are old repeats of the original story, and a couple of people commenting on what is being told to them via the flawed story...hardly factual. It would be irresponsible for an Encyclopedia to include unconfirmed information, especially something that is of such a personal nature as fact, and making a notation only serves the purpose of bring attention to the gossip, it serves absolutely no other purpose.Moretothislife (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you caught me. I really am just a desperate blogger who only came to Wikipedia to insert gossip about Clay Aiken. Anyone can compare our contribution lists and see that you sre the long-term editor with a variety of interests whose only interest in this article is to enhance the project. Yes indeed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's video from the news archive from Good Day LA. [10] It reports the same story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I said they reported the False story first but since corrected themselves, but good try Will. The link you posted was from May 30th, they corrected themselves on June 3rd. Will, I don't think this is contest of who has the most posts, it is matter of what is right and what is wrong...what is responsible journalism and what is not. Because I have not chosen to participate in other discussions does not make me less creditable, or knowledgeable, but I will let my posts speak for themselves. I just find it interesting that you are contradicting your own post "what's the rush". I believe in responsible journalism, and reporting facts, not gossip. It is disappointing how far away from responsible journalism we have come, when what use to be reliable news agencies turn to tabloids and blogs as sources for reporting the news. Will, if you really watch the news, than you know what I am saying is true. When Britney Spear's every move becomes the main focus of the new hours, I think that speaks volumes at how lazy news agencies have become. Respect, integrity, truth and honor seem to have lost their value in society today...what makes a "good" story regardless of whether it is factual, or whether it can hurt an innocent person seems to matter little....it is sad world, and that my friend is a fact.Moretothislife (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I provided a source to the same FOX show that you mentioned. It reports the story. Do you have a link to the FOX retraction? I'm not contradicting my earlier posts. I said then that there's no rush to put the material in, it had only been reported by a couple of sources and the subject hadn't been given time to respond. I said wait a week or a month. It's been two weeks. Except for one article in a newspaper a thousand miles from Hollywood, there hasn't been any dispute over the matter except on this page. We're not saying that he did this, we're simply going to say that it was reported. We can even add that neither parent has confirmed it. The contention that this material could "hurt an innocent person" is only founded on the premise that there are individuals who are unaware of this extensive news reporting, but who read Wikipedia, and will be shocked by the assertion. I suppose some folks are shocked at the idea that human evolved from lower primates, but we report it anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a reference to the gossip can hurt those who are the subject of the gossip...I can't understand why you don't understand what an Encyclopedia is...it is a reference tool for facts on people, places and things. No reference to gossip belongs in a Encyclopedia. Including a reference implies the gossip is fact. To make a notation serves no other purpose but to bring attention to the gossip. Unfortunately not all news stations archive all their programs, just clips they think will bring hits to their sites. I will assume they have that one available in their archives for the same reason they held reporting the story of Bill Vigar's, retraction ,and BJ Cook's denial there was any truth to the rumor until June 3rd...the rumor made a better story. It doesn't matter how many times it gets replayed, and repeated via the internet, it won't make it anything more than gossip.Moretothislife (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP Policy - "Do not repeat gossip." "Use reliable third-party sources" - there are none. "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" - contrary to individual opinion that there is no privacy with a total disregard that one of the individuals is not a public figure. "Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid." And from Jimmy Wales himself "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."[11] Arguing for inclusion validates an out of control media that does not bother to check facts and is contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. Maria202 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Those that are arguing against the inclusion seem to still view this as "gossip" and false. They continue to make the assumption and assert that TMZ and the countless other media have not checked facts or are falsely misreporting something. I'm curious, according to these editors, when does information not confirmed by the subjects become not "gossip"? When, for them, does it traverse the boundry from gossip to factual news? The Defense Dept., the CIA, corporations and celebrities often don't confirm information that is entirely 100% factual and is attributable to sources. There is NO reason whatsoever not include, at minimum, a reference that the information has been widely reported. It neither delves into speculation or infringes on the subject's privacy. That it has been reported by a wide variety of media is factual, verifiable, and relevant. That friends and colleagues of the couple have both offered various comments and confirmations in print is also verifiable. 204.128.192.4 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire thing is speculation. The one and only source, says that he was mis-quoted. That makes it all GOSSIP. Did you not READ the rules. Wikipedia is very clear. Do not include it until you have several sources confirming it. The BLP guidelines are not just a suggestion. They are a RULE. A way of keeping Wikipedia out of legal issues. Read the Wikipedia policy again. We can not include this until we have a confirming source. We just do not have that option. Triage (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So when is it not "gossip" anymore? There are several sources confirming it. There are public published photos of an obviously pregnant Jaymes Foster; Eric Roberts and his wife (being friends of Jaymes Foster) as well as others are quoted in press reports with confirming statements, and that's leaving out the apparently disputed here confirmation and subsequent attempt at retraction by Bill Vigars, spokesman for David Foster. Time Magazine, FOX NEWS, CNN among a ton of other reliable media are reporting this information and there has been NO statement disputing any of the information reported from either of the subjects. There is the reaction of Clay Aiken attacking a TMZ photographer upon congratulating Aiken on the upcoming birth of his child and asking what he would name it. Even, without words attached to it, that is a response from Aiken.

