Jump to content

Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Paulus info -- quick check

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

  • Personally, I don't think the Paulus information belongs in really any way, shape or form. I also don't agree to changing the long-held consensus paragraph about Aiken's gay rumors, except maybe as Hamiltonian suggested, adding something like "and in tabloid magazines." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Any proposed changes should be open to mediation and admin staff to weigh in as this coversation and edits to the page are being controlled by POV fan editors. --Rabinid 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (Abstain because I am just a lowly IP address) However edits to the page are being attempted by editors with a strong bias towards a POV gay agenda. 66.82.9.73 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried to insert a mention of the FTC thing and was instantly reverted. That's wrong. I gave source info and it was non point of view. Now the page is protected. What's going on? --Wayeast 20:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
(The page has been protected for several days. Please read this page for more info. Your one and only edit I notice.) 66.82.9.73 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mixvio that it seems extremely POV to not include this story. The argument that Paulus' story is not credible is irrelevant and POV. Same goes for the argument that it is credible. Just report the news stories and let the public decide. Leaving it out serves no purpose. By the way a couple weeks ago I put in a quick reference to all this and was quickly reverted by kate I believe. If anything I must say you censors do move quickly. 67.183.15.135 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
NB: 67.183.15.135 was blocked for 24 hours on a 3RR violation after refusing to discuss his edit in "talk". -Jmh123 02:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
We can see that ourselves from the user's talk page. Kate asked that this be used solely to post opinions, and the continual actions by you and 66/69 etc at pointing this or users' first edits just looks catty and reactionary. - mixvio 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And your comments don't?? This is an anon opinion anyway - so it won't carry much weight. Michigan user 13:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't. And this person should carry as much weight at Maria202 does. I'll point out that this person's at least been editing for longer than she has. - mixvio 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - right. Dooder and Maria about balance each other. If this anon counts then the other anon should not have to abstain. Just saying. Michigan user 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested 66 abstain, I'm more inclined to include her vote since she's been involved in the debate all this time. But regardless of what "counts" or not, Kate did this to see whether there was a consensus or not. Consensus does not equal majority. Clearly there IS no consensus because just as many people agree with me that this article's been hijacked by fangirls and fanboys as people agree with you that the story's irrelevent. So I don't care how many "votes" you have. That's irrelevent. What's relevent is my point has been proven, there is no consensus. - mixvio 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well typically they wait a week or so to arrive at a conclusion to allow users time to discover the question. Then if indeed there is no consensus - we will just go back to wordsmithing. Michigan user 17:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
No, we won't, the matter will go to formal mediation or arbitration. My interest in dealing with a protracted debate with Claymates has unfortunately grown thin. - mixvio 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If a consensus is reached, there's no need for mediation. The arbitration committee would reject this faster than you can say boo. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant if a consensus isn't reached. And to me it doesn't look like a few more days of polling is going to change that. - mixvio 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. POV to not include the story; it does not confirm that Aiken is gay, nor does it deny it. As long as the story follows policy (researched and properly cited), then I see no reason to pretend that it never happened. A better example: the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake scandal. They say it was accidental; others say it was intentional. We'll never know for sure, but that's no reason to just not mention it because it did happen. Tell the story and let the readers make their own conclusions. To do otherwise screams of fangirlism. Jennifer 