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Portions of this talk page have been archived.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

More

Sorry, there is no default. There IS a consensus to keep this information, whether you disagree or not. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Well, an anon IP just erased my comment above. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the anon reversions are beginning again -- some fan probably posted to a fansite somewhere asking for folks to flock here -- and I'm increasingly coming to believe that we'll have to request the page be protected again. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

I have now requested the page be protected. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 21:09 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd be happy to have all discussion stop before others can contribute. I'm also guessing that a new user may not understand how to use the edit features and made a mistake. It is a little tricky. I still can't get my name right.

Since there is the spirit of open discussion, it seems that your attempts to silence any further comments are self serving. I do hope the Sysops assess the need for themselves. Silencing intelligent opinion would be a form of censorship. Let's hear what everyone with an opinion has to say.

I believe that it is against Wikipedia Policy to request page protection if you are an admin and are also involved in the dispute. Your supposition that I was involved in the previous revert war anonymously can be disproven by the IP addresses of those who did participate, if anyone with access to that info cares to check. Your involvement Hermione and katefan0 is of a biased nature. You are abusing any power you may have.

User:Miklos Szabo

You're right about the admin/protection thing, but I'm not an admin.... so needless to say, I have no power to abuse. Thanks for the promotion, though! · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 02:42 (UTC)

a) Thank you Katefan. Revert wars are always disruptive. b) Miklos, of course my involvement is "of a biased nature". So is yours. So is everyone's ever in the history of Wikipedia. c) It is not "abusing" power to request the page be protected (emphasis on request; if the admins decide it should not be protected, so be it). First of all, Katefan is only requesting the actual article be protected, not the talk page. You are free to thrash it out on the talk page and people are free to express their opinions here. d) Miklos, if you aren't the IP address involved in the previous revert war, fine. I apologise if I ever said or implied that. You and s/he simply have a similar editing pattern.

And for your name, you can click on the little signature button at the top of the edit box or copy these symbols: ~~~~ (if you're looking at the source code, don't copy the nowiki tags). That adds your username and a timestamp. Hermione1980 8 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

As Hermione said, a page protection only locks the page from editing. Your ill-conceived accusations about me desiring to quash debate on the talk page is simply incorrect; page protection does nothing to the talk page. In fact it's supposed to encourage more talking, instead of just reverting one another constantly. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

I found this page very recently. I'm quite the noobie here and have already made some mistakes. Thanks for explaining what tildes are. I'll do that next time.

In order to make a decision on the inclusion of the Openly Clay link perhaps those people who want to keep it in would be so kind as to visit that site and see for themselves why there is so much opposition. Its the only way to make an informed decision and the only way that any vote can be fairly cast. If you have not seen for yourself and only take katefan0's word for it then its not NPOV. The comments by anonymous users are probably not signed because of their lack of familiarity with how this place works. My first few comments were like that until I figured it out.

Miklos Szabo 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

--Morry 9 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)Include another registered member voting to expel all references to the sick, vulgar, pornographic, fantasy site known "Openly Clay". Members of this ghetto continually attempt to out this straight man with only their disgusting imaginations as evidence, instead of more productively using their time seeking much needed psychiatric help. [user: Morry] 8 July 2005

I don't think the defaming of the OC folks is going to help our case with any neutral parties here. I think our arguments are more likely to be heard and respected if we tone down the rhetoric.

65.78.81.77 9 July 2005 00:27 (UTC) [don't mind my IP being displayed with a code that usually reveals my username, but in case anyone wants to know, this is Jmh123.]

Figured it out - wasn't logged in - duh. At least you know I'm not anonymous. :) Jmh123 9 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)

Well, I don't know who makes up the consensus to want the information left in, but I would bet if you asked around Clay Nation, they would tell you NO they do not want it listed as a fan site. There are major differences to the type of site that is when compared to fan sites that support Clay, his career, and bring together people wanting to help the causes he cares about. None of those things exist at OC. It is strictly about their own little world of gay fan fic, their own moaning and groaning of mistreatment, their plans to get onto every board and make themselves known, their plans to attend concerts wearing their Openly Clay clothing, seeing John if he is there and sending Openly Clay gifts to Clay to try to make him acknowledge them. These are not the actions carried out by other fan boards that support him and his causes. They are truly disgusting and the support being given to them here is totally ridiculous. This site tries to be informative about the real facts of celebrities and others, telling what they really have done and are doing. Openly Clay is total fiction that only exists in these people's heads---there is very little true Clay information shared there or even cared about. Please keep them off your list so that people truly wanting to find about more about Clay will visit the sites that truly support him---not ones that try to degrade him every chance they get.

AIFan

Here's another vote to remove the OC references. A board that repeatedly makes fun of Clay, his family, friends, actions, etc. and has been active in starting rumors that could hurt Clay's career, does not belong with the other fan boards.--Mouse316

From the Openly Clay site:

Welcome to Openly Clay, the very first gay-friendly Clay Aiken fan community and message board

We are here because Clay has quite a few GLBT fans, as well as many gay-friendly straight fans. The OC was born out of the need for a place to discuss Clay in an environment free of homophobia and judgment; here is a safe place to discuss what makes Clay so unique in a positive light, without fear of censorship.

Openly Clay does not make any definitive statement about Clay's sexual orientation. If you think he's gay, straight, bi, or just plain fabulous, that's okay! Members are free to say anything they want, as long as it's done with respect to all POVs.

All open-minded individuals who love and support Clay Aiken are encouraged to apply!

With that summary, I really don't see any reason why it should not be included. It suits the criteria for NPV, in my opinion. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

All you read is a summary. That's not enough to make a judgement on the board. Believe me, that summary is not an accurate description. It makes it sound like the members are actually respectful to Clay, when in reality they are anything but.--Mouse316

Does "respectful" = "think he's straight?" Just curious. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 03:28 (UTC)

Here's a clue, hon: Not everyone who hates the OC is a homophobe. No, "respectful"= "not ridiculing someone for everything he does". That's my real problem with the OC. They're just plain mean to Clay. That's disrespectful.--Mouse316

Vitriol

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Personally, witnessing the level of vitriol and hatred espoused by Clay's "fans" toward people who are part of Openly Clay makes me feel even more strongly about the inclusion of the Openly Clay link. In fact I wonder if the article might need a separate subsection about the infighting between fan groups. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 02:49 (UTC)

maybe there should be more surprise at the level of vitriol and hatred leveled at Clay. katefan0 appears to only champion the cause of the Openly Clay group and seems entirely unconcerned by their actions or the effect that these people have had on his public image. These people post on gossip sites like datalounge, gawker and defamer. They invent relationships with Clay's friends and employees and insist that he hires male prostitutes. These gossip sites are combed daily by tabloids, disk jockeys and other media, searching for tidbits to tittilate their audience. Comedy writers for Conan O'Brien and Mad TV use those sites for material. Its no surprise to me that some of the stories that were invented by this group have been repeated on air as juicy gossip.

What does surprise me at this point is that someone who claims to be an NPOV editor at Wikipedia is so unwilling to engage in a meaningful exchange, but would rather stubbornly hold onto the defense of the indefensible. I'm not surprised that some of the comments in this discussion are surmising that katefa0 has an ulterior motive. I would not be at all surprised if she were a member of the OC group.

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Like you hadn't already decided that before taking a "census," Katefan. Who do you think you're fooling?

Go for it on your subsection about infighting. Who knows? Maybe you'll get even MORE attention about your little "encyclopedia/tabloid."

Be careful what you wish for.

I put in the IP, because that is what you are identified by when you edit a page. You identified yourself as someone else, and I altered that, because you are not the user you claimed to be when you made your comment. You are more than free to complain to the site owner if you so choose, but if you don't like to be identified by IP, register.--Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)

Feel free to contact the ___domain administrator if you feel the need, but you're the one logged in as your IP. If you don't want to be identified by your IP, then register for an account and log in with that account when you edit on Wikipedia. Nobody is maliciously identifying your IP, by continuing to not log into an account you're choosing to use your IP as your identifier instead. Erasing other peoples' comments isn't the way to go here. Just log in. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 04:15 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Are you threatening me? · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 03:13 (UTC)

• Normally, referring to an artist's sexuality is simply irrelevant IMO. However, if it is being constantly lampooned on shows like Saturday Night Live or Late Night with Conan O'Brien, at that point I do think it becomes a noteworthy issue (i.e., one deserving of a SENTENCE's mention, two at the absolute most.) I would say the same of, e.g. Tom Cruise... for most entertainers in the world, rumors are inappropriate to include, but if the rumor reaches the point where there's continual, undisguised speculation in very popular magazines/TV shows for years, then I do think it merits inclusion. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:56 (UTC)

I personally feel that the inclusion of prevelant rumors such as Clay's homosexuality, so long as it is done in using a Neutral Point-of-view, is not only appropriate, but also important for the articles completeness. Yes, his sexual preference is contested. The article says so, but this is for the purpose of completion. This isn't one of Clay's fan sites, nor is it a tabloid, it is simply an encylopedic article that strives to be as complete and relevant as possible. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above. When a rumor like this rises to the level of becoming common pop culture knowledge -- i.e., has begun being referenced in a number of public venues, especially those that do satire (like Saturday Night Live), then it becomes relevant to an article such as this. For instance, I would expect the Richard Gere article to contain a very brief, NPOV reference to the gerbil thing. Which it does. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

FYI, that reference was deleted yesterday by someone who according to IP edit history has not executed any deletes in this Aiken entry, and it has not been reverted: "17:10, 8 July 2005 69.3.92.105 (Removed idiotic rumor reference which does not belong here, let alone at the top of the article.)" The brief discussion in "talk" there is taking place in a different universe from the one going on here. -Jmh123 09:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is not about whether to include the last paragraph of the article. That's long over and it stays. We are discussing the link to Openly Clay.

That forward from Openly Clay is a lovely bit of propoganda. Its not how the board is run. Its not a relevant resource. A handful of twisted people are not enough to justify the negative effect it will have on his image. He strives to be a good role model for children. A significant percentage of his fans are children. This site will ruin his credibility in the eyes of his young fans. Why can't you see that?

Please let's not use the term prevalent. It puts a lot more weight on it than there should be.The gay speculation in the media has dropped off in the last year.

Nobody in the last few days has contested the inclusion of the final paragraph in the article. That was decided and is as NPOV as it can be.

The problem is that Openly Clay will be the ONLY fan message board representing Clay's fans if it is left on the article page. There are hundreds of fan message boards devoted to Clay. Why would this one, that paints a ridiculous picture of Clay, and certainly does not represent the majority or even a significant number of fans be the ONLY fanrun message board linked? If all message boards are not included in the article than none of them should get special treatment.

Take a look at this quote. Its from an Administrator of the site and gives a clue to the atmosphere and intent of Openly Clay, I removed the name of the admin:

MISS LICKING COUNTY

Group: Admin Posts: 852 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 14

The rumor mill is at an all-time high! Let's keep it here and TRY to keep it clean. *snort* Yeah, yeah...I didn't really mean that. Go for it!!

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

Your main argument for removing the link seems to be that you are disgusted by their suggestion that Clay Aiken is gay. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but deleting a link because you find gay people disgusting is not exactly a convincing case in my opinion. In terms of why I think the link should stay, essentially it's this: links to fansites should be a thumbnail of those sites that are most representative of his fanbase's populace. Given that these people do exist, I think the link should stay along with a selection of other of the fansites that are the most frequented. It's about being representative, and simply deleting the Openly Clay site would not be representative of that segment of his fans. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 03:48 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! 300 people is nothing compared to the number of fans he has. Many message boards run in the thousands. This is a small group.

I am not in any way disgusted by homosexuality by the way. I am a gay man who sees that this man is not gay and a goood man. He doesn't need to walk my walk just because I do.

My objection is to the ridicule!!!!! These are not fans. Its an entertainment site. They get off on slash and porn and shipping!!! They do not represent a fansite. How many ways can we say that?

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

Katefan0, I'm sorry you are being attacked by this person (Marie Lavaux). I wish that you could ignore these comments, as they are not contributing to the conversation. There is no need that I can see to engage with every angry comment--some are best ignored.

I think a more valuable section for your encyclopedia might be the whole issue of gay rights, prejudices against gays, and related subjects. I confess I haven't read a great deal of this site--perhaps there is such an entry already. The frustration for me in this dialogue is that a position against Openly Clay is being construed as an anti-gay position. Sometimes it is exactly that; other times you have heard the voices of people like Miklos and myself who object on other grounds, who are familiar with the site and its agenda. I have heard no one who supports the site discuss its content in any great detail. Assumptions are being made, understandable assumptions. Look at the post above which quotes the statement from OC: "How reasonable it sounds, what can be wrong with that?" Well, nothing, if that was all there was to it. My issue with OC, and an agenda that isn't discussed on that page, concerns the appropriateness of pushing someone to out himself, or trying to out him, when he may actually not be gay. Not everyone who fits the stereotypes is gay. Not every gay person fits a stereotype. Comedians like Kathy Griffin and Conan O'Brien, shows like MadTV and SNL capitalize on these stereotypes, and have frequently made Clay the butt of their comedy. This isn't good for the world of GLB's any more than it is for Clay. It is because of this kind of ignorance that the Openly Clay agenda irks me. They aren't arguing that homosexuality is OK; they are arguing that someone who is effeminate in his mannerisms must be gay, and that he must out himself. But consider for a moment the possibility that Clay isn't gay at all, that because he's geeky and sometimes effete, he has been stereotyped. In what way does this advance gay rights or the genuine understanding of homosexuality? To me, this would be a much more interesting discussion than in-fighting among fan bases. That is, if the goal of this site is to advance knowledge.