BPL is not violated and it qualifies on every level for inclusion, and specifically that it has been reported in the press. I second the motion that it moved to arbitration. 71.129.39.104 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this going to turn into one of those debates like the Presidential Committee one where the fan editors finally had to face how wrong they are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.39.104 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the gossip is repeated over and over doesn't increase the amount of sources. There was only one source and that source says he was misquoted. All the so called confirmations from friends came from people doing their own press junkets, and responding to a question that was presented as fact to them while being surprised with the question while in the middle of a press junket or an appearance at an event. Celebrity friends are not necessarily friends in the sense they hang out and talk, more like working friends who probably have little contact outside of work. Eric Roberts was in the middle of promoting Dark Knight, and more than likely a reporter present a question as though it were fact and he responded...no true confirmation was ever made by Eric...never did he say Jaymes told him Clay was the father. Clay pushed a camera out of his face, that was being shoved toward him...good for him. The response has been no comment, no comment does not equal a confirmation. This remains gossip and no matter how many times the same flawed story gets repeated will not make it fact. Some of the same "sources" as you are trying to call them have since quoted the Calgary Herald story that says the rumor is falseMoretothislife (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire topic is Trivia. Good for one line in the article, if it is true. Who CARES if we wait until August to find out the reality? Why this BIG push to get a one liner trivia notation in an article. Sheesh - it IS as bad as the Presidential thing. And that worked out just fine in it's own time. This will also. Just give it time. Triage (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are proclaiming the topic trivia? While the vast majority of information in the entirety of the Clay Aiken article IS trivia, I am doubtful that Mr. Aiken (or anyone else for that matter) would refer to the impending birth of his child, or his contribution to the same, as trivia or trivial. That typically is both a big and notable milestone in one's life. I don't see a BIG push to include the information. I do see, both now and earlier, various editors engaging in fancruft of this article. 71.129.39.50 (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a valid argument for including a notation of gossip. I don't see over enthusiastic fans, I see a desperation and obsession by posters that seemed to have no interest in Mr Aiken other than trying to spread gossip and rumors. It is obvious by some of the comments posted throughout the discussion area of this project what motivates the desire to have an inclusion of gossip in this project. I have also noticed in looking at some of the comments in other articles about Mr Aiken that there seems to be a band of obsessed internet stalkers of both Mr Aiken and his fans. These obsessed stalkers use every opportunity to insult Mr Aiken and his fans and attempt to sully his reputation with false and inaccurate statements. I would imagine that most readers of this project would be fans to some degree, which would be normal. What is not normal is having people who are not fans follow an Artist's every move for the sole purpose of causing him harm...very scary, and I hope they will seek some professional help because they obviously need some. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and "notations" of the fact there is gossip on the internet serves no purpose other than to advertise the gossip. Saying it is Fancruft(what kind of word is it that??) doesn't bolster your argument it just calls attention to your true motivation, and lack of maturity, because you have no solid argument for your desire to have gossip included in an Encyclopedia. An inclusion of a "notation" of the gossip would be "cruft"...Superfluous junk.Moretothislife (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't clarified when you believe "gossip" crosses the boundry to become news? Do you believe the information only worthy of inclusion when the subjects comment themselves? This information is not just reported or contained to the internet, and has been, in fact, carried by reliable and verifiable sources. Wide reporting which has neither been denied or clarified by those involved. There are verifiable photos and statements from those around the couple. Further, you can't substantiate that the widely reported information is false, nor how a mere inclusion about the reports would cause harm. As was noted earlier, the birth of a child is a notable event in a lifetime. Upon birth of a child, would you then say that the reporting or the inclusion of the information here was "an opportunity to insult Mr Aiken and his fans and attempt to sully his reputation with false and inaccurate statements"? Your statements are neither neutral or in accordance with WP: good faith. You've instead revealed your bias toward not just this information, but any information you hold as dispositive toward Mr. Aiken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you have not read my entries or those of several others who have explained time and time again, why this remains gossip. The only source has since said he was misquoted and the "wide reporting" as you call it has only been repeats of the same or different version of the same original story/ The source quoted in the story has since denied making those statements, and a statement from BJ Cook flatly states the rumors are untrue. All you have left are a few celebrities, who are doing their own press junkets being surprised with a question that is stated more like fact, and they are responding to something they themselves have not confirmed, but are basing their comments on what is being told to them by the media. The closest you come is Eric Roberts and no where does he ever say he was told Mr Aiken was the father just a carefully worded article to imply he was. Again, no comment does not equal a confirmation. I think you have only supported what I posted earlier about those wanting an inclusion of the gossip. The same flawed article can be repeated a thousands times, and it won't be any more creditable. The original source says he was misquoted, so the original article and anything that is a version of it is gossip no matter how you and others may try to spin it. No bias here, just calling it like I see it, and you are only supporting what I said. Gossip or a reference to gossip has no place in an Encylopedia. Unfortunately I am not going to be able to help you with your reading comprehension skills, you will have to go back to school for that.Moretothislife (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess BJ Cook's reputaiton for reliability takes a hit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Aiken's recent coming out