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with mixvio. It's not the purpose of this site to make judgments on these allegations, or to determine whether or not they're accurate. A short blurb about the incident should be included. Dooder 02:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Katefan0. This is not notable, did not happen in a verifiable manner, and appears to be a publicity hound seeking attention. If it happened on national TV during the Superbowl halftime show then it'd be different. -Will Beback 03:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's what I will agree to: (1) For right now, definitely add something like "and tabloid magazines" or "and the tabloid press" or "and the tabloid press and radio deejays". (2) If in a month (say mid-April 06) the story still continues to generate media interest - even at the same level as it is now and regardless of whether it's true or not - then I will support its inclusion of both John Paulus' name and a short description (2-3 sentences) of the story. If it doesn't that means the story was non-notable. If it does, then it indicates sufficient notability. There is no shame in being "behind the curve" on such news in an encyclopedia. (More generally, I would support a seperate section dealing with "Aiken in the media" or something like that. The way the "paragraph" is written now, it seriously disrupts the linear flow of the section.) --Hamiltonian 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The controversy and story were discussed during the "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" show on NPR this past Saturday. Can we agree that it is mainstream yet? --Rabinid 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that, since the story broke in January and it's now mid-March and it's still being discussed, the story clearly continues to generate media interest. However I'm not unreasonable, and given a guarantee by the opposition that as long as the story-buzz is at the same level as it is now, I'd be open to waiting until April to insert this. Though I will be honest, I feel that they would try to invalidate the story then as well by saying it's not in enough places. - mixvio 20:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That's absolutely how it should be -- revisiting the issue, I mean. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's organic and always evolving. And Hamiltonian is right -- there's no shame in an encyclopedia not being ahead of (or even "even with") the news curve. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And I fully agree, but I have significant doubts that they'd really agree to it being revisited. I think they want to sit on this until it goes away or becomes so huge that there's no ignoring it. Both of these approaches are wrong in my opinion. - mixvio 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well the entire purpose of waiting until the middle of April to re-visit the question of whether to add the sentences about the Paulus claim, is to give it time to find out if it is truely notable or not. So it does not make sense to say that the story "going away" from lack of notoriety is wrong. That is one of the possible outcomes. 69.19.14.28 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Put a one or two sentence summary mentioning the story, saying that Paulus alleged that this happened and Clay's representatives refused to comment. Anything more gives undue prominence to the story. Hermione1980 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think Hermione makes a good point - it should be limited to the bare facts, such as they are, of the scandal, i.e. the allegation was made, it got widespread coverage in tabloids, talk radio and newspaper gossip columns, and Aiken has not responded to it. It doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, any more than that. I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that just because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it should somehow wait until the "news" has played out before pondering what, if anything, to record. Many articles concern "current events" and are updated daily, hourly and sometimes by the minute. (Whoby 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
And, you know, that's all I want too. My edit was three sentences saying the story, it was Paulus' allegations, it hasn't been proven, Aiken hasn't responded. I didn't want a three paragraph essay, I didn't want list of evidence supporting the story, I didn't want a pro-Paulus slant in the least. I wanted it presented. I think it's unreasonable that his fangirls and fanboys are fighting this minute change. - mixvio 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Hermione. I will continue my reasoning below, so as to respect Katefan0's request. Michigan user 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