This reminds me of a situation at my workplace a few years ago in which a woman undertook to destroy a man. Both were new at their jobs. Because people there were good liberals, they assumed she was in the right, and supported her cause. As it turned out, she was mentally unstable and was using all concerned. Just because OC is openly in support of the GLB cause, which is a worthy cause, does not mean that it is in the right. I'm sorry that there were not more here who were willing to dig deep enough to learn more about this for themselves before the site was "cleaned up." (Where are the OC members in this argument, by the way? Will no one come out and admit to membership? And if not, how is it that they are aware of it, and yet have not participated?)

Jmh123 9 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

Hello katefan?! Did you not read my comment to you in the other section? I don't have a problem with them saying Clay is gay, but it's the way they say it that bothers me. First of all, it's obvious that they actively try to spread rumors everywhere they can. Why else would they wear the silly shirts with the website's name on it out in public? But my real problem is the nastiness of so many of the posts on that board that is directed at Clay. I've seen some posts that seemed psychotic because of all the hostility the poster was spewing. I think their board is an excuse for mean, unhappy women to get together and take out all their anger on someone who doesn't deserve it. And it's a joke when these women pretend to support gay rights. Making fun of someone because they're "so fey" is only backtracking gay rights. --Mouse316

Been digging around this site a bit. There's a very long entry on homosexuality--good! There's also a section entitled List of famous gay, lesbian, and bisexual people which includes the following paragraph:

Some homosexual groups (e.g., Outrage!), have followed a policy of outing public figures regularly for political purposes, usually only if that person is publicly anti-gay. However, such a policy is controversial even among lesbigay people because of privacy concerns, potential harm to family relationships, their right to cope with their own sexuality on their own terms, or the risk of discrimination.

Clay Aiken has not been publicly anti-gay. Quite to the contrary, he has close gay friends with whom he associates openly regardless of the fact that this only fuels the rumors.

I am saddened that someone in a position of influence here has stereotyped those of us who object to this link, and accuses us of being "disgusted" by homosexuality. You could not be more wrong. A person can be disgusted by certain types of pornography without being disgusted by homosexuality, and it is reasonable to object to a link to such a site in this entry, especially when it is being regarded as representative. I can see how communications have become confused here, and I hope that our position is somewhat more clear now.

Jmh123 9 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

Flofan -- July 9, 2005 -- Add me to the list of those who vote against including a link to Openly Clay as a legitimate reference to the general conviction of the fandom. Openly Clay is a tiny group of unhappy people who have found a place to share their misery by assaulting Clay Aiken. Their stand is that Clay is gay, even though he says he isn't. They claim a list of 300 or so members -- which is kept private -- yet there are only a few who actually post there. Most of their more intelligent members have left for saner forums. Other members have been banned from Openly Clay for claiming too strongly that they believe Clay is straight, or for exposing the board for its lies. (The so-called "welcome" letter is a lie. All viewpoints are NOT welcome there.) What remains is a few bullies and belittlers who derive a malicious pleasure from making others uncomfortable. So even that tiny number of 300 is inflated. Many of the OC members have been banned from the other Clayboards because of their undermining of Clay's integrity. Their main board activities include writing porn for every possible contortion of Clay with every man he knows. In their fantasy, this is most often his hairdresser, whom they have accorded a sort of svengali-like power over Clay. They have been mooning over the same few pictures of Clay and his hairdresser for almost two years, imagining loving, longing looks between the two of them and claiming "sightings" of this man in Clay's presence even when he is not there. The board is made up of a small group of middle-aged women who write and share their gay pornography, icons, and "fey of the day" with their teenaged members. They are few, but they are pushy, vocal, and malignant, and they tend to make themselves known -- as they certainly have to the powers here at Wikipedia. But they are not a legitimate reference to a representation of Clay's fandom. Information from their board has been taken to gay blogs and gossip sites and has appeared almost verbatim to what is posted on their board. They wear "Openly Clay" gear to concerts and have even gleefully gotten into Clay's mother's face while she was being interviewed by a television reporter, while others from their group watched and laughed. Clay Aiken is a man who has put his efforts to philanthropy and clean entertainment. It makes him a visible target for those who would wish to bring him down to their unhappiness. His is not gay -- yet these folks have a great investment in trying to make him gay, because without that, they have lost the pawn of their fantasy. By validating their site, Wikipedia is not sending any readers to a factual source about Clay Aiken but instead to a place that perpetuates stereotypes and readily makes pornography available to members of any age. There are many, many other boards with reliable information about Clay. Openly Clay is not one of them. If such a site is condoned by Wikipedia, it will bring other information throughout this site into question. --Flofan

Looking back at katefa0's previous entries I am not surprised to see that she is not the sort to engage in reasonable discourse. In fact she admits that she just .... well let her own words speak for her:

"During the daytime (and often into the night), I am a political reporter in Washington, D.C. So far I have been A BITCH AND I KEEP PISSING PEOPLE OFF WITH GAY MESSAGES able to tamp down my desire to add myself to a List of newspaper writers. However, my will to resist such things is notoriously weak, so someone else might want to monitor this page."

Perhaps she should remove herself from this discussion since her contributions appear to be more about entertaining herself than about contributing any meaningful insight. She reminds me of a certain Bambina I was reading lately.

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

That was something a vandal did to my userpage, clearly. I don't see how it can possibly be useful to repost it here, except as a personal attack. Did you know those are prohibited here? Wikipedia:No personal attacks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 9, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

• Gah. I see that the loyal "Claymates" have once again removed most of the fansite links except for the ones that best suit their viewpoint. I really wish they'd look at the discussion here before making such changes. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

I fail to see how a quote from your own userpage that is publicly accessable here can be considered a personal attack, katefan0. I stand behind my opinion that you are not contributing to this discussion in any meaningful way.

Miklos Szabo 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

OC

Latest comment: 20 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I see the link to Openly Clay is no longer there. Has it been officially decided to remove it or have the Claymates snuck the edit back in? --Wilykit

The only fansites that need to be included in ANY "encyclopedia" are sites that are either official or contain reference information, Finding Clay Aiken, Clay Nation News, etc. A fansite such as Openly Clay or for that matter The Clayboard, Red Hot Topic or any other discussion type fansite aren't relevant to information about Clay Aiken. Especially a site that is minute when compared to the fandom as a whole. Openly Clay has a membership of approx. 300 members whereas the Official Fan Club has a membership of approx. 6900, The Clayboard 12,000 and Red Hot Topic 14,000. Information in an "enclyclopedia" should be based on fact and not on speculation or projections. If Wilkopedia wants to become a relevant reference tool then it should be responsible to provide "accurate" information and not include propaganda groups in an area to which they have no relevance. cherrychpstck 19:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

How hypocritical to insist information be removed that you claim is not true about you, yet you persist and are adament to continue to show and link to information about Clay that has been denied and stated as false for over 2 years. Exactly where is the fairness in your method--where is the openness? Why is it OK to smear his name and show and advance speculation but have a fit and take a threatening tone when information about you doesn't please you? If it has been mentioned about you, doesn't it make it fair game to exploit and continue to state in public---that is what you are allowing for Clay. I don't care how many people think it or say it or where it is written about and talked about, such as the fansite you continue to push for inclusion---the man denies it is true---end of story. Same as you are trying to do for yourself. False, ridiculous rumors or slams should be removed---about you AND ABOUT HIM. Sorry, you are no better----maybe you should consider the old, out dated GOLDEN RULE---do unto others. You don't want it about yourself----by golly I don't think he does either when he stated so tons of times and has since maintained his private life is no one's business. Sites that speculate and lie about it should not be advanced and promoted here.

AIFan

• "Stated as false" is not the same thing as "proven as false". The fact of the matter is, the question of Clay's sexual preference *is* noteworthy, due to it's saturation in media culture. If it offends you personally, I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not one of Clay's fansites; it's an online encyclopedia, that is striving to be as complete, neutral, and relevant as possible. Hiding or defacing one point of view because you do not personally agree with it is wrong. Remember, Neutral Point of View. Not "Let's all fall down on our knees and worship the almighty Clay Aiken". Leh sigh. --Blu Aardvark 21:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

First of all, to repeat, the topic here is the link to Openly Clay, a message board of questionable reputation, not whether reference should be made in this entry to the gay rumors. That is a question that has already been debated and resolved. Most of today's discussion does not appear to address that link directly. Is your argument, Blu Aardvark, that "saturation in media culture" justifies attaching a link to a gay porn site to this entry?

The topic of this subsection is vitriol [or it was until "talk" was sectioned again], under the umbrella of that larger issue--the Openly Clay link. It was suggested that a subject be added to this entry on in-flighting between fan groups. I countered that suggestion with another--that a more interesting and socially relevant factor at play here is that the public perception to which you refer (spread largely by a few comedians and comedy shows, along with certain members of Openly Clay feeding rumors to gay blogs) is fueled by media stereotypes of the male homosexual. I will add that our society also condones the mocking of individuals with characteristics associated with that stereotype as a legitimate form of "comedy". I also pointed out that assumptions were being made about the position of those opposing the link--to wit that we are "disgusted with homosexuality." Several of us have rejected that characterization and are offended by it. One can be a supporter of GLB's and their rights without enjoying certain kinds of explicit pornography, be it of gays, bis or straights. More to the point of this discussion, I see no reason that a small message board that specializes in the celebration of the hope that Clay Aiken is gay (via slash, photoshopping and shipping), along with an agenda of "outing" him, need be linked to this entry to defend a Neutral Point of View.

Comments have been made (and mocked) by people who make no secret of their status as fans of Aiken. Some of those comments are admittedly over the top, and I have said so; however, I do not accept a characterization of all those supporting the link as neutral and reasoned. I have seen among the carping (on both sides of the argument) here some excellent points made by those of us who oppose the link. Why is it that no one has responded to these points? Why the continued return to the argument that rumors prevail in pop culture?

Jmh123 22:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It becomes increasingly apparent that SOME people have not read the discussion to date. I'm looking at you Blu. The topic at hand is the link to the Openly Clay cesspool. Try to keep up!

The inclusion of the paragraph about the past speculation IS NOT being contested!!!!!

The exclusive link to a small, irrelevant, nasty bunch of a-holes is NOT a valid reference and does NOT lead to more information about Clay Aiken. It is NOT encyclopaedic knowledge! Sheesh!

Miklos Szabo 22:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I am well aware as to what the discussion is about. But why six fansites can be listed on the main page, and one is removed every time it pops up... that's not NPV. And besides, my comment was directed at the anonymous "AIFan" above, hence the indent and bullet. --Blu Aardvark 22:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Being a Clay Aiken fan is NOT a requirement its a point in your favor.

Miklos Szabo 22:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Blu, you said:

"Wikipedia is not one of Clay's fansites; it's an online encyclopedia, that is striving to be as complete, neutral, and relevant as possible."

In what universe would linking to an entertainment/gossip site be relevant knowledge? Can we not survive in this world without reading slash fiction and viewing photoshopped pornography? The original suggestion was to only link to Clay's Official Fanclub, The RCA page relating to Clay's music, A website that includes a comprehensive list of links to Clay's fansites and message boards and a link to ClayAikenKids. Any other links are added by un-known people and are not a part of this discussion. There's a very good reason why OC is not listed. It is a message board to laugh at Clay. Certainly not NPOV.

Miklos Szabo 22:17, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• And again, that was in response to the comment left by the previous poster, and would make a good deal more sense if read in context. I'm actually rather central on the issue of the fansite link, but I do believe the reasons given for removing it have been inadequate, if not slanderous. --Blu Aardvark 22:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Are you kidding me? slanderous does not apply when there is proof. I can prove everything that has been said about Openly Clay. I was once a member. You have many people backing up the allegations in this discussion. You also have no-one with any knowledge of the site defending the allegations. Trust me they know this discussion is going on. Would you care to have me post the most recent remarks? If you have no personal knowledge of the site why would you defend it so strongly? Why not register at the site and request entry into the members only password protected area. Do you think you'll be granted entry? Not on your life, but if you try then you will see that it exists. Don't anyone take my or all of the other's word for it. Go apply for membership and when you have seen for yourself, you will have a valid argument. Till then you're just un-informed.

Miklos Szabo 22:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• OK, grant that. I can't say I am fully aware of the content in the members-only section. I've browsed through the public sections, and it looked decent. I did apply to the board, but upon recieving an e-mail asking for more information about myself, I scrapped the project. I'm not a Clay Aiken fan in any way, and as such doubt that I'd be given member access. --Blu Aardvark 22:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Other issues aside, Miklos, if what you object to about the site is accessible only through such a rigorous registration process, then what is really the problem? It's not like someone could click on the link unknowingly and come up with something they might find offensive. It sounds like it takes more than a little effort to get to the areas you dislike. I still am not convinced that the link should be removed. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:39, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can access the members only section including youngsters who pass the initial registration. They are now wary of scrutiny which is why I say I doubt you'd get in. The blowjob and barebacking emoticons might be a clue to the atmosphere, Trust me I like a nice BJ myself but we're not talking about gay men now. That site is populated by women and kids. I did not feel comfortable there and I'm not easily offended.