Already there is an edit war happening over Aiken's recent coming out of the closet on the cover of People Magazine. The current edit to the page (done by myself) is an encyclopedic revision with a credible source. I have no doubt in my mind it will continue to be removed/reverted by overzealous editors. I'm really just posting this as a warning bell, so to speak, that a crapstorm is coming and it will probably elevate. CouplandForever (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PerezHilton is not really a credible source. Let's wait until the magazine actually appears. So far there's nothing on the People website about this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there has been a lot of debate on Wikipedia about whether Perez Hilton is a credible source and the consensus was that he/it is. The info won't be on the People website until the issue comes out, but Hilton just isn't stupid enough to risk his entire career by putting up a mock magazine cover with that kind of potentially career altering information about a major celebrity. CouplandForever (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't wait the week or less until the magazine actually appears? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor was quick to restore the information, but not so quick to respond here. While I don't think the assertion is unbelievable, it still needs a reliable source. Perez Hilton is not a reliable source. I'm going to delete the info again and if it's restored will ask for page protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Will, I don't sit by the computer 24 hours a day waiting to respond to every edit that happens. You can ask to have the page protected - it won't be protected against ME, it will be protected - if at all - against unregistered users. There's no REASON to wait a week because the information is available NOW. Factually speaking, today was the date the information came to light. You're spinning straw man arguments but you're wrong. As I already pointed out, perezhilton.com is a reliable source. It's even frequently referenced by other more "mainstream" media outlets. CouplandForever (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