resuming the debate

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

  • Mixvio, adding a section heading at any point is not moving a post. I did not move your post at all. Katefan asked us not to debate in that section--simply to express our votes. As the previous section of debate was getting too long, setting up a new subsection outside of the "quick check" within which to continue is not unusual practice at all. Re-sectioning "talk" can be done by anyone, for a number of different reasons. If you wish your post to remain on the other side of any new section, so be it. I'll start again here.
As I said before Jmh deleted it, this was the first edit of several revisions as myself and Arglebargle discussed what should be included. The last edit I made before asking the page be protected was significantly less than that. - mixvio 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. if only you weren't always so wrong. You deleted the entire paragraph beginning with "And, you know, that's what I want too," took it out of the context it was in, and moved it to another section. You and 6 seemed to have no problem interjecting comments that had nothing to do with the votes when you took it upon yourselves to point out the first-edits of everyone who wasn't voting on your side, or when you took it upon yourselves to point out that one user was blocked temporarily for adding edits that you had a problem with. So really, don't try to take the high ground in this. Furthermore, Kate participated in the thread after Rabind posted about NPR, so if she wanted to delete, move, restructure anything that didn't pertain to the votes it was HER place, not yours. - mixvio 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, what you deleted and moved was not part of the debate. It was a specific reply to what Whoby said. It didn't need to be moved because it wasn't "continuing" anything. I was replying to him. - mixvio 07:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted nothing, I moved nothing; I followed standard procedures in adding a section heading. I had no intention of undermining your argument, and thought the continuity was obvious. You registered your displeasure, and I did not object to your reversion, so it is not clear why you are still arguing about this. -Jmh123 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As you say on your mediation page, there is not yet a meditator, so I won't take this debate there, but you have made several misstatements in the comments section on that page. It's the FTC not the FCC. The FTC complaint took the form of a press release that was sent to hundreds of media outlets; these outlets that did pick it up snarked on the ludicrous notion that it presented. There is no seriousness to this FTC complaint. There is no quoted statement by RCA representatives that they are delaying the album. Check your sources again. Rumors are not official statements. Billboard magazine today reiterated what has been stated recently in Entertainment Weekly, and in other outlets: the album will be released in May or June, exact day not yet decided. Like it or not, these publications are far more reliable and more likely to be presenting fact than gossip rags. There is no evidence whatsoever of an album delay. As for the Lewinsky comparison, I agree that this story will have reached notability when Aiken is impeached. -Jmh123 08:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything. You must be confusing Jmh's edits with mine. - mixvio 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not confused. My edit - [2] - your delete [3]. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it accidental. Maria202 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I did remove that, because it wasn't an edit, it was reverting back to what Jhm had done with my post. You didn't contribute anything else and since it was redoing the vandalism to my comments that Jhm had done I removed it as well. - mixvio 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gossip

  • I disagree with Hermione. I do not believe that every bit of unsubstantiated gossip that comes along, and that the tabloids have a field day over, is worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia. That is the issue. At what point is malicious gossip substantial enough to deserve to be documented. I realize that it is very difficult to put threshholds on such a nebulous topic. But on the other hand, I do not believe that every passing tabloid story deserves a place in an encyclopedic reference - even if such gossip DID indeed happen. The world is full of tons more gossip that real stories, and we could get overwhelmed very quickly. Michigan user 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
What Hamitonian has suggested is that time is the qualifier by which we might judge the noteworthiness of gossip. It is a valid suggestion - although certainly not the only possible solution. If we give this particular bit of unsubstantiated gossip another month to see if indeed it is just a passing fancy of the tabloids, to see if it has faded away from the public conciousness - at least we will have attempted to provide due diligence on the topic. If indeed there is still substantial mention of the gossip at that time - then perhaps I could concede that it is time to put in the 2-3 sentences that Mixvio worked on. [4] (Although my personal opinion is that if it is unsubstantiated it should NEVER be in Wikipedia - because it is just a step up from vandalism). Michigan user 15:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

(Note: There is no user registered with Wikipedia with the user name Browned user). Michigan user 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
He means Browned [5]. He's contributed in the past and I think he has trouble leaving his signature. - mixvio 17:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, this isn't about him being gay. It's about the widespread availability of the story. It should be here because it's pertinent. - mixvio 17:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You say it is pertinent. I say that it is not. The issue at hand is whether being widespread in the tabloids is a valid reason for including unsubstantiated gossip in Wikipedia. I do not believe that it is. Michigan user 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
And that's fine, because pertinent is subjective, but you'll see that the majority who's voted so far disagrees with you. - mixvio 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I totally disagree with your accounting. Michigan user 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, then you're blind. It's eight to five. - mixvio 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please leave the personal smears out of this. Who are you counting how . . . because I don't see that. Michigan user 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You'll note that I was more gracious in my accounting than others have been in the past. I included everyone, even the anons and the users with no edits up until they decided to get involved with this debate and suddenly had a mastery of the Wikipedia interface.
Against inclusion
Katefan0
Michigan user
Jmh123
Maria202
Will Beback
For inclusion
mixvio
Rabinid
Wayeast
67.183.15.135
Jennifer
Dooder
Hermione1980
Whoby
Hamiltonian agrees to including the entry by mid-April
6 abstained but pushed against