Miklos Szabo 22:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• From their email form letter, emphasis mine:

At Openly Clay we value open minds and people that respect differing views and opinions. By submitting this application you agree that you share this same philosophy, are sincere in your desire to participate in our community and are at least 18 years of age.

If it is populated by kids, I would have to assume that it is not intentional. But based on your descriptions of the site, which I have no real reason to doubt, and which do come from a different perspective than most of the "Claymates" have, I'd have to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be linked from the Wiki.--Blu Aardvark 23:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to remind everybody that Wikipedia isn't censored. I don't think "kids might see it" can ever really be a reason to remove information from an avowedly uncensored site. It's not our job to filter who registers there, it's the website's. Obviously there are ways in which information can be portrayed that is more and less sensitive, but I don't think this is a good enough reason to remove the link. Maybe we can add something like -- (18+) next to the description of the link instead. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:56, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

You do raise a good point, although I don't believe the site in and of itself is 18+, and I think such an addition could easily be misconstrued. There may be sections of the site which are 18+, but you need to have identified yourself as being of that age group in order to enter them. At least, that's the way I understand it. Oh, and added signature to my last edit, because I forgot to. --Blu Aardvark 23:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is the last few lines of the initial agreement that must be accepted before the detailed application is sent to your e-mail address. I have a copy of those questions and will post them when I find it.

"You agree that you have previously reviewed our public content, understand its purpose/intent and that by becoming a member you will be privy to other forums that may be of a more explicit nature of which you will have the option NOT to view.

You understand that an application process will follow your registration submission via email and that the administration of this message board reserves the right to allow/disallow any membership request at their discretion."

The applications that are not approved are unrelated to age.

Miklos Szabo 23:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Blu's remarks earlier clearly reproduced this line: By submitting this application you agree that you share this same philosophy, are sincere in your desire to participate in our community and are at least 18 years of age. Meaning, the very act of submitting the application is an agreement that you are 18+. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:13, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Silvy was 16 and has been a member of OC for over a year. On another message board, where she also posts, she says:

"I am a Clay fanfiction reader myself, but of the slash variety. It's not allowed at RHT, I understand that. Some people like that stuff. (you know you get hot n bothered with the sex scenes. =P) Hey, whatever floats yer boat! Think it's wrong and twisted? Fine."

Her mother won't let her go see Rent, because it has gay characters. And her mother just found out that Rufus Wainwright is gay, so she doesn't like him either. So this is an unsupervised kid. Lots of them are.

Miklos Szabo 23:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

A relevant policy that applies here is Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -Willmcw 23:57, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

FYI Miklos is incorrect with regards to Silvy's age. I know her from a couple of Clay boards, and she is at least 18 and recently graduated high school. --Wilykit 00:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Silvy was not 18 2 years ago and we are discussing the disclaimer at the OC site that states that you must be 18+ to enter the members only section. This is to refute that policy as being truthful. Once again, it would behoove you to read the preceding discussion, willmcw. She was 16 when she wrote the post I quoted above. There are plenty of others I can quote.

Miklos Szabo 00:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

When you said "Silvy is 16" I naturally assumed you were speaking in present tense, and I'm sure others did, too. As to the 18+ disclaimer, that is on the current application, as Blu already stated. I have no idea if it was on there previously. I'm not sure if any of this is relevant anyway. --Wilykit 00:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

In a sense you are quite right. The only criteria should be whether this link leads to further the search for knowledge about Clay Aiken. Clearly it does not. There are no facts there that will assist in this regard. Clay's article is not about his crazy fans on either side of this issue.

Miklos Szabo 00:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Protection

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The discussion thus far has not worked towards consensus and the article has been whipsawing back and forth. Because of the constant reverting I have temporarily protected the page from editing. Would all of the editors involved please take this opportunity to relax, re-read Wikipedia:dispute resolution, and then come back to this discussion with a spirit of wikilove and cooperation. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:23, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Did you read any of the discussion before choosing to protect the page with a link to that cesspool? Have you looked at what your site is now promoting? This is a criminal lack of neutrality. NPOV me arse.

Miklos Szabo 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't read any of it. It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that the editors are not collaborating productively. Comments like that do not help. Many articles have links to external sites that partisans of one side or another don't like. NPOV suggests that all sides of an issue need to be reported in a fair and proportionate manner. NPOV does not mean removing points of view that one disagrees with. -Willmcw 22:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

A proposal

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

"The only fansites that need to be included in ANY "encyclopedia" are sites that are either official or contain reference information, Finding Clay Aiken, Clay Nation News, etc. .... cherrychpstck 19:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)"

I have taken these quotations from the preceding dialogue. I propose that all links be removed from this entry other than the links to the Official Fan Club and Clay Nation News. I have no objection to removing those links as well. -Jmh123 23:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this proposal. The only relevant link is Clay Aiken's Official Fanclub. Any fans/non-fans pushing a personal favorite should be disregarded.

Miklos Szabo 00:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this proposal as well as no fansite is going to add anything to the article on Clay Aiken. I might add Clay Aiken's Office Site as well at this time as it is still functional and informational. cherrychpstck 00:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just took a look at the Aiken site and the only info I could find were four "news" items. The rest of the site seems to require paying $30 to visit. Did I miss something? MP3.com seems to have a much more complete profile. -Willmcw 02:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well since the profile is already listed in this article why would you need another site to provide that? The Official Fan Club site has been up and running for a week. You are also able to see the complete tour schedule and some media. The official site at www.clayaiken.com is also a source, or you can go to RCA Records as well. The point is these sites give information that isn't based on rumor and speculation which is what you get from the message board sites. There are a few fan sites that are not message boards which also provide information, but I would still be behind the proposal to include only official sites as message boards don't add anything significant to the discussion. cherrychpstck 12:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Willmcw. That's the Official Fanclub. The 30 dollar fee is the dues to join the fanclub for a year. There is access to pre-sale ticket information for members along with opportunites for Meet&Greet passes at the concerts,a complete tour itinerary, a store and Clay's own Blog along with news and upcoming appearances.

Miklos Szabo 02:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Since the www.clayaiken.com site is free that would seem like the preferable site, if there's to be only one. It seems to have more info that the fan club, and it's free. -Willmcw 02:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll go with that. Miklos Szabo 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

But we don't know how long www.clayaiken.com is going to remain an active site. I would go for putting both up as they are both official. cherrychpstck 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

break for new arguments

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I assume then, that you are going to go through Wiki and remove all extraneous links from all celebrities here? For example, Kelly Clarkson has 7 or 8 links listed. I assume you will remove all but one of them. No? Willmcw, please don't be taken in by these people. They are willing to sacrifice every single link for Clay to make sure Openly Clay is not linked from here. That is their sole purpose in being here. I suggest you listen to Kate, Hermione, Matthew, Blu etc and let them decide which links should be allowed here. I don't care whether you keep the link or not, but it's not up to me or Miklos Szabo or any of the others with a vested interest to decide, it should be up to neutral parties. --Wilykit 04:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Blu: "But based on your descriptions of the site, which I have no real reason to doubt, and which do come from a different perspective than most of the "Claymates" have, I'd have to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be linked from the Wiki.--[Blu Aardvark] 23:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)" :Is MatthewUND neutral? I haven't heard his response to any of the extensive discussion since his last post. Does your "sole purpose for being here" differ somehow from mine or Miklos'?

I believe we have discussed the pros and cons of the link ad nauseum. This seemed like a reasonable alternative, as it eliminates any jockeying among fans of message boards for links. There are hundreds of boards. One of those currently posted (Claydies.com) is tiny and not particularly active. I assume it was included by whatever anonymous editor/s posted the last set of links. If we include the Openly Clay link, then for balance we need a number of other links, and then we're back to arguing about what they should be. Why is it so vital that OC be linked here?

I don't see any sacrifice here. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for Clay Aiken, as has been stated here repeatedly. -Jmh123 04:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I haven't heard any good arguments for deleting any particular websites. The Openly Clay site seems to be fandom just like the others are. Also, I don't understand why the main site was deleted in the first place. There is something odd here. Anyway, do the other editors, some of whome have apparently been editing this article for months, have a different proposal? Allow all links? Some? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jmh123, it isn't vital that Openly Clay be linked here. As I said, I am neither for nor against keeping the link. And, yes, my purpose for being here is very different to yours or Miklos' purpose. You are here solely to make sure that Openly Clay is not linked, I am here to make sure the regulars here - the ones who should make the decisions - are aware of your agenda. I repeat, I do not care whether Openly Clay is linked or not, I just want the decision to be unbiased. I am fed up of the Claymates thinking they have to protect Clay, sick to death of the letters and e-mails that get sent to anyone who dares make the slightest negative comment about him, sick of the lies and manipulations that go on because you think Clay is being attacked. He's a big boy, he can take care of himself, he doesn't need ten thousand mothers looking out for him. He has a whole team of people he pays to do that. Linking to Openly Clay won't make people think he's gay, and removing the link won't stop the speculation. It makes no difference either way. --Wilykit 05:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to be as straightforward as I can possibly be about who I am and what I'm doing here. I am not one of those Claymates you describe. As it relates to Clay, the issue for me is not whether people think Clay is gay or not, but that it appears to me Wikipedia is being used by a small group of people who think he is gay to push an agenda. In opposition to that, I saw the typical "Clay's not gay--he's a Christian" counterargument being employed, and others being angry and malignant, and thought there was a need for more reasoned arguments than these. I've stayed with this conversation because there are larger issues behind it that interest me, and because some of the people here are very good at intelligent discussion. I enjoy that. I wish there were more genuine discourse and less rhetoric and name-calling, but there's enough intelligent debate to have captured my attention. I'm also somewhat entranced by the technical aspects of this site--so I'm enjoying the challenges participating in this conversation presents. If I weren't, I wouldn't still be here. I'd prefer that the link to OC not be here, but my primary goal is that the link not stand alone or within a small selection as representative of his fan boards. I'd prefer no links, or more. If more, I would add http://p213.ezboard.com/ftheclayboardfrm11 (the Clayboard) and remove Claydies for Clay (never heard of them, and it's a very small board); I'd add http://www.clayaiken.com/ to the official site list as long as it is a functioning site, and http://lbfca.diaryland.com/index.html (the Lecherous Broads), and three or four more of the largest fansites to the currently posted mix. -Jmh123 09:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Adding the ClayDawgs: http://www.theclaydawgs.com/phpbb/ How could I forget them! -Jmh123 05:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jmh, I appreciate the tenor of your contributions, your voice has been welcome. But regarding this portion of your post: but that it appears to me Wikipedia is being used by a small group of people who think he is gay to push an agenda -- it appears to me to be just the opposite. The folks who so far -- for the most part -- have been arguing for retaining the Openly Clay link have been neutral Wikipedians who have been editing here for a long time. The only agenda-pushing I've seen -- again, for the most part -- has been those who have sought, no matter the means, to remove the OC link because they disagree with their topics of discourse. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't believe that determining who has an agenda and who does not is crucial to solving this problem. Do you or any of the other neutral editors have any response to either of my proposals? -Jmh123 16:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

break for lengthy history

Latest comment: 20 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I read back through November 2004 of the Clay article page history.

Many different people, some anonymous some not have added links to fansites. Editors removed them promptly and not once reverted or replaced any of them, except Openly Clay.

Removed link to Latin American Clay Fanclub

(cur) (last) 15:13, 22 November 2004 143.107.122.148 (→External links)

Removed link to Clay Merch on amazon.com

(cur) (last) 22:48, 19 November 2004 Everyking m (Reverted edits by 66.189.209.7 to last version by Maveric149)

Removed link to Lyrics site

(cur) (last) 08:34, 27 October 2004 Golbez (i don't think we should have a lyrics link here unless it's to an official site, imo...)

Removed link to fansite

(cur) (last) 06:20, 30 October 2004 RickK m (Reverted edits by 64.207.80.196 to last version by Golbez)

Removed links to ticket sale sites

(cur) (last) 08:24, 8 November 2004 Slowking Man m (Reverted edits by 198.81.26.73 to last version by RickK)

Removed a handfull of fansite links

(cur) (last) 21:23, 6 March 2005 Daniel Quinlan (way too many external links, use a few from google top 20)

Then someone added Openly Clay and removed a fansite, Our Man Clay.

Someone Added Openly Clay

(cur) (last) 00:23, 4 July 2005 69.232.101.234 (→Fansites)

Removed Our Man Clay

(cur) (last) 00:24, 4 July 2005 69.232.101.234 (→Fansites)

Someone removed Openly Clay

(cur) (last) 11:22, 5 July 2005 66.167.148.193 (→Fansites)

katefan0 replaced it but did not replace Our Man Clay. No other fansite link was ever reverted by an editor or was as tenaciously guarded and protected.

(cur) (last) 12:32, 5 July 2005 Katefan0 (rv censorship)

(cur) (last) 12:32, 5 July 2005 Katefan0 (rv censorship)

(cur) (last) 21:40, 7 July 2005 Katefan0 (revert -- there is not a consensus to delete this link)

(cur) (last) 17:42, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 (rv per last reverter's reasoning)

(cur) (last) 17:55, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 (rv)

(cur) (last) 18:07, 8 July 2005 Katefan0 m (rv)

(cur) (last) 18:11, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 (rv)

(cur) (last) 18:29, 8 July 2005 Katefan0 (rv)

(cur) (last) 19:26, 8 July 2005 MatthewUND (rv)

(cur) (last) 11:44, 9 July 2005 Blu Aardvark m (Added link. In dispute on Talk:Clay Aiken, please discuss there.)