People Magazine has told us to come back tomorrow for the full details. What's wrong with a 'Rumours... the full article is not available' line and that will stop any edit war in its tracks. The cover art is also at http://popbytes.com/archive/2008/09/clay_aiken_gay_finally_comes_out_of_the_closet_people_magazine.shtml project76 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is The Chicago Sun Times a reliable enough source? http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/people/1180646,comingout092308.article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.110.213 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sun-Times piece just says there are rumors about the People cover. It also says the magazine will be out tomorrow. Let's just wait and see what it says. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. We are not the news, we are the encyclopedia about the news. No rush. Let the news/tabloids get it right, then we'll get it right. If anyone strongly feels that Wikpedia is supposed to "break the story", then they are editing for the wrong website...Keeper ǀ 76 23:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no harm in waiting for the article. Maria202 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

USA Today is saying they have confirmation from People that the cover is real. [12] 80.44.181.23 (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one blog I've read has featured a cover scan that is blatantly not the same one as the Perez Hilton one (for one thing, no watermarks): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/clay-aiken-cradles-newbor_n_128713.html Yuna-chan (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even ten blogs don't add up to one reliable source. Let's just wait until the issue of People hits the newstands. Since it's due out tomorrow that's not a long time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So no matter how many blatantly different scans of the cover, it's not "credible" as they all probably doctored them? Yuna-chan (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. See WP:V and WP:BLP. We require the best sources for biographies of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:LGBT's experience with coming out and addressing biography subjects ' sexual orientation is no different than any other claim about personal life or belief systems. Reliable sources only. Reflect what Aiken has said, or witnesses have claimed in reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, remember me! Is CNN a credible news source?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/clay.aiken.ap/index.html

"NEW YORK (AP) -- Clay Aiken is finally confirming what many people suspected: He's gay.

The cover of the latest People magazine shows Aiken holding his infant son, Parker Foster Aiken, with the headline: "Yes, I'm Gay." The cover also has the quote: "I cannot raise a child to lie or hide things."

The magazine has an interview with Aiken and confirmed that he was on the cover but refused to release the article until Wednesday."

Hi! :) - mixvio (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

sicne wen is CNN is a creidlbe source with regards to Homsoexuality?? Its a cable news channel that coversm mostly political statements and cmapaigns and governmental stuff like live-feeds from the U.S. Congress. it can hardly be used ot for this, can't now??? Smith Jones (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a news source. It covers the gambit of everything. That's pretty absurd. - mixvio (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