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

  • So for what it is worth - I think that it is evenly split. Not that that is all that important. So let us get back to talking about whether Hamiltonian's suggestion is valid. He suggested waiting until mid-April and then LOOKING to see if the entry should be included. Michigan user 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, as I said already, but I don't believe the Claymates will be. I think they'll argue even then that the story's not important enough. I don't think anything will appease them short of Clay Aiken holding a press conference on C-SPAN and until that happens they'll drive this into the ground. - mixvio 18:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from the personal interpretations of other peoples opinions. They could just as easily make fun of your opinion. Let us just not go there. So let us try it this way. Can we try another quick check.


Quick Check

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

  • I agree only in the sense if the story's around in April then we all agree to include it with no further argument. I don't agree to stop debate now only to resume it in a month. I have a life. - mixvio 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As Michigan user. Seems reasonable to me. This is a long-term project and I don't think this information is ripe for inclusion at the moment. However, that's not to say that I don't think it could be down the road. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree of course with this silly poll. Who's going to judge how much "buzz" it has? This same silly "consensus" of Michigan/kate/jmh? I'd put more faith in a baked potato to make the unbiased call on that one. Furthermore Michigans quick check proposal and his subsequent vote in the quick check don't even match up. If youre going to write a poll like this at least adhere to your own rules. Basically Michigan user is proposing that we wait until april then maybe we'll still leave it out even if there is buzz. This is yet another evasion or stall tactic. Lastly who cares how much "buzz" this story has, thats irrelevant. Common sense people...common sense. 67.183.15.135 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Mixvio cares how much "buzz" there is - because we modified the statement to use his wording. And I am all for leaving the reference out now once and for all without revisiting the topic, if you don't want to revisit the issue in April. 66.82.9.80 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's so silly it's almost funny. You're going to wait a month to see if a news story is going to have less or more coverage than it does today, and assuming it does (which it will - of course it will - a month will have passed) you're going to feel better about pretending that it didn't happen at all? That's a solution which is engineered with one outcome from the start. Any news story/breaking news/"buzz" will be considerably smaller a month after, or two months after, it breaks. (Whoby 21:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Side discussion on wording of the Quick check

  • No, that is not what Hamiltonian suggested, nor was this what I agreed to. He said that as long as the issue maintains the same level of publicity in April we would add the Paulus reference. We don't need another meaningless poll. - mixvio 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ummm - yeah - that is what I said. If it maintains the same level of publicity we add it. If it does not then we do not add it. Michigan user 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not what you said. Your phrasing makes it look like it's a discussion of dropping the issue for now and picking it up again in April. Whereas Hamiltonian's suggestion, and the one I support, is to wait until April and put it in if it has the same level of buzz then as it does now. Not reopening debate in April. - mixvio 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please. You're making this unnecessarily tendentious. Regardless of your (or anyone's) interpretation of what Hamiltonian said, the suggestion under discussion right now is simply to reevaluate this information's inclusion in April, including the possibility of not including it, as well as the possibility of including it. We aren't drafting a suicide pact. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well since I did not make myself clear apparently - I will re-word the original question. Then could you please edit your comments here to leave only what pertains to that. Michigan user 18:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I understood you the first time. Maria202 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're not agreeing to a "suicide pact" as Kate puts it, then what's the point of these? The story came out in the beginning of January and now, three months later it's still around. The Downing Street memo was a vital piece of American news that completely dropped out of consciousness within even a month after being reported on. If we're not going to agree that if the story's still around in April we should put it in the article then I see absolutely no sense in agreeing to resume the possibility of not including it a month from now. That's what this current argument is for. - mixvio 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion. Time to let others discuss theirs. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The first 4 pages of Google news (sorted by date) for Aiken contain NO mention of this. Maria202 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Although to be fair, the entire first 2 pages are multiple copies of the same article. Moreover, I found this, which is coverage of the "webcam affair" from the Globe & Mail, one of Canada's largest and well-respected newspapers from March 11 [6]. While not about Paulus per se, it might be indicative that the "gay rumours paragraph" has to change. (Just noticed that the link requires registration. If you go through Google News and type in "Cruising the twilight of the idols", iy should work without registration.) --Hamiltonian 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course they think the whole thing is not noteworthy at all: "How could it possibly matter if the entire American Idol team were gay?' Michigan user 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Which nicely illustrates the whole conundrum we're in - she's noting something's unnotability by noting it, thereby making it notable. Heh. --Hamiltonian 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL - Michigan user 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused as to what I'm agreeing to or disagreeing to, but I don't see the purpose of waiting a month just to debate it further. The allegations are out there. The story has been published and discussed in countless reliable and verifiable places for weeks now, let alone the unreliable sources. The level of "chatter" a specific topic has in the media after 3 months does not, and has never determined, under Wikipedia standards, it's validity for inclusion. This is neither breaking news nor simple hearsay gossip from either a fan message board or a friend of a friend. --Rabinid 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
And as we said above just the existance of unsubstantiated gossip is not necessarily enough to merit adding it to Wikipedia. No matter how many people talk about it. And the story first hit the press Jan 20 or so, about 7 weeks ago - not really 3 months. I do not believe that the story as it is ever belongs in Wikipedia. It is unproven gossip of no merit. However I am trying to work with Mixvio on a compromise that I do not fully believe in, so my concession is to say that if this tabloid fodder stands the test of time, he can add the 2-3 sentences. If the story fades in as short a time as one more month - then what were we cluttering up Wikipedia with it for anyway. Michigan user 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I found this from the London Telegraph, the UK's largest and well respected newspapers (and that was picked up by Australia's and India's largest papers as well as others) on the story [7]