This pattern clearly shows an agenda and favoritism. As Golbez said in October 2004: "(i don't think we should have a lyrics link here unless it's to an official site, imo...)" I agree that only Official sites should be linked and so do many others. Miklos Szabo 06:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is hardly favoritism when actions follow consensus -- it's reflecting the will of the editors involved. Also, can you please start using the standard means of signing your contributions? Four tildes ~~~~. It's also much easier than hand-signing it each time. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Miklos. I would add that this particular dispute began when the section "Fansite Links" opened with the following post: "I notice that there are no less than eleven links to fansites. This strikes me as excessive, so which ones should make the cut? --[Calton | Talk] 5 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)" I entered this conversation at the point when the ONLY fansite linked was OC, which struck me as a strange resolution to the issue of too many links. -Jmh123 06:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's quite as nefarious or coordinated as that. Someone suggested removing all the links and so then someone did it, even though there was no consensus to do such a thing. Someone else who believed Openly Clay should be added back did it. Since most of the debate has been over that one specific link, the edit war started over it without regard to what other links were listed. I think it was just a situation where people weren't paying attention to what the other links were because they weren't the topic under contention. I don't think anyone believes that OC should be the only fansite link; I believe that was probably just a circumstance borne of the current situation. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

As that circumstance was the key to my entering this conversation, it was important to me, but OK, just a circumstance. As I have already stated (and stated from the beginning) I have no objection to the OC link in a representative context. I have now proposed either removing all fansite links, or including a sufficient number to reflect the demographic of the fansites. What say you? As I see it, the problem with having a section in this entry on fansites is that, as long as it is open to editing, there will be those who for various reasons choose to add or remove links, and this will be a continual annoyance to the editors. I see no need for fansite links. -Jmh123 16:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

If Openly Clay, a fan board of only 300 members is allowed to remain, then I think that just about any and every fan board that exists should be allowed to be listed. How about the board called Claytruth or one of the more religious toned but small boards? If a board dealing with speculation to Clay's sexual orientation then why not those that think he is the next coming of the lord? Both small, not mainstream factions of the fandom. cherrychpstck 16:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Clay Aiken: Innocent Crooner -or- Spawn of Satan??? http://p203.ezboard.com/ftruechristiansunitefrm25 is an interesting little group as well. Actually, it's just a forum on the True Christians Unite!!! board: http://p203.ezboard.com/btruechristiansunite Just trying to add a little levity. - Jmh123 17:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Once again it comes back to the fans. Clay's article is about Clay and his career. There are hundreds of fansites and its not the OC vs Every Other Fansite. There are those that take turns praying around the clock for him. Those that write poetry and essays that are inspirational, sites that are dedicated to raising money for poorer fans to buy them fanclub memberships. Sites that offer multimedia downloads, Cancer Survivors for Clay, Lecherous older Women who cleverly and humorously express their lust for him, Sites geared just to kids. One group raises money for FunCenters for Children's Hospitals, another Makes quilts for sick babies. There are plenty of sites that target Clay for his beliefs. One is all about hating him for being Liberal. Another because they don't like Southern Baptists. The True Christians Unite group think he's Satan. One site collects information about his foundation in an effort to prove that he is a fake philanthropist. There are lovers and haters. It goes on and on. If OC must be considered a representative of a portion of Clay's fans than so must all of the other specialty groups and I have listed just a few.

We haven't even begun to include his normal fans. There are hundreds of those groups as well. This war can go on forever with personal favorites see-sawing to infinity. If all fansites were included the links would go on for pages. All of them have one thing in common, they are all about Clay and what they can do for or against him.

Only Official sites should be listed. Any fan owned site should not qualify. If the readers of Wikipedia want to find more info about fansites, there's always Google.

Miklos Szabo 20:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

break for additions/removals history

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Looking through the history of the article, the link was added 15 times recently, and removed 14.

Added by

• 69.232.101.234
• Katefan0
• Katefan0
• 4.250.123.89
• Hermione1980
• Hermione1980
• Katefan0
• Hermione1980
• Katefan0
• MatthewUND
• El C
• Blu Aardvark
• Blu Aardvark
• MatthewUND
• Wilykit (after page protection)

Removed by

• 66.167.148.193
• 63.241.174.129
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• Miklos Szabo
• 66.173.235.43
• 24.21.94.17
• Claytageous
• 141.149.110.104
• 68.61.141.237
• 24ip
• 12.210.57.186

So, added by five registered users, two unregistered. Removed by three registered users, seven unregistered. The consensus between the regulars (relating to page edits regarding the link) appears to have been to leave it. That's the article page, though.

From the discussion page, up to the "Fansites" subjection above, it appears that the addition is opposed by:

• Miklos Szabo
• Cherrychpstck
• Jmh123
• Marie Lavaux
• Mouse316
• Calton
• 12.210.57.186 (AIFan)
• 68.127.230.187 (Flofan)
• 206.117.15.4 ("WebTraveler")

It appears that the addition is supported by: Katefan0, Hermione1980, and 206.117.15.4 (No Sig)

It appears that the following users have no particular preference regarding the link: Wilykit, Blu Aardvark

Apologies if I misread somebody's comment as supporting or opposing, at it was in fact the opposite. I made as much effort as possible to gather the above information.

It appears as though the consensus is to remove the link. --Blu Aardvark 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It also appears as if most of these editors began contributing only in the last week, after other editors pointed out that there was no consensus. It also appears as if many of these editors are only interested in this one article. Also, a consensus is more than a bare majority - it is the feeling of the entire group. I still don't see a convincing argument against adding any links that people want to add. The pressure to add a pay site makes it appear as if commercial interests may be involved. - Willmcw 23:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

You do have a good point, and I can't really say I've seen any convincing arguments as to why the links should be removed. I just felt it might be a good idea to list that information, and get a general idea of who stands where. As I stated above, I have no particular preference regarding the link, but I don't see any problem with it being there, and can see no issues with the publicly accessable portion of the site. The accusations of it being a "porn site" don't seem to be accurate, and the argument that "kids might stumble on it" is weak, at best. --Blu Aardvark 23:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

A question to Willmcw: Does "I still don't see a convincing argument against adding any links that people want to add" apply only to the OC link, or to all links. Once this entry is unlocked, this will be an important question. I'd rather this be settled now than to see this argument begin all over again. -Jmh123 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

break for censorship/public/private arguments/"porn" stories

Latest comment: 20 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Whether that fanfic you posted is real or not is immaterial. I have deleted it because it should not be posted here where a child could just happen on it. Shame on you. --Wilykit 23:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how my adding back of the Openly Clay link got in past the lockdown, maybe because I started editing before the lockdown took place. Also, you should probably know that one of the anonymous people who removed the link has posted about this site in her blog at Clay's fanclub and requested people come here and oppose the Openly Clay link. I stand by my original statement that you should discount the opinions of new and anonymous users and just have Wiki regulars decide. --Wilykit 23:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty classy site, so I have to wonder why you would want to link to such a trashy site like the OC. If it were up to me, I'd only link to the more professional sites, like the official fan club or the Clayboard, and avoid the more gossip-based sites (whether they think he's gay or straight). Sites like the official fan club provide accurate information on Clay's career, while the main purpose of the OC is to discuss rumors and speculation. I think it's a poor choice to link and makes Wikipedia look unprofessional.--Mouse316

I thought Wikipedia was not a censored site. One argument about leaving the link was based on Wikipedia not being responsible for what children see on the internet. What I posted and was quickly removed was proof of porn on that site available to all members.

Miklos Szabo 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• And that was from the public area of the site? If so, could you state which section in the forum it is found in, so that we could verify this? If not, would you mind re-reading my comment, in that the public area of the site does not seem to be innappropriate? --Blu Aardvark 00:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

http://www.snowcream.net/openlyclay/index.php?showtopic=584&st=945

second post down on this public page links to 4 slash fiction stories.

Miklos Szabo 00:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• The post in question is referring to a picture on the previous page - not an NSFW (Not Safe for Work) image at all. The links are part of the member's signature, and none of them appear to be "slash fiction", but I haven't looked at them all thouroughly yet. --Blu Aardvark 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe that may be a fake story created by Miklos herself. The date of this supposed post is January 2005, yet Openly Clay was down with server troubles the entire month of January. It went down Christmas Eve and did not come back until some time in February. Again, shame on you. --Wilykit 00:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You are a fund of deception Wilykit. Anyone can click on the link and go see for themselves. Of course if you're not quick it will be deleted.

Miklos Szabo 00:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

And now they've closed OC to the public. That was quick!

Miklos Szabo 00:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• It's not closed to me, and I'm not registered or logged in. Regarding the links in question, the first is that individual members personal blog, the fourth *is* fanfiction, but isn't associated with OC, doesn't appear to be particularly offensive, and does have a disclaimer, which is requested that visitors read. The 2nd and 3rd link in question are to flash films, which are taking a VERY long time to load, and I'm using DSL. --Blu Aardvark 00:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Miklos, I was not talking about the link you posted, but about the fanfic you posted that I deleted. That story was dated as being posted in January when Openly Clay was offline. It is impossible for it to have been posted at Openly Clay on that date. --Wilykit 00:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jan 2004. There was an earlier OC that was shut down by the hosting company. This OC is a new incarnation.

Miklos Szabo 00:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• No, Miklos, wrong again. You can't explain it away. The server hosting Openly Clay closed down and went out of business on Christmas Eve 2004, leaving OC to find a new server. It changed servers and started up again on February 14th 2005. This is easily verifiable by going to the public section of the board. Which I can also still see by the way. --Wilykit 00:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the editors are obviously members of the OC. They have a vested interest in protecting the link. They are experts in the contents of that site and are spinning the facts as fast as I can show them. The consensus is that it is not suitable to link this site as representative of Clay's fans, no matter how its spun.

Miklos Szabo 00:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Good grief Miklos, isn't your head just spinning from your own lies and rhetoric yet? You stole that bit from a NON-OC, also membership only, password-protected fansite and you know it. You also know that the OC was never shut down by ANYONE. Not by a hosting company, not by Clay, his lawyers, or anyone else. Why don't you heed the advice of your "fans" on your own blog and give it a rest already? WebTraveler 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Oh that's too funny. You mean Miklos is really Taiken, the one who gave the link here in her fanclub blog requesting people come here and oppose the OC link? Why doesn't that surprise me? --Wilykit 00:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wilykat, weren't you saying earlier how you were unbiased in this argument and didn't care about the OC link? Well, you seem to know a great deal about the OC so I'm going to guess you're an OCer. And as an OCer, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't favor the OC link being kept up. So why don't you stop with the "I'm not here about the OC, I'm only here to expose agendas, etc." and just admit that you do want the link up.--Mouse316

• Yes, I'm an OC member, I never said I wasn't. However, it is still true that I do not care if the link stays or not. I just do not want you and your friends beating the Wikipedians into submission like you try to do everywhere else to anyone you think is trying to put Clay down. --Wilykit 00:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Beating people into submission? You don't get out much, do you? No, I won't be beating anyone, so please stop being so dramatic. And it's laughable that you think as an OCer you're not biased. Of course you are, it's your board. So please stop lying to everyone and just admit that you want the link to stay.--Mouse316

• At least you admit that your site puts Clay down. Now doesn't that feel better?

I'm flattered at the idea that you think I'm someone you know. I hope that I can live up to it. Taiken is a well known fan who is not well liked at OC.

Miklos Szabo 00:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've been following this "discussion" with interest. I am a fan of Clay Aiken, but not a fan of the tactics employed by some of his more vocal fans. I find the existence of a group such as the Openly Clay one to be a godsend to those fans who may otherwise feel unwelcome in the more mainstream communities. I find groups that are open to having a relaxed and carefree attitude towards their fandom a much more appealing one to me, than the often hateful hive-mentality of other groups that try to dictate what sort of fan I should be. As there are any number of Clay fanboards that actively outlaw or ban users who even mention the existence of gay fans, the idea that there is a refuge where one can be gay and a fan of Clay... refreshing. I really can't see why this has to be such a heated issue. If you don't like the link, don't click on it, but don't deprive those fans who don't think the same way the "choice"! I know I'm a new user and so I understand that that probably doesn't carry all that much weight, but seeing the depths to which some will go to drown out any other opinion on this talkback page, well, it really got my dander up!

Apple Turnover 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your interpretation is rather self serving Apple, Only Clay's Sexual Orientation is not to be debated at his fansites. Many of them hold the opinion that Clay's own words are to be taken as the truth. He says he is not gay. The existence of any gay fans Clay has is not discussed or discouraged. His fans are well aware that some of the members among them are gay. Its not a problem.

Miklos Szabo 02:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Apologies Miklos, I should have avoided generalizing. I know that it has been a really contentious issue on some of the Clay fan sites I have visited, and at least the ones I've acquainted with, discourage all such talk, and not just in regards to Clay. A sample example from a Terms of Use from one such board:

"Discussing sexuality and sexual preference is inappropriate for this message board given the vast age range of our membership. These are mature topics which require a separate venue. Our position on keeping this message board free from these topics is rooted in the belief that these are private matters and that it is the responsibility of parents, not message board users, to educate their kids about sexuality and sexual preference."