if you so say, although, one MUST question the coordination and trustwrathiness of any wbesite that would collude with some random blogger like PErez Hilton. tabloid media Smith Jones (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the CNN/AP article is just reporting what the People cover is supposed to say. People's website says it will release the story at 7am EST, which is less than 9 hours from now. I think we can wait that long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Will Beback. Current perverse situation is that full protection is being used to retain contentious material which numerous editors believe violates core policy on WP:BLP. An administrator should remove this material from the "Personal life" section while article is protected and until such time as the state of actual information on the issue changes. This is beneath the standards Wikipedia is striving for. BCST2001 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh how I've missed you guys, it's cute to come back and see that the same people locked onto this subject tooth and nail two years ago haven't left it for the outside still. It's really beyond me why this needs to be hidden for "less than nine hours from now" as you say; it's really simply a matter of the same unwillingness to compromise on this issue-- that's the same problem you've been wrong about two years ago which got you guys in so much trouble. As soon as I saw the article on CNN I was amused and couldn't wait to come by and see that you were maintaining the same aversion to reporting reality that you employed then. Rofflecopters. - mixvio (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The sentence in the article reflects what the source says: he's on the cover of People with the words "I'm gay". It's reported by CNN. What's being violated? --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a thing; there's absolutely no reason that this shouldn't be in the article. People Magazine isn't going to come out in nine hours and say "Oops, just kidding!" It's been reported in several legitimate news sources (not Perez Hilton, and the CNN article doesn't even mention that blog) that this would be the context of the article. CNN itself is not going to publish a report saying that Clay Aiken has come out of the closet without rationale behind it. It really makes no sense to try and fight this being put here, but this is the same ridiculousness that has been going on in this article for two years now. What is the rationale behind fighting the inclusion of this line? - mixvio (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Clay's story to tell. Lets wait for his words and let him define himself instead of having others define him. I will never understand why some always have to be in a rush. Maria202 (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like he already did use his words. "I cannot raise a child to lie or hide things." "I'm gay." The line in the page only says he ended speculation. He was more honest and open about him self than you guys would let him be. - mixvio (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"This is Clay's story to tell." ...um do I not see the quote, "Yes, I'm gay." on the People magazine. I really hate Wikipedia for things like this. CNN article belongs in page. Douglasr007 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is MSNBC a reliable source http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx/?news=331936&GT1=28102? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously MSNBC photoshopped that cover image! - mixvio (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Reuters and the AP are now carrying this story on their wires. Is there any still credible reason as to why we cannot update the Wikipedia article to include this information? Turtle1972 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is- apparently the AP, Reuters, and CNN, are all bad sources when it comes to homosexuality...Good god, the silly homophobes here are insane. I checked just to see if the fact that Clay Aiken has come out of the closet, is directly quoted in several reputable news sources, and IS FRICKIN' GAY would be enough to, you know, mention that he's gay, or even the fact that it's been a topic of interest for years, and, my god, people still think it shouldn't go into the article. It needs to go in, now- Clayniacs, religious nutjobs, whatever the hell you are- you lost. You were wrong. Get over it, move on with your lives already. Oh, and mayhbe mention hte fact that Aiken bald-faced lied on several occasions about this subject? 216.194.1.254 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like there should be a Wikipedia article devoted to the phenomenon that is his fans' protection of his Wiki page at all costs, dire and dear. There is at all absolutely no reason why this needs to not be in here, as every other celebrity who's come out of the closet has it mentioned in their pages. There's absolutely no reason why it needs to be held off for seven hours because nothing will happen in seven hours that will be any different than it is right now at this moment. Ofcourse in seven hours it's highly likely that his fans will try to block having this mentioned here as well under any capacity. This is simply about stalling, and it's pathetic, and absurd. I'm calling for a consensus as to whether or not the page should be reverted back to Moni3's version. - mixvio (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources keep saying the same thing: Clay is on the cover of People and the magazine is refusing to release the article until 7am. Until the article is released by People or Clay makes a statement all of these articles are rumors with the only thing being verifiable is that Clay will be on the cover of People. Aspects (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to argue that MSN, CNN and the Chicago Sun Times are going to run articles saying he's come out of the closet when they don't know for sure? One of them even has a freaking cover image of the magazine. - mixvio (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, to all the people on here arguing that gaydar doesn't exist... We told you so. BIG TIME. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to say that People didn't release the article until Wednesday, considering that it's now Wednesday EST and they'll be releasing it in six hours? Or is this more petty strife for nothing? Not to mention that "Wednesday" doesn't clarify anything on a fast moving fluid Wiki page. Which Wednesday? Tomorrow or six weeks ago? As such I'm removing that and I think it's even ridiculous to say anything about People holding onto the article for twelve hours because in twelve hours it will be irrelevant. - mixvio (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Call for consensus on edit about People Magazine article

Despite the fact that People and several other news sources are running the story that he's come out of the closet, a handful of people here are once again resisting any edits to his page reflecting this. I believe Moni3's revision will serve as a reasonable start to mentioning the article now and am asking for a consensus as to whether or not it should be edited by an admin as the page is protected. Moni's version is: "Ending years of public speculation, Aiken came out of the closet as gay in a September 2008 interview with People magazine." Seems more than reasonable to me. Should this be added?