Moreover, I found the full FTC complaint (not just a press release)[8] --Rabinid 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bwahaha - I did not realize that you could submit an "official" complaint to the FTC without even fully identifying yourself!!
[quote]Nine Aggrieved Consumers
Susan J. Patricia A. Jacquelyn C. Karen G.
Raleigh, NC Raleigh, NC Durham, NC San Francisco, CA
Phyllis S. Carol M. Karen G. Linda F. Kim M.
Boston, MA Boise, ID Los Angeles, CA Scottsdale, AZ Newark, NJ
[/quote]
Might as well put in Jane Doe. Just astounding. Of course it is not like they believed in their hoax enough to actually see a lawyer or anything. And entering a complaint is free. OK - back to reality. Michigan user 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hamiltonian said "Although to be fair, the entire first 2 pages are multiple copies of the same article." Quite true as that is the norm with actual news. The difference lies in the fact that these are all legitimate newspapers and the article is in the entertainment section where as the other was mostly in a few tabloid type papers and appeared in the gossip section. I am an ex-New Yorker and am very familiar with The New York Post. Maria202 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"The story came out in the beginning of January and now, three months later it's still around." Incorrect. The first story was published in the National Enquirer on January 25. -Jmh123 02:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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

AIFan

I'm not even touching this. - mixvio 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Due to the fact that I have a real life and this argument has consumed a lot more of it than I care for it to, I'm leaving the discussion indefinitely. Make no mistake, I don't do this because I feel my stance is incorrect. I do it because I'm exasperated by the resounding lack of maturity and extreme hypocrisy by many involved in this debate. I'm leaving because it's approached even the limit of my willingness to waste my time. I think many of you are children, and you can whine and bitch about this being a personal attack all you want but I could really care less by this point. Your quest to hold wikipedia to the overwhelming double standard of militantly protecting the reputations of celebrities you feel personal affinity for has damaged and crippled the project far worse than the inclusion of "lies" ever possibly could have. I hope you're satisfied. I hope that keeping three sentences out of the article was really worth it to you. Maybe you should do some soul-searching and examine why it was. - mixvio 19:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
After doing a great deal of soul-searching, I examined my motives, and have come to the conclusion that there are some matters of principle that are worth standing up for. One of those matters, for me, is the issue of allowing unsubstantiated gossip to smear a person's reputation. Whether it be about sexual identity, chemical addictions, faithfulness, gambling, whatever. If it is just unsubstantiated gossip - we should not be facilitating the spread of that gossip. I feel very strongly about this. Not only on this article, but on any article. 66.82.9.80 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the whole debate is crippled by a fundamental misunderstanding about what is exactly on the table. The Aiken fans feel that this is an attempt to add a rumour (Aiken/Paulus) to his biographical entry as fact, and quote gossip as the source. I don't see that at all. The issue is whether to record the fact that the scandal (which is a real, quantifiable event, even if you don't believe it) exists, not the allegation on which it is based. The scandal exists. Full stop. If it didn't, there wouldn't be 20 people in this forum arguing about it. The article should record the scandal, and note that the allegation on which it is based has not been proven. It's as simple as that. No essays, no long hurrahs. (I would even suggest the Paulus article should be culled back to the bare bones.) The whole notion of letting the level of "buzz" determine its ongoing validity is comical. We don't talk much about the moon landing much in the press any more, but that shouldn't be grounds for its removal from Wikipedia. (Whoby 21:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