That's their right, but it does a disservice to those fans of Clay who are gay, and see no shame in being open about it. That's why I have a hard time understanding why those who have no issues with gay people, or even for speculating on Clay's own sexual identity, shouldn't have a place where they can congregate and talk without fear of being booted out.

I'm relieved that you know of Clay communities which at least accept that some of his fans are gay, though I don't know how welcome i would feel if it were something I had to keep silent about. I can only speak from personal experience to say that gay fans are certainly not welcome at some of these fanboards.

I guess I'm just coming from the point of view of being a Clay fan who just happens to be gay, and discovering that there are others out there who share the same interest makes me feel better. The fact that Clay has been an object of gay rumors is one of the very things that I find intriguing about him, and would hate for it to be covered up for the sake of keeping his image saintly. I think the idea of Clay being beyond all reproach more harmful and upsetting than anything else.

Apple Turnover 02:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• You will find that attitude at the fansites that are intended for all ages. There are some that are more adult oriented. Clayton's Place, Rebels for Clay Aiken and the Lecherous Broads are just a few that enjoy a more tolerant risque atmosphere. If you enjoy bawdy humor and lecherous lusty fun. Try one of those.

Miklos Szabo 02:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I remember a gay man posting on the Clayboard which is supposedly the most close-minded of all Clay boards. He would mention in practically every one of his posts that he was gay, and I never saw one person say anything to him about it. And one time when a young girl was upset that people called Clay gay because "it was such a diss" some of the other members told her to be sensitive to the fact that there were gay members on the board. There probably are a lot of homophobes on that board, but I think most posters are pretty accepting.--Mouse316

Pornography

Latest comment: 20 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

The question of whether particular websites have pornographic or adult content is irrelevant to this discussion. Please see Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -Willmcw 00:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

What is the criteria for relevant? It is not a source of factual information. It is not representative of the fanbase. What value is there?

Miklos Szabo 00:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• It is not representative to you of your fandom just as your fandom is not representative of them. You don't get to decide who is a Clay fan and who isn't. That said, I have always been of the position and still agree that only one or two "official" links should be listed as part of this page. There are hundreds of fanboards and listing them all is an onerous prospect (look at the pages-long fansites forum on his Official Fanclub Forum if you want to see an example of the length), so there should simply be none. WebTraveler 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I'd have to agree with you, WebTravel. That is, in fact, the only convincing argument I have seen for removal thus far. The other arguments tend to attack the site as a pornographic or otherwise innappropriate site, yet I have seen nothing supporting this claim. Do we really need links to all available fansites? Wikipedia isn't a links depository. On the other hand, that link also does qualify the statement in the "Fans" section above, about the speculation regarding Aiken's sexuality. If it does remain, that would be the best reason for it to. --Blu Aardvark 01:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Should we then also add a paragraph that some of Clay's fans say that he is Jesus and include a link to that site also?

How about the fans who say that he is bilking the fans for their donations to his foundation? Should we link to that as well?

It could be argued successfully for each group since they also represent an opinion.

Miklos Szabo 01:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• It could be argued, but not successfully. The reason is because these other statements and claims have not saturated popular culture, whereas the question regarding his sexual preference HAS. --Blu Aardvark 01:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is online today.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/lifestyle/sfl-tvtj10qajul10,0,4653421.story?coll=sfla-features-headlines

Q. I get it. It doesn't matter that a person such as Clay Aiken can work his butt off helping disaster victims or teaching special needs kids or be an ambassador to UNICEF or the numerous other ways he helps the human race, because he is still alive. Maybe after he has been dead for 100 years he will be good enough for the list of 25 Greatest Americans. Aiken is as distinguished as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Just because he's a singer instead of a president doesn't mean he is any less admirable a human being than they were. You are as closed-minded about him as the rest of the so-called media. -- D.K., e-mail

A. Clay's best friends, his incredibly loyal and passionate fans, have the potential to turn into his worst enemies, by triggering a backlash against him because of absurd statements such as yours. I have made it clear several times that I enjoy Clay as a performer -- I even voted for him on American Idol -- and, from everything I have seen, admire him as a caring, selfless person. However, I am not quite ready to say that God wakes up in the morning wishing he were Clay Aiken, as some of his fans (if the shoe fits ...) apparently would.

Q. While I agree with the letter that Clay Aiken is a humanitarian and role model, I share the point that you made in your story on Discovery's 25 Greatest Americans that neither he, nor any of the celebrities mentioned, belong on the list. Knowing Aiken's quiet, modest personality, I'm sure he would agree and be quite embarrassed at anyone's desire to put him there. -- J.L., e-mail

A. It's reassuring that at least one Clay Aiken fan has a sense of perspective.

I would say that his Jesus status is very well known.

Miklos Szabo 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• And I would say, as would many others, that it hasn't yet reached a point of media saturation where it would be considered encyclopedic. If if it did reach such a point, I for one would have no objection to seeing a minor note to that effect, and perhaps a single link to a relevant site. This is what NPOV is about. --Blu Aardvark 01:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Then I must point out that Clay's sexual orientation has not reached media saturation either. Its old speculation that you won't find in current media. The OC likes to keep it alive but the media has moved on. Can you find a relevant article from today? I assume that would not be difficult in a saturated state,

Miklos Szabo 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Who makes the decision as to when a topic is "encylopedic"? What's the point of media saturation such a topic must meet before it qualifies?--Mouse316

Funny, I see Conan O'Brian still finds fodder in the whole "Clay is Gay" humor thing. There's only so much media saturation one can expect at this point, seeing how he hasn't released an album lately.

The ever-present issue of Clay's sexuality has been as much a part of his story than anything else. There are even to this day references being made on a national level. To ignore this facet is to do a disservice to the whole story of his career, and would actually be reflecting the point of view of an admittedly large, certainly loud, portion of his fanbase.

Saturday Night Live made several jokes at his expense even before he showed up as a guest, including the Weekend Update segment which stated so matter-of-factly that American Idol that season had two female finalists. Kathy Griffin has an entire portion of her stand-up routine devoted to Gay Claiken. Jimmy Kimmel made some not very nice remarks about Clay too.

But see, the article here not only acknowledges the rumors, but points out that Clay has no problem with it, unlike a number of his discontented fans. Clay went on Saturday Night Live and poked fun at the idea. Clay presented an award with Kathy Griffin and was in good spirits both onstage and backstage. Clay is a constant guest on Jimmy Kimmel.

This doesn't even get into the fact that Clay is a very polarizing personality. There are many who can't stand the fact that he exists, or that his style of singing has fans. And yet, the article here is extremely positive, sharing all of the accomplishments, with very little of the negative side of him that causes so many to loathe him.

There are no references to his hissy-fits (demanding Coke instead of Pepsi, berating a KFC employee for not cooking chicken for him 10 minutes before closing), his rudeness towards others (one incident at a New Jersey school was even reported in Newsweek), his bullying and patronizing of others and basically not being a team-player (first-hand accounts from his fellow students and actors in productions he was a part of), his kinky side (playfully grasping a woman's breasts for a photo), his dragging his family's name through the mud for Primetime. I mean, why not be thankful that these aren't a part of the story, rather than go after the gay jokes at his expense?

I'm sorry, but whether he is actually gay or not, the fact remains that the gay rumors have haunted him, are a part of the story, and really could only be offensive to one who thinks there is something inherently bad about homosexuality. I guess some do though, hence the intollerance for having any fact reported which doesn't fit the worldview held by certain Clay fans.

Apple Turnover 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

All of the references you have made are old. Jimmy Kimmel has not made a joke about Clay's sexuality since Nov. 2003. The Sat Night Live episode that is so popular with the OC was Jan 7th 2004. 19 months ago. Everything you cite is old. Even Conan O'Brien has run out of steam. The ONLY one who is still going is Kathy Griffin. Hardly a convincing argument for "saturation".

There are plenty of people who do not care for Clay and are happy to bring him down or dirty his image.

Can you cite any current examples, Apple or are you just trying to muddy the waters?

Miklos Szabo 02:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Conan made a gay Clay joke last night so it doesn't look like he has run out of steam yet. From one of the Clay boards - "It was something about What do you do on the weekends, and Clay Aiken said "give my knees a well-deserved rest." " I also read that Kathy Griffin has a new Bravo special and someone who was at the taping says she talks about Clay being gay a lot. --Wilykit 13:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

"But see, the article here not only acknowledges the rumors, but points out that Clay has no problem with it, unlike a number of his discontented fans. Clay went on Saturday Night Live and poked fun at the idea. Clay presented an award with Kathy Griffin and was in good spirits both onstage and backstage. Clay is a constant guest on Jimmy Kimmel." He didn't find Dave Grohl's gay joke at the AMAs very funny, and even called it "crude" (or something, I don't remember the exact wording, but he didn't like it). And geez AppleTurnover, I can't believe how many negative things you can say about Clay. And many of the things you named are either rumors with no real evidence besides hear-say, or have been discredited by Clay himself (the New Jersey incident or Pepsi vs. Coke). And finally, I'm am so very sick of being called a homophobe, intolerant, and other vile names just because I don't agree with you. I happen to be a left-wing atheist with a gay family member who I love very much. Try to work that into your narrow little schema you have going for everyone who disagrees with your point of view.--Mouse316

Whether the press is "good" or "bad" is surely a subjective opinion. Factual information belongs in an entry such as this one, and shouldn't be edited in or out on the basis of how one user thinks it makes their idol look. Newsweek is a pretty credible source, and a national news magazine at that, but I have seen these stories run in other newspapers. If Clay doesn't like every joke made at his expense, well that's his right, but it doesn't mean the joke didn't take place. As for timing, is there a time-limit on these things? By your argument, all of the information about Clay's appearances on American Idol and his first album should also be taken down as being oh so many months ago. As it happens, Conan O'Brian was still making Clay jokes in June of this year. In all fairness, I do live in Raleigh, NC, which is Clay's hometown, so I probably see and hear more of the negative than gets out to the national wire services.

Finally, I wasn't calling anyone here a homophobe or intolerant, at least that wasn't my intent. I was pointing out that there are certain quarters in Clay's fanbase that I would suggest are these things, and was merely expressing my hope that other members of his fanbase who don't subscribe to such a narrow view be allowed a chance to voice their opinions and have a place where they could be embraced. I'm not calling for other groups to be excluded, only for this group to be included.

Apple Turnover 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, AppleTurnover. I was called that by someone else here, so I guess I'm a little sensitive about it.--Mouse316

That's all right. If I come across as a bit sensitive, its only because I've been burned once too often by other Clay fans. I think Clay has an enormous talent, and attracts quite a variety of individuals in his fanbases. I just get irritated when one group tries to drown out another, which I've seen all too often on certain of his fanboards. I truly think an argument could be made for the detrimental effect certain of his fans have been having on the perception of Clay in the media.

Anyway, I actually truly loathe the idea of all of Clay's fans thinking and acting in one way. I understand why some, perhaps most, Clay fans would have issues with the article mention as well as the link, but I also felt it important to say that not all Clay fans feel that way.

Apple Turnover 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Blu stated that the speculation about Clay's orientation HAS saturated the media and popular culture. If Conan made a joke more recently, and that would be purely based on Apple Turnovers say so, I would still hardly consider that saturation.

My point was that it is old news. Speculation HAD saturated etc. Its now history and the past tense should reflect that.

What can be shown to be current media attention to the subject of speculation about Clay's sexuality? Can anyone bring any factual data to light? I can't find any.

Miklos Szabo 03:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, as the article on wikipedia does use the past tense, I don't see the problem: "Some have speculated that Aiken is gay, though he has denied such suggestions." I would argue that it still occurs to this day though, and even if it suddenly were to stop tomorrow, it was a significant part of his "story". Perhaps in the wake of an eventual new album, once his name is in the news again, we will be better able to tell if this is an "on-going" story or whether the media will have moved on to other issues.

Apple Turnover 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The "remove all links" suggestion

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Thought it was time to start a new section. I can see the "removing all fan links" proposal as a potential path to resolving the current conflict. I say this without actually lending my support to such a suggestion for now. Somehow, it doesn't seem very different to me to say "I think we should remove the Openly Clay link" and "I think we should remove all 7 of the links, including Openly Clay." It leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it achieves the same end (getting rid of the OC link) for the same purpose (dislike of discussion topics, namely gay speculation), which I have yet to see a convincing argument for doing on its own merits. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell, that's sort of what I have been trying to convey. I honestly come with baggage, having been somewhat ostracized from certain quarters of Clay's fanbase for having views that run counter to the "group-think" mentality of these certain forums. The last thing I would want is for anyone to be forced to click on any link to a community where they would be uncomfortable, but I would argue for letting the user make the choice, and not the loud voices of other groups that have issues with this particular group.

It all comes down to a certain group of Clay fans, who don't want anything to do with Clay and the word "gay" being anywhere near each other. I can't say I truly understand what motivates this desire to "clean" up his image, but I get a sick feeling in my gut about trying to wipe out any reference to his gay fanbase...

Apple Turnover 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is easy to see that you have jumped into the middle of the discussion without reading it to date, Apple Turnover. You express assumptions that show me that you have not been following it. I am a gay man who respects Clay as he is rather than trying to force him into my lifestyle. If you had read the discussion you would realize that not everyone here is coming from the same place.