I vote Yes. - mixvio (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, see my statement above, all of the articles lack verifiability. Each of them claim the same thing, Clay Aiken will be on the cover of People and the magazine has refused to release the article before 7am. Aspects (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the article DOES NOT lack verifiability. Clay himself did the interview. Live in reality, Aspects, you're being delusional and you need to GROW UP. Proxy User (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, what do you think is going to happen at 7 AM? None of those articles lack verifiability. CNN, MSN, etc, these are legitimate news sources. If this were on any other subject there wouldn't be an argument. Why you guys fight this is absurd to me. - mixvio (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely idiotic. People are abusing Wiki minutiae to try and avoid the facts.Jbt1138 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I guess my vote may not count, but I'll add it anyway, as I can't see what serious argument can be presented for the "defense" of the present version (seriously, claiming that some of the above mentioned sources are unreliable is pretty... hmm. If that was true, you should remove every single ref. presently used in the article). In fairness, I did considered not voting because of the tiny risk that this vote could be the one resulting in a consensus, thereby ending the entertaining discussion on the talk page. 212.10.73.117 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good grief! It's out, it should be in the wiki. There is NO reason to keep it out, nor is there any way that the nay-sayer CAN keep it out. Keeping it out will not make Clay any more straight. He's not straight, he's gay. And he has a baby. FACT, FACT, FACT Proxy User (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's just wait until we can see the article to summarize what it says. It won't be long now. Just be patient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, that makes absolutely no sense. We don't need a summary of what it says, nobody's asking for a summary of the article. They're asking to include a line stating he came out of the closet in People Magazine-- which has been referenced by three news sources, one of which has a screenshot of the magazine cover in question. It makes absolutely no sense to wait five hours to reference something that we already know the context of. And further, Wikipedia is a dynamic medium! It can be changed later! Provide some credible rationale on why that's necessary, as the consensus clearly disagrees with this nonsense that it needs to wait. - mixvio (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of spending six hours arguing over something that will be resolved in five hours. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, especially when you guys are wrong. I'm arguing it because it's the same point as the Paulus thing, which you clearly got wrong there too. There's no good reason that the edit needs to wait, and you're just stalling. Thankfully the other admins agree. - mixvio (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the job of Wikipedia to be the first to get the story. Stalling is an encyclopedic activity. ;) I'm not sure what you're talking about with Paulus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

People will have something on their site at 7am tomorrow. Lets wait and see what they say and go with that. So a qualified YES. Maria202 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Will, Wikipedia wasn't the first to get the story. CNN, MSN, etc -- THEY were. News sources have already put this story out, at cost to their credibility and/or libel/slander if they were wrong. We know what the People article is already going to say, ergo there's no reason at all to block adding the simple reference that's there right now. If in four hours you read the article and want to elaborate on what it's said, by all means, go for it. If by some bizarre happenstance in four hours the People article is about how much he loves croquet and nothing about his sex life, the beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that the sentence can be deleted without harm! - mixvio (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting

It is clear that there are, at this point, multiple reliable sources for the information - even without the People issue being out yet. As such, and because figuring out how to appropriately include this information will require editing, I am lifting the protection on the page.

I remind everybody that removing relevant information sourced to reliable sources (and CNN is a reliable source) is considered vandalism. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

<3 - mixvio (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seven minutes after unprotecting and already four vandalism edits. This article should at least be semi-protected for a while. Aspects (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on semi-protecting, but none of the vandalism has been related to this discussion and is just from juvenile idiots. - mixvio (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculative, yes, but four acts of gay-related (but hardly unique to this page) vandalism in seven minutes after his sexuality has been confirmed on the page? I move for semi-protected.Luminum (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of fag jokes is not much indication of anything. Most gay people, myself included, treat the word as a pejorative. - mixvio (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a brief time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT - has been dealt with above] Regardless of how one sees the word "fag", the fact remains that this is likely to hit the media big-time in the next day or two, which - if following the usual standard - will result in a surge of vandalism, a semi-protect does seem sensible. 212.10.73.117 (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No I definitely agree, that was my point; that I doubt the vandalism was by anyone involved in this discussion and was just a bunch of idiots who just noticed it on the news and thought themselves clever. I think semi-protection is necessary for sure, but I doubt the vandalism was by users who've been watching this discussion here. - mixvio (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would really hope this would all end. I think people need to grow up and stop being so crude. Semi-protection is a must for this article for the time being. The anti-gay vandalism should be discussed with administrators. IP addresses are recorded, so if it continues some should be blocked from editing. This is confirmed news though. He did come out. It's confirmed by multiple sources. Gcarini (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say is...I told you so. CouplandForever (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)