The moon landing was a huge story when it happened. The Aiken-Paulus-webcam amusement is happening now. My question is whether it's notable enough even when its happening - if it's not notable enough now, it can't be included. If it is, then it can. (And the level of Buzz on the moon landing was very high - 1/3 in fact.) --Hamiltonian 22:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Larry asked Simon about the "lawsuit" - which we all know is not really a lawsuit at all. He did not say a word about Paulus. And Simon was totally dismissive about it. The FTC complaint addresses the issue of Clay being Gay. The article already addresses that topic. 69.19.14.42 03:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again the point has never been about the credibility or content of the allegations but the fact that it is being reported and discussed in numerous mainstream verifiable sources. Regardless of your belief in the content, or the journalism credentials of Larry King, previously a marker was held out that it wasn't on CNN so the news somehow wasn't mainstream. That marker has now been achieved and yet some would still seek to construct further qualifications toward obstructing any reasonable mention of the subject(s). That is not only POV but also reeks of censorship. --Rabinid 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
That marker has NOT been achieved - Paulus was not even mentioned. Your comment is totally irrelevant. Michigan user 01:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you calling this a news report? [10] Should some actual reporting, that is, some investigation and not mere repetition of someone's allegations--have taken place somewhere along the line, maybe some of us wouldn't be so resistant. There is a difference between news and gossip. The LKL reference is cursory (less than 30 seconds), occurs in the context of a celebrity interview, and is absent any specifics. It is not a CNN news report.
It's a catch-22. Mainstream NEWS apparently deems this story unworthy of investigation, but without that investigation, the story is skewed. Wikipedia does not permit original research, and is not a news organization. Some of us are aware of facts that belie JP's claims, but we cannot put them here because they have not been reported in the media, because no one in the media deems the story worthy of investigation (though some seem to find it fun to gossip about). This is why I keep saying that we must allow time. We are not in the news business, we are an encyclopedia, and we can afford to wait until the story can be evaluated in perspective. -Jmh123 07:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me Rabinid - are you saying that a mention of an FTC complaint in some way relates to the PAULUS story?? Surely you would not want us to think that the Paulus camp had anything to do with PLACING that story do you? If not, then it is unrelated news, and has NOTHING to do with the current issue - which is about the 2-3 sentences relating to the Paulus story. SO - what is your point?? The LKL mention had NOTHING to do with the Paulus allegations, it only relates to a hoax put out by some "fans" that we have not even really discussed here. 66.82.9.62 11:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is interesting that Larry was willing to bring up issues about Clay with Simon - and yet felt NO need to mention Paulus. Because Paulus was not notable enough. Apparently the bogus complaint was more credible than the Paulus story. 66.82.9.62 11:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of investigative reporting Larry King did not bother to do any investigating himself. If he had he would have known that the "lawsuit" is a supposed FTC complaint filed by 9 women who choose to remain anonymous and that the FTC has refused to confirm that a complaint was filed. Simon Cowell's answer was that it was crazy. Maria202 13:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep mixing unrelated stories together? Clay is in the news alot. The stories about Clay being Gay have been around for three years. None of this has anything to do with Paulus. Just because Paulus was in the news for a few weeks starting 7 weeks ago (but not hardly at all the last few weeks) - does not automatically mean that all news about "Clay is Gay" suddenly has something to do with Paulus. The FACT is that Paulus was not even mentioned in the ET Canada story. Which means that yet ANOTHER media story felt that he was not notable enough to warrant a mention, even when discussing the gay topic. So it really has nothing to do with the conversation on including the 2-3 sentences about Paulus. 66.82.9.90 03:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
ET Canada is connected to Canada.com. The story was not on ET in the US or on the US ET broadcast in Canada. Too bad they didn't get their facts correct and went for the sensational instead. Maria202 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I would say that the fact that Paulus was conspicuously absent from the 2 incidents that Rabinid jumped on, actually make the case that Paulus is not notable enough to mention in an encyclopdic reference. -- Michigan user 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FTC Complaint