Miklos Szabo 03:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well it is quite obvious that not everyone here comes from the same place, but I actually have been following this developing discussion for quite some time now. Just because I have only started posting this evening, does not mean that I haven't read all that has come before. I seem to remember when you were "new" to this discussion.

I have tried very hard not to make assumptions, only to express my own personal viewpoint on this issue. I apologize if any of my thoughts come across as generalizing, as I'm actually trying to say that it seems to me at least, that Clay's fans are often generalized. My very existence, at the very least, would show that we are not all cut from the same cloth.

For whatever relevance it has, I am also a gay man, and I respect Clay as much as one can respect a public figure who I don't know personally. I have never said, nor would I condone, anyone trying to force Clay to be gay. The very idea strikes me as ludicrous.

It is a leap, however, to automatically assume that just because I am a fan of Clay and identify myself as gay, that it means that I have an "agenda" to promote the idea that Clay has to be gay too. Not all gay people think the same, obviously. Not all Clay fans think the same either.

People speculate about Clay's sexuality of course, enough so that it has become part of his story. So have his denials. Both facts are reflected in the article.

The thing about the idea of removing the link to a gay-friendly Clay site that bothers me, is that if successful, it allows a certain section of Clay's fanbase to determine what Clay is and what he isn't. Such decisions, I believe, should be left for the individual user to decide for themselves. The fact that a gay-friendly Clay site is being targeted... well, it gives me pause...

Apple Turnover 04:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Conversations about the possibility that Clay is gay don't bother me. I have engaged in them myself, and I am sure I will do so again. Homosexuality doesn't bother me. My best friend is a gay man. My objections have nothing to do with "cleaning up Clay's image." I like good-natured smutting and I love the boob picture. I know he can be pissy; I've seen it. I do object to efforts to "out" Clay, or anyone else. I object to shipping, slash, or hard-core porn, be it hetero- or homosexual, and would prefer there be no links to sites that enjoy this. I recognize that others disagree, and I now understand that Wikipedia does not censor, nor cater to minors. I don't like humor that mocks effeminacy or associates it with being gay, which is why the argument to popular culture assumptions bugs me. This sort of cheap humor seems to be all the rage for the last couple of years, and Clay has been the butt of a lot of it. I think it's mean-spirited. I never liked the cheap humor of the Three Stooges either, but that's all beside the point.

I agree with the elimination of all fansite links. Quoting myself from above, in case it got lost in the lengthy discourse, "As I see it, the problem with having a section in this entry on fansites is that, as long as it is open to editing, there will be those who for various reasons choose to add or remove links, and this will be a continual annoyance to the editors." An alternative would be to hammer out an acceptable group of a dozen or so, and keep that list on permanent lock-up. -Jmh123 04:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"which I have yet to see a convincing argument for doing on its own merits." Let's face it, there will never be an argument that you would deem convincing enough to remove the link because now it's become a power struggle for you, Katefan. --Mouse316

That's about as far from the truth as I can imagine. I will, however, continue to protect the content of my personal talk page, which you saw fit to vandalize earlier this evening. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mouse316 has said that when he removed the discussion on my talk page related to Clay Aiken it was an accident, so I'm striking out my above remarks. No harm done. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I find the stereotyping and the ridicule at OC very uncomfortable. If Clay were gay and visited that site I think he would be very unhappy with how he is portrayed. They say they are gay friendly but it is not inclusive. A lesbian may find it entertaining but as a gay male I do not enjoy it. I hope he never sees it. Miklos Szabo 04:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Honey," if you're a gay man, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to offer the fine people of Wikipedia. Pretending that you are an offended gay man in order to boost the perceived weight and credibility of your position here is truly reprehensible. WebTraveler 05:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Did you know that personal attacks are prohibited here? Wikipedia:No personal attacks. · Clay does have gay fans whether you like it or not.Miklos Szabo 05:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am well aware that he has gay fans. That wasn't my point. WebTraveler 07:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Miklos, I think it's been pretty much established, from reading the history here, that you're not actually a gay man but for some reason are pretending to be one.

Above by 152.163.101.9 -- please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. Also, let's all step away from the fingerpointing -- it's not useful at best and offensive at worst. It's immaterial whether Miklos is a gay man, just like it's immaterial that I'm having a turkey sandwich for lunch today. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

While I respect your opinions on content, they're really immaterial. So are mine. The only real question to answer is: is it relevant? In general if the answer is yes, whether you or I or anybody else dislike the content/theory/etc., it should remain. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

All of the fansites are relevant to some degree. If you have one linked then you must include the others. They are all different and therefore can't be excluded because each one adds its own point of reference.

Either link all fansites or none.

Miklos Szabo 04:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, there's a point of diminishing returns. We wouldn't link to, say, a high school student's essay about Clay Aiken. But we aren't automatons -- reasonable adults can discuss what links should be included, which is exactly what we're doing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit that I haven't joined the Openly Clay site, and can only report that I have yet to see any serious attempts to "out" Clay. I also haven't seen anything that I would consider "porn" on this site, but I haven't been reading it everyday either. My cursory examination of the site seems to be a bunch of people who feel free to have a playful attitude towards their Clay fandom, and that they aren't against such specualation. Allowing the user to draw their own conclusions seems to be the most sensible conclusion...

Apple Turnover 04:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Let me tell you right now honey, don't join if you want to keep your illusions intact.

Miklos Szabo 05:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, could we leave the OC link question alone for awhile and discuss some others? I made some proposals above - got no response. This all started with someone saying eleven was too many. I suggested a dozen as an appropriate number - got no response. How do we decide which sites are most relevant? Different people will have different perspectives. If you take the first ten off google, you won't get the OC. Are links to fansites relevant to an encyclopedia entry? Hey--I just had an idea. Perhaps there should be a narrative segment on fansites: history, types, etc., which includes links to the sites discussed. No, I'm not volunteering to write it! I'm sure such a segment would be even more endlessly controversial. "Clay Aiken" is a huge entry already. Can't we let the fansite links go? -Jmh123 05:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jmh, sorry for the delay, but I've been thinking about your proposal. I can appreciate what you're getting at, but I don't think an arbitrary number is the way to go. Links are like any other bits of information that should be evaluated on a consensus basis for inclusion in any article. I think we'd be doing this article (as others) a disservice by simply picking a number. Surely we can come up with other criteria -- such as the scope of the fan site (i.e. how big is their userbase), as well as representation (i.e. ensuring that any list is representative of segments of his fanbase, since it's so fractured). · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It wasn't an arbitrary number so much as a ballpark I was looking for. Is 11 too many? Personally I don't think so. "How big is their userbase" will have to reflect activity as well as membership size, as there are a few with highly inflated numbers. Fractured--I can see how you would think so, but not really--yes, there are conflicts, but I wouldn't describe the fanbase itself as "fractured". We're talking somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 people in the message board communities; conflicts and hot-button issues will develop, and there will be factions in any group that size. I agree, and have said, that there should be some kind of effort to represent different demographics. Let me repeat a question if I may: how do the editors plan to handle the continual adding and removing of links that will be inevitable?

• I'm not happy with the current list, and it is not the list that stood on this site prior to these current conflicts. Since there seems to be no end in sight, could we revert to the June 29 list plus OC, Kids, and Finding Clay Aiken while we argue? It's not a perfect list, but it's not bad; the June 29 list stood for at least a few weeks prior to the revert war. Kids and FCA weren't on the June 29 list, but are there now and shouldn't be dismissed while the entry is locked. -Jmh123 15:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The "remove all links" suggestion, continued

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

• I suggest pruning the list as per Calton's suggestion, in Archive 2.
• http://clayonline.sparkart.com
• http://www.claynationnews.com - Clay Nation News
• http://www.findingclayaiken.com

Although I don't object to including the links as suggested by Jmh123. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Obviously, I would prefer this as well--the other suggestion is an effort to compromise. -Jmh123 21:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree in principle with the idea of having one link that goes to a repository of all of the Claysites out there, such as http://www.findingclayaiken.com. However, this particular site doesn't even list the OpenlyClay group. I don't know if this is a simple oversight on their part, or just part of some agenda that wishes it didn't even exist, but this lack of inclusion would lead me to think that a gay-friendly site might have to be included here, if only to be inclusive and representative of the diversity of Clay's fanbase.

Apple Turnover 22:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Then you'll have to come to a consensus about all of the other fringe groups. If inclusion of every nutbar fanbase is the goal. The question of whether it is representative has not been answered yet. Another contributor and I asked in another section yesterday for clarification on that criteria. Where do you draw a line? Is it because they are different or because they are disliked by so many? Would it be based on membership numbers in ratio to the fanbase as a whole that makes them relevant or is it because they are a pet project of some of the editors?

Miklos Szabo 23:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Whatever reason FCA may have for not listing the OC, the latter is not a fan board. It is a private website that lists links to a number of different Aiken sites, and it is not our business to dictate to them what to link, nor to compensate for that absence. Visitors to Wikipedia are not going to work out the complex rationale for a single fanboard link; most won't know this "talk" page even exists, and they certainly aren't going to work their way through pages and pages of discussion. For better or worse, depending on your perspective, the single link to a single fanboard creates a skewed perception of the nature of the fandom. -Jmh123 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Here are some other links listings to compare. They do not include all sites either. No listing I have ever found does.

Here's the google directory of Aiken fansites: http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/A/Aiken,_Clay/

the jazar directory: http://www.jazar-music.com/directory/Bands_and_Artists/A/Aiken,_Clay/

kontraband: http://www.kontraband.com/extras/clay-aiken.html?ss=clay%20aiken&p=2

AllThingsClayAiken links list: http://www.allthingsclayaiken.com/links.html -Jmh123 23:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC) (My two related posts were split by Kate's comment, and this was further separated by the subsequent comments.)Reply

Doesn't, then, not including a link to Openly Clay also create a "skewed perception of the nature of the fandom?" It's a portion of Clay Aiken's fans that get represented absolutely nowhere else from what I can tell. Yes, there are a million Clay aiken fansites -- but they are a dime a dozen by their very natures because they largely draw from the same pool of people talking about pretty much the same sorts of things, in general. But judging from the discussions here, I doubt the things people talk about at Openly Clay would be very welcome on most of these other "dime a dozen" sites. Therefore, I think it's important to include a link to Openly Clay, because it represents a segment of his fandom that would not be represented otherwise. I think it is especially important to consider the Openly Clay site in this context given how stridently other fans have tried to suppress it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

What you have not mentioned katefan0 is the cross pollination that occurs within the fandom. The OC members are members of multiple message boards where they are known and are welcome. The Clackhouse, Lecherous Broads, Rebels for Clay, Clayton's Place, The Clayboard, Red Hot Topic and Clay's Official Fanclub just to name a few. These people are not lonely outcasts twisting in the wind. The aggressive dissemination of gay rumors, unfounded gossip and ceaseless speculation are not very welcome but gay people are as welcome as any other demographic. Try to tell it like it is katefan0. Each site is unique in some way, the only thing they have in common is Clay.

• Apparently the rules against personal attacks do not apply to you? WebTraveler 19:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Miklos Szabo 01:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

You've basically made my point for me. Also, I never said gay people wouldn't be welcome elsewhere, I said the topics of discussion at OC -- primarily, about the speculation that Aiken is gay I would imagine -- would not be welcome elsewhere. Not true with probably 90% of what gets discussed on other fan forums, which presumably could be cut and pasted to most other fan boards without batting an eye. That's why I think it's important to make sure that OC gets linked somewhere, or else it's nothing more than endorsing censorship. I'll ask you once more politely to stop making personal attacks, please. I'm not intent on anything but NPOV; if you dislike debating the issue in a civil fashion then perhaps you may find Usenet more suited to your tastes. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 02:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I do not believe you are so naïve that you didn't know you were waving a red flag in front of a bull. It is disingenuous of you to then berate the bull for charging. No group of human beings on this planet is a "dime a dozen," and if you see us that way, then we never will reach a solution here. Your description of the fan demographic is inaccurate and offensive. -Jmh123 03:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you disagree, but I make no excuses for personal attacks and wouldn't expect anyone to make them for me if I were to err in such a fashion. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. As for the rest, I wasn't passing judgment on other fans; everyone is a unique individual, obviously. I meant that the topics of discussion on most general Aiken fandom forums are presumably pretty similar and that therefore discussions of that type could probably be found on most other general Aiken fandom forums. Not true with what gets discussed on Openly Clay -- or do you disagree that their topics of discourse wouldn't be tolerated on most other fan forums? Again, I meant no personal offense and I'm sorry you took any. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I share your aversion to personal attacks. The Principles of Wikipedia etiquette also states: "blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think." The presence of overt violations of the rules is no doubt disruptive, but in the interest of resolution, it behooves those participants with long experience here to be especially careful not to incite conflict in a volatile situation.

In response to your comment above that, "It's a portion of Clay Aiken's fans that get represented absolutely nowhere else," while it is true that the majority do not cater to speculation about Aiken's sexual preferences, Openly Clay is not the only board on which such speculation takes place. Clayton's Place is a notable example of a board on which there is no censorship, and where there are long and interesting conversations about Clay's sexual preference. OC is the only board I know of that makes this its main topic, but there other unique boards not represented in the entry as well. Some would say that the perspective of a large number of explicitly Christian fans is underrepresented, but there is no one advocating for them, including myself.

Sexual preference is not the only controversial topic of discourse discouraged on various forums. A notable example is religion: while some boards cater to Clay's avowed Christian affiliation; others, even Clayversity, avoid the topic of religion altogether. Politics is another: almost all forums avoid the subject. As to your assumption of similarity, I disagree with both you and Wilykit that most of the other boards are similar; if that were true, I wouldn't have had to search for several years to find a place where I felt comfortable. I can see how they might well seem similar to you. I have listed just below Wilykit's comments a number of boards with distinct characteristics that I feel should be included if we are to aim for representation. -Jmh123 18:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

What she means is, the other boards are very similar. This is true to a large extent, I've been to many Clay boards over the last two years and many of them are very similar. If you want a cross section of boards representing all kinds of fans, you would still only need the Clayboard (biggest board, pretty conservative), the Clackhouse (liberal leaning board), Openly Clay (gay friendly), The Claydawgs (male fans). The broads (humor) and Clay Nation News would also be useful links. That would cover almost all fans. --Wilykit 03:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion we would also need others: Clayversity for sure (large board, focus on studying the music industry, collecting and archiving data and information, and also on "chat"); Clayton's Place (uncensored, snarky, intelligent--another board where speculation about Clay's sexual preference is AOK); Our Man Clay, Heartful House, and Rebels for Clay (all outgrowths of RHT with distinct identities - I'm not too familiar with any of these, but others would certainly insist they belong); Idol Forums (teens--very important); ClayKids (children below teen); Bolt (the original--one of a kind); WMS (a distinguished history--great snark). I'm sure others would have different lists. Let's hear some! Oops, I've listed none of the explicitly Christian groups. Any suggestions? Edited again to add that I forgot the foreign fan groups; the Korean site with over 5,000 members, Clay Aiken Singapore, and the Latin-American Clay fan group are the three I'm most familiar with.

On June 29, those listed on this entry were: Aiken4U - Your One-Stop for Everything Clay Aiken, Clay Nation News, Clay Aiken - The Ideal Idol, Clay's Corner Cafe, ClayGalaxy.com, Clay Aiken Fan Site (ClayBoard), ClayManiacs.com, Clayversity - Where Clay Matters, Lecherous Broads for Clay Aiken, and Our Man Clay Forum. -Jmh123 05:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I don't mean to revive the OC discussion at this point, but my application has been approved, and I will look over the site at some point. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Curious. Did you check it out yet? What is your opinion of it? --205.188.116.71 05:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The proposals, an addition, and a request

Latest comment: 20 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The proposals: 1) No fansite links 2) A dozen or so links to be agreed upon by the group

May I ask that the regulars including Katefan0 please weigh in specifically on the two proposals, yay or nay, and if nay, then may I ask that someone please make a specific counterproposal? Katefan0, it is clear that your response to 1) is nay, but you did not continue the conversation with me on #2. All I know, Katefan0, is that you will not accept the deletion of that link.

I'll make a proposal secondary to #2, depending on the answer to my question. (Sorry, a friend called who's been off in the wilds of Mexico, and I made a hasty and poor edit right before hitting save--the question I'm referring to is the one I asked above about whether the fansite listings will be permanently locked, or reopened at some point.) If the list is to be open, then let's just pick twelve fansite links we can agree on quickly, including the OC, put them up, unlock the site, and let the fans have at it. It is unrealistic to assume that fans will not come and make changes to this listing--to add their favorite sites, and remove others. Some will have no clue there's been any discussion about what should be there and what should not. Some will be "vandals", as they have been called in the reversion notes. Let the editors deal with it as they choose, but stop locking the site down. Accept that reversion will need to occur often. This is a problem inherent in the multi-links solution, but it is also intentionally and positively inherent in the design of this encyclopedia.

The request: will someone please tell me what recourse we have here, in terms of dispute resolution? We are getting nowhere. Thanks -Jmh123 03:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I like Jmh's suggestion and hope that it's at least considered by the editors--Mouse316

I had a suggestion above that we consider links based on two factors: scope and representation. As long as those factors are taken into consideration while drawing up a list of links, I don't have a problem with it in general. However, the point of protection is to come to a consensus. We shouldn't unprotect so people can "have at it." It should be unprotected only when everyone can agree on a permanent solution.

I thought on this a bit last night, and if what folks are unhappy with is having Openly Clay listed in the external links because its fan base isn't large enough compared with the top, say, two or three, how about then just listing it in the text? It seems to me that it could be naturally incorporated into the paragraph on gay speculation. Something like: Some have speculated that Aiken is gay, and indeed there exists a group of fans who enjoy discussing the rumors (link). However he has denied such suggestions and in fact good-naturedly lampooned the rumors by playing a member of a gay chorus when he appeared as a musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show. It's in proper context, isn't "in your face" about the group, but ensures that it's mentioned and linkable somewhere. What do you think? · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

As to your first point, I don't think we can realistically assume that the result of this discussion will prove acceptable to the readership. We can only do our best. In my opinion, the notion of a permanent solution is counter to the fundamental concept of this enterprise. I do hope that we can arrive at a lasting solution.

Thanks for responding to a positive suggestion, and for making a counterproposal. As I considered it, I realized how strange it is that the gay rumors paragraph is under "Fans" in the first place. How about this? We remove that paragraph from "Fans" and add a section between "Post-Idol career" and "Charitable work" entitled "Rumors and speculation". (I see no reason for this topic to appear last in the article.) There we include the following: Because of his geeky appearance, tenor voice, and occasionally effeminate mannerisms, as Aiken's popularity increased he became the butt of gay jokes by comedians. Late night host Conan O'Brien, self-described "D" list celebrity Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and MadTV in particular have, through their comedy, influenced popular culture perception of Aiken's sexual preference. There is also a small internet message board that enjoys discussing the rumors (link). Aiken has denied such suggestions, and in fact, good-naturedly lampooned the rumors by playing a member of a gay chorus when he appeared as a musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show. [1] -Jmh123 18:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC) ETA: made a couple of minor changes that show up in history under my IP - danged timer on the log-in feature keeps catching me unawares. -Jmh123 05:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

As for your question about further procedures, I think all that information can be found in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. By the time you responded, I had found this area on my own. I do hope that we can make some progress, rather than have to pursue any of the possible options. -Jmh123 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's a need for a section head on "rumors" because there's only one rumor the article treats or would treat. In general I appreciate what you're trying to do with the paragraph, but I'm not sure that we can really take such an authoritative stance. The paragraph you wrote positively ascribes the speculation to certain actions by comedians, which really nobody can know. I think those comments certainly fanned the flames, but I know plenty of people who thought "gay" when they first saw him, independent of anybody else's commentary. I think it's best to just leave it at stating the facts -- there is speculation, there's a fan board, he's denied it, SNL, etc. I don't object to using "small" to describe it though. Let me think a bit more about it and see if I can come up with a modified version that would address these concerns. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I see your second point, but I do feel the concerns are important, so I hope you can come up with something. I really hate this sort of mocking of a stereotype (Conan likes to imply that male homosexual=pedophile, which is reprehensible) and I do believe the comedians have been quite influential on popular culture perception of Aiken. Those who thought "gay" when they first saw him are equally guilty of stereotyping. The "geek to chic makeover" on AI hid a lot of masculine qualities, but that's beside the point. Most gay men I know aren't at all effeminate. I see your point about the sectioning, but believe the "fan" section is not an appropriate ___location for this sentence--most fans do not believe Aiken is gay. I also object to the entry ending with this sentence. I'll think about this some more and try to come up with another way of addressing these concerns. -Jmh123 16:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, how about this? In the "Post-Idol career" section, between the third and fourth paragraphs, we add the disputed content as a new paragraph in this form: Because of his geeky appearance, tenor voice and occasionally effeminate mannerisms, some have speculated that Aiken is gay, and he has been the subject of gay jokes from Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV. A small internet fan board [1] enjoys discussing rumors about his sexual preference, although most of his fans regard him as decidely heterosexual. Aiken has denied the gay speculations, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned them by playing a member of a gay chorus during guest host Megan Mullally's opening monologue when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [2]. -Jmh123 17:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• This version as proposed by Jmh135 is hardly NPOV. "although most of his fans regard him as decidely heterosexual" screams of fandom grandstanding and making sure that everything looks pretty pretty in case Clay himself see it. Preposterous, actually, and only serves to make the fans looks even more insane. Clay is going to be dogged more by the perception of his fans as crazy and cult-like than he is going to be dogged by the perception that he's gay. The reasons given in the above version for that supposed perception are completely subjective and NPOV as well. Remind me again why it's being handed to Clay fans to hammer out a subjective statement about Clay fans? WebTraveler 21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • I believe you meant to say NOT NPOV? If it must be said that a few fans think he's gay, then it ought to be said that most don't. Fact. As for my "subjective" reasons, what reasons would you give for someone to "think 'gay' when they first saw him"? The gay jokes made about Aiken often involve someone acting the part of a simpering creature with clearly stereotypical behavior; there's no attempt to mimic Aiken's real mannerisms--rather, it's girlie man+bed head=cheap comedy. That is what bothers me about all this. I could give a flying $&^%&^* if Clay sees this, or if he's gay. I think these sorts of cheap jokes are a way of demeaning homosexuality, and they foster a cultural atmosphere in which it is OK to do so. This sort of comedy implies that if you are gay, or appear to be gay, you yourself are a "joke", and you deserve to be mocked.

• "Hardly: To almost no degree; almost not: I could hardly hear the speaker. Probably or almost surely not." Yes that is most certainly what I meant. As for the rest of your post, joking about something is usually a guidepost of the inroads of acceptance. It is not until people can joke about something that previously made them uncomfortable that they can begin to accept it. One needs only look back over the gay culture evolution, that began a few years before Clay Aiken even appeared believe it or not, for evidence of this. Trying to stifle gay humor at this time and place in our culture is to try to stifle the mainstream acceptance (not tolerance, ACCEPTANCE) of gay culture, which is to try to force homosexual lives (LIVES, not lifestyle) back into the closet. And yes, that IS my "gay agenda." WebTraveler 17:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • If you don't like what I have proposed, then come up with an alternative. I am working very hard here to come to some kind of resolution acceptable to everyone involved in this conflict. I have made proposal after proposal, seeking a solution that all can accept, and have long ago left behind my own preferences in this matter. Just to remind you: my first choice was to dump the link and be done with it, but those who insist on its inclusion will not yield. My second choice was the multiple links solution. The fact of the matter is that none of this is really appropriate to an encyclopedia entry, and ought to have been scrapped a long time ago. See Reliable sources. (ETA: I am referring here to the gay speculation, not the link. I have no objection to the link being here as long as it is in a representative context of other links.) Rather than simply berate my efforts in an exasperated tone, how about some constructive participation? This process is left to those who chose to engage in it, plain and simple. There are no other criteria. -Jmh123 22:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Also, Openly Clay does not "enjoy discussing rumors about his sexual preference," many of our members dislike the rumors, particularly the more salacious ones. We allow discussion on his sexual orientation (not preference please, that makes it sound like a choice). If you must put something, speculate would be a better choice. --Wilykit 22:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be quite happy with that, Wilykit. I was using Katefan0's language. Would you propose a phrase that would fit the context, and be acceptable to you? Or an alternative solution to the conflict? -Jmh123 23:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Trying again: In the "Post-Idol career" section, between the third and fourth paragraphs, we add the disputed content as a new paragraph in this form: There are rumors that Aiken is gay, and he has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV. There is a small internet fan board that makes speculation about his sexual orientation its theme [3], but the majority of his fans regard him as heterosexual. Aiken has denied the gay speculations, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned them by playing a member of a gay chorus during guest host Megan Mullally's opening monologue when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [4]. -Jmh123 07:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cautiously rejoining the discussion for a moment here — this looks to me like a reasonable compromise. That way we keep the speculation and the rebuttal and the link and we don't scream out, "Visit this site!"

And as far as the list of sites goes, if we are going to include OC in the actual text, why don't we just link to the official sites and Finding Clay Aiken, if that one links to nearly every fansite on the planet? (I think Finding Clay Aiken was the one that linked to a whole bunch of Clay Aiken sites — correct me if I'm wrong.) Hermione1980 14:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back. Yes, FCA has the most links of any site I know. Works for me. -Jmh123 14:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Section break - hammering out the wording

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Most of the paragraph is good now, but I'm still not quite happy with this line: "There is a small internet fan board that makes speculation about his sexual orientation its theme, but the majority of his fans regard him as heterosexual." I think because it makes it sound like it's OC's only purpose, when they do talk about so much more than that. Maybe it should just say it allows speculation? Also, I know for a fact there are many fans on other boards who privately suspect he may be gay but don't talk about it publically. How about saying the majority of fans accept he's straight? Maybe I'm splitting hairs at this point, but I think this is better: "There is a small internet fan board [5] that allows speculation about his sexual orientation, but the majority of his fans accept he is heterosexual."

Once the above paragraph is set, I would have no objection to just linking to the official sites and FCA. Once the page is off lock down it might be good to add a line asking people not to add more links as FCA covers most of them. --Wilykit 15:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Hermione1980 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Good idea to add this line. -Jmh123 18:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like we're getting close, but the word "accept" won't work there either. "Accept" connotes a truth that one is coming to terms with and the finality of truth, such as accepting that a loved one is dead. That's not the case here, as the topic itself is speculatory and dealing with the absence of absolute truth.