I agree that neither the LKL mention nor Canadian ET is relevant to Paulus. If we were to include a mention of the recent media attention to the "lawsuit/s", we would need to also say that these outlets are reporting the story incorrectly. There was a press release about an FTC complaint which may or may not have actually been filed. In the press release the "9 fans" said they were considering a lawsuit. No one is actually suing anyone. If the "mainstream" media has the facts all wrong, then what? -Jmh123 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I think that we should wait to see if the "Lawsuit" thing, which is really an "FTC Complaint" thing will end up in SNOPES as a hoax. The whole thing only happend because of a problem with Google Press Releases being compromised [11]. So I think that the topic would be more related to the Google article than here. All of which is "breaking news" anyway. -- Michigan user 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC}
  • The press release on the FTC complaint came from a site in the UK called Pressbox [12] where anyone can create their own press release. A second press release taking issue with Simon Cowell for his "it's crazy" remarks on LKL was created yesterday 3/22/06. Google did not pick this one up in their news search. Maria202 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The second "press release" is unsigned and has no contact information. -Jmh123 22:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There was no contact information in the first "press release" either. Maria202 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a generic hotmail address at the end of the first release. This is the release in which they announce that they are "considering" a class action suit and a "possible" FTC complaint. -Jmh123 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

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

The guy who requested mediation announced his departure from Wikipedia about a week ago. See his comments on this "talk" page, and at the end of this page: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-07_Netoholic_&_Locke_Cole. -Jmh123 13:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how this whole mediation thing works - but I posted this over at the mediation page under discussion:
Are we supposed to be moving the discussion over here? All of the history of this is on the Clay Aiken discussion page. Over there we basically agreed to wait a month (to mid-April) and see if the Paulus allegations still appeared notable. At that point it would have been not quite 3 months since the National Enquirer first published the gossip. Frankly Paulus has barely been mentioned by anyone in the last several weeks - so I think that this is a non-issue. Just some guy trying to use the tabloids to jump start his gay porn movie career. Totally non-notable. Since Mixvio decided not to continue the conversation, the only person left that is really pushing for the Paulus blurb to be added to the Aiken article is Rabinid - and that is because he is the author of the Paulus article. -- Michigan user 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think discussion related to mediation with the absent complainant must be moved over there. Having on-going discussion in two places will be too confusing. This whole situation certainly highlights one of the problems with Wikipedia. Mixvio, with virtually no history at Wikipedia, stormed in and raised holy hell over this issue, and received support in the form of getting this page and the Paulus page locked. Now that things have finally quieted down, this mediation he isn't even around anymore to participate in is introduced. -Jmh123 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that people that are refusing to tasteful include references to the specualtion about Mr. Aiken's sexuality, are bigots. The story got picked up by Larry King Live, as some fans have filed a federal complaint against the record labels for misleading them. -Browned
Following WikiGuidelines does not make us bigots, thank you. Larry never said a single word about Paulus. The FTC complaint is a hoax that would never have been noticed except for the fact that Google Press Releases got compromised so that any Joe Blow on the street could push through a press release about any topic that they wanted. -- 66.82.9.59 10:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Browned, calling people who disagree with you offensive names is an ineffective form of persuasion. There's nothing tasteful about Paulus' claims, and they are dead in the water anyway. We already have a general reference to speculation about Aiken's sexuality. -Jmh123 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Generally mediation will only be attempted if all parties agree to the mediation. Since the "other side's" main protagonist has left, I'm