My newest edit of only the second sentence: "While there is, among his many internet fan sites, a fan board that incorporates the speculation about his orientation into its discussions [3], most of his internet fans choose to believe he is not gay."

I think the opening of the last sentence needs some sort of qualification as well. "Aiken has denied the speculation" sounds as if there are constant, ongoing denials. This is not the case. He has not addressed the rumor in close to two years. Even adding the word "previously" would improve the conciseness and accuracy. I'll take another look at that part, as well, while waiting for others to return today. WebTraveler 18:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've been tied up with work the last couple of days. The last proposal I saw was this:

There are rumors that Aiken is gay, and he has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV. There is a small internet fan board that makes speculation about his sexual orientation its theme [3], but the majority of his fans regard him as heterosexual. Aiken has denied the gay speculations, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned them by playing a member of a gay chorus during guest host Megan Mullally's opening monologue when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show.

I would propose this: Some have speculated that Aiken is gay, including some of his fans — there is a small Internet fan forum where members are encouraged to discuss the rumors, though most of his fans believe he is heterosexual. The speculation about Aiken's sexual orientation has made him the butt of jokes on shows such as Conan O'Brien, Saturday Night Live and Mad TV. Aiken has denied the gay speculations, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned them in 2004 by playing a member of a gay chorus during an episode of Saturday Night Live in which he appeared as the musical guest.

Here's my reasoning behind the tweaks: "There are rumors" is clumsy language; "Some have speculated" is better although I'm not wedded to it. Breaking up associating the speculation with the fan forum is also clumsy; this is a more natural wording. I removed Kathy Griffin because I think it's a minor show; the others have much larger audiences. I also see no need for the "during Megan Mullally's monologue" information; too wordy and adds little value. I also think that it's strange that we mention that there's one forum where people are encouraged to dsicuss it; this raises the question of, what about the others? Maybe we should add something in there like ... "there is a small internet fan forumw here members are encouraged to discuss the rumors, which are considered unwelcome at most fan forums." Then go into the "most fans think he's straight" line. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about this? There are rumors that Aiken is gay, and he has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV. While there is, among his many fan sites, one board [6] that allows speculation about his sexual orientation, most of his internet fans choose to believe he is not gay. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the rumors by playing a member of a gay chorus during guest host Megan Mullally's opening monologue when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [7].

I hope this is all in the right place, I keep previewing and people have edited the page in the mean time and then I have to go back. I'm getting a little confused. --Wilykit 18:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer perception to choice here: "most of his fans perceive him to be heterosexual." Will that work with the rest of you? Regarding the next sentence: I'm not sure I could find the interview, but I remember that he said fairly early on that he wasn't going to answer the question repeatedly; that he didn't see the point. We could get specific and say, "In his Rolling Stone (date) interview and on Prime Time Live (date), he denied the speculation", or even "(in RS, on PTL, he stated that he is not gay, but on SNL etc. etc." -Jmh123 18:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that "most fans choose to believe" is a little on the loaded side; you can practically hear the incredulity in the line ;). I don't think we need to say on x, y and z dates in x, y and z publications Aiken denied the rumors -- taht just gets cluttery. We, as editors, need to be able to back assertions up with a source, but it doesn't mean that every source has to get mentioned in detail. Sourcable is as good as sourced as long as those sources can be produced on questioning. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

OK by me--simply seeking a solution to WebTraveler's concern that he hasn't denied the rumors recently. As for your other suggestions above, I'm going to take a break and come back later. We were really close to finding very specific language we all agree on, and I'm a little discouraged. Not that I have a major problem with your proposals, just need a little time. -Jmh123 19:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The versions I've seen don't really assert a timeframe, so I'm confused about WebTraveler's concern; WT, can you elaborate? Don't get discouraged! I think we're approaching something we can all live with. Keep up the good work. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Katefan's version over Wilykit's very slightly, because it seems to get the point across a little better. How about this:

Some have speculated that Aiken is gay, including some of his fans — there is a small Internet fan forum [8] where members are encouraged to discuss the rumors, which are considered unwelcome at most fan forums, though most of his fans believe he is heterosexual. The speculation about Aiken's sexual orientation has made him the butt of jokes on shows such as Conan O'Brien, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV. Aiken has denied the gay speculations, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned them in 2004 by playing a member of a gay chorus during an episode of Saturday Night Live in which he appeared as the musical guest.

This just basically is the paragraph including some of the suggestions proposed above. Are there any objections or suggestions? Hermione1980 19:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I object to the wording. The members of OC are not encouraged to discuss the rumors, that is incorrect. Also, the only time he has ever really denied being gay is in the Rolling Stone interview, it's the cornerstone of many fans' belief that he is straight. I'm not saying that interview has to be named but it is the most important reason his fans say he isn't gay. --Wilykit 19:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, how about something like ... "where members are free to discuss the rumors"? Also, I am not really sure I understand your objection. Do four denials somehow make it more likely that Aiken really means it? If he's denied it once, he's denied it. Why is it somehow more true if he's denied it four times than once? · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

As WilyKit stated, "encouraged to discuss" is definitely not acceptable, but I think we already covered that point. Katefan, the reason for the sticking point on the number or frequency of Aiken addressing the topic is because of the length of time that has passed, and the changes in his management that have occurred. The argument has been made (and it is valid, as evidenced by the strict "morality clause" of the AI contract) that at the time he asserted in Rolling Stone that he is not gay, he was under the VERY rigid control of 19E management, and was not allowed to deviate from that answer. Since leaving their control and securing his own management, he has never once made a similarly declarative statement.

On the contrary, he has made more statements in response that seem to indicate quite the opposite, and a "softening" if you will toward the importance he places on being perceived as straight/not gay in interviews. Since Clay has, whether actively or passively, perpetrated a public image that is almost deliberately ambiguous, I find the wording "choose to believe" less incredulous than it may first appear, as it applies equally to both "sides" of the debate. In fact, I think you will find that it is the wording chosen by several, if not all, of the non-OC boards that place restrictions on the discussion of his orientation.--WebTraveler 20:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, that seems like the sort of speculative reasoning that could qualify as original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (see Wikipedia:No original research). If there was some sort of authoritative, respected, published source that made such a leap of logic, then it would be grounds for inclusion in the article. But otherwise, it really has no place here, and isn't grounds for putting the kibbosh on something that is included in the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully understood, Katefan :D I was just explaining my thought process behind the wording of "choose to believe." WebTraveler 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for being a good sport -- sometimes tone is hard to convey on this thing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Still hammering, and an intervention

Latest comment: 20 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

It seems that, in attempting to work out the exact language here, you've elaborated on the subject so much that something that only needs a sentence or two has become a much bigger part of the article than it deserves to be. Since the article is about Clay and not about his fandom, discussing divisions within the fandom isn't necessary. IMO, the statement should be short, and should concentrate on pointing out exact places in mass media where his sexuality was asserted one way or the other. I would think something like "It has been speculated that Aiken is gay, and TV shows such as Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Saturday Night Live and Mad TV have often made jokes to this effect. Aiken stated in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine in (whatever year) that he was heterosexual." would be good. Dcarrano 21:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're right of course, but often compromises are imperfect things, and that's exactly where we are -- close to a compromise on something that various people have been edit warring over for more than a week now. It may be wordier than it should be, but I think it's preferable to an edit war. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dcarrano you are so right. We are saddled with various compromises here. My preference remains to delete all such discussion as it is more appropriate to a blog than an encyclopedia. That said, we are Wiki-ing the process.

Trying to account for this flurry of discussion: Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, and there is speculation within American popular culture that he is gay. While there are, among his many fan sites, a few boards [9] that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority of his internet fans perceive him to be heterosexual. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [10].

Sorry to bullet - I cannot write in complete sentences anymore:

• Keep Griffin - big Bravo special coming in the fall - lots of Clay Gaiken
• Rolling Stone - locates the denial, does not negate WebTraveler's speculations
• "the majority...perceive him to be" - keeps us in the realm of fact and not speculation - the barest of quantification
• Katefan0, your alteration locates the speculation with the fans primarily, and I think it has been made clear that while some fans may engage in speculation about his orientation, it is not strictly or even primarily a fan phenomenon.
• a few, rather than one, because there ARE others - Openly Clay still gets the only link
• WebTraveler - believe him is the common rubric
• lose Mullally, lose the gay chorus as well
• I believe everything that is here is now a statement of fact
• I just changed rumors to speculation, as the word is not used elsewhere in the paragraph, just readded skit to SNL -Jmh123 21:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• I'd prefer "speculate" to "allow speculation" for internal consistency - was making that change when you posted -Jmh123 21:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Don't have a problem with any of this except the gay chorus. I can't see any reason to erase it, which could be perceived as whitewashing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• the skit featured Mullally of Will and Grace fame, backed by a fey-acting (added) GAY chorus - Clay entered the skit from off-stage, dressed as the chorus was dressed, and sang 3 notes - not trying to whitewash, just to be accurate and streamline a teeny bit per Dcarrano's advice

• • Not to split a hair when we're so close to an agreement, but "fey-acting" is a perfect example of whitewashing this event. The chorus was a GAY mens chorus. The lyrics of the song clearly defined that. "Please don't give it to us straight!" and "so can we, as long as it's in, the state of Vermont (and Massacusetts!)" and Megan's quip, "there's just no pleasing you homos." I want to make it very clear that, as a bearer of the so-called "gay agenda" in this fandom, I am not by any means mistaken in my distinctions between "fey-acting" and "gay," nor in my understanding that they are not necessarily the same or mutually exclusive. --WebTraveler 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
• Apologies, WT, didn't mean to say they were NOT a gay men's chorus - the "fey" was an additional description, not a deletion - I remember some much juicer but more obscure dialogue than that from Mullally, BTW. What I meant by accurate was that he really wasn't the focus of the skit, or even a major participant--that he didn't sing with the chorus. But he did act "fey" of course, as usual, OK? :):) -Jmh123 22:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, and there is speculation within American popular culture that he is gay. While there are, among his many fan sites, a few boards [9] that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority of his internet fans perceive him to be heterosexual. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [7]." Agreeable to me. Very good revisions and justifications for them Jmh123 . Katefan0 ? Hermione1980 ? MatthewUND ? Anyone still with us? WebTraveler 22:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Works for me. Hermione1980 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, WT! Readded all internal links in identical version above, just in case. -Jmh123 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to see editors working together towards a consensus. One point - do we have a way of determining what the "majority of his internet fans perceive [Aiken] to be"? Maybe it would be better to rephrase that to something more vague, like "that is a not an opinion shared by all" or "others disagree". Unless we've got the results of a poll, I don't think we should speculate about the opinions of thousands of people. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• MUCH earlier in this discussion, subjective judgments about public perceptions along the lines of "most of my (non-Aiken fan) friends assume" were deemed an acceptable rationale for including this material in the first place. Look, a frequent activitity of the internet fandom on many different boards is celebration of a sexual response to Aiken, and most but not all of the fans who engage in this activity are heterosexual women. I realize that a woman can be hot for a gay man, even if she perceives that he is gay, but I believe it is not unreasonable to imagine that for the majority this sexual interest is directed towards someone they perceive to be a hetereosexual man. -Jmh123 22:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a good way to handle it is to have another sentence/paragraph to say just what you wrote- "there are many boards which discuss Aiken's private life and even fantasize or speculate about his sexuality. Most of the participants are women, etc." That would put the gay website into perspective without saying what people think. From an encyclopedic point of view, reporting on forums is difficult because of the lack of verifiable or secondary sources. Let's avoid making too many unsourceable assertions. -Willmcw 23:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Just some examples of the kind of reasoning that was considered acceptable earlier:

"Fair or not, Clay is probably the one artist today whose sexuality is called into question more than any other celebrity." MatthewUND

"I've definitely heard the rumors and I'd say most of my friends have as well." Katefan0

"The speculation about Clay Aiken being gay exists and is quite widespread..." Katefan0

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

I am at a loss to understand why these statements are taken as definitive, while my perception of the boards I have participated in for the last 2 years is unscientific and not factual. If my perception is not good enough, then the boards themselves are there for anyone to see. Try fan fiction at any board that permits it. Look at the Weapons of Mass Seduction board or the Lecherous Broads for Clay Aiken for non-fictional celebration of lust. Why does a different set of rules apply to my perspective than to that of Katefan0 or MatthewUND? I am asking a serious question, not a rhetorical one Willmcw.

Willmcw, I just do not want to clutter this up further, but if we must, then it's back to the drawing board for me to find a phrase more appropriate than your suggestion. Discussing Aiken's private life is a whole nother topic--I believe this occurs at OC as well? "Speculate about his sexuality" is non-specific and could just as easily apply to OC; fantasize about having sex with him is more accurate but do we realllllly need to go there in this entry? This also applies, I would assume, to OC, so none of your suggestions serve to qualify the OC phrase in the slightest. -Jmh123 00:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No one should put anything in a Wikipedia article based solely on rumors. However, if the rumors have been reported it can be added in an NPOV manner. "ABC News reports there are rumors that Aiken bleaches his hair, but a spokesman denied the accuracy of that report." We do it all of the time. We shouldn't have something like "Wikipedia editors have heard rumors that Aiken bleaches his hair." If