not sure there's much to mediate for now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the mediator now has work to do. I'm interested to see how he handles it. -Jmh123 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it helps, I'm all for it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope he's got plenty of asprin. - Maria202 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the mediator will be fine. As confusing as this issue is to some editors on here, common sense usually prevails. Any reasonable person would come across this wikipedia article on Aiken and question why the only noteworthy thing that happened to him in 2006 has been censored. All arguments for or against the credibilty of the scandal are irrelevant and POV. Again...to simplify it for the confused editors...a NPOV reference to the Paulus story, which has been reported in many media outlets now, serves only to inform the public of what has transpired. The intent was never to "out" your idol. Why not allow the public access to the same information that all of us has had access to? Because it is distasteful to you? Sorry...the idea that it is distasteful is POV and not what wikipedia is about. Why don't we just report the facts? Namely that 1) This scandal did occur 2) Aiken's camp did issue a statement about it and 3) Some fans filed a complaint because they felt deceived about Aiken allegedly concealing his homosexuality. --67.183.15.135 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
One can only hope common sense prevails. I hope the mediator's a Neil Young fan or something, personally. - mixvio 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Anon, if you wish to argue this issue, the discussion is now taking place on the mediation page. -Jmh123 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Anon, the conversation is indeed over on the mediation page - but please do not mix the FTC complaint hoax with the Paulus incident. They are unrelated. There is nothing in that complaint that mentions Paulus, and gay topic that it does address has been around for a long time before Paulus came along. See the conversation above about the breech in Google Press Releases. -- 66.82.9.84 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection record?

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

I want credit if it is! :P - mixvio 23:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Bah, it's not that great an achievement. It was protected for 11 days last July. Hermione1980 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's ironic (and humorous) that what could have been an understated statement likely lost within Aiken's lengthy Bio page has instead turned into a full page discussion of the allegations (with juicy details and convenient links to all press on the subject, no less)... for all the world to read.
What is ironic is that if you add up all the media exposure that Paulus got about his story and counted words - it would probably not add up to the number of words used in this Wikipedia argument. It was just not that widely reported. However very few folks ever read Wikipedia directly, most of the exposure is when the article itself get printed in a news source with a credit back to Wikipedia. And of the folks that actually read the article in Wikipedia itself, very few ever look at the discussion page. And eventually even that gets archived. --66.82.9.83 01:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
If we remove the protection can people avoid getting into a revert war? There's been plenty of discussion here so the issues should have been covered. I suggest we ask for the protection to be lifted so we can return to editing. -Will Beback 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather it not be lifted until after the Paulus issue is decided. I don't think there're any pressing edits that need to be made to update the page and if there are they can be done by an admin, correct? I think it's safer for either side if we keep the page locked until after we have an agreement on what brought about protection in the first place. While I understand that two weeks is a while to keep it under guard, I think it's better this way and I mean that honestly and sarcastic-less-ly. - mixvio 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What is left to decide about Paulus? Are we working towards that decision? -Will Beback 23:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, an attempt at mediation is underway here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations. -Jmh123 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Holy cow. OK, let's leave the protection on for a while longer. -Will Beback 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
logorrhea I needed that laugh. Thanks. - Maria202 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clay_Aiken/Archive_10&oldid=1136615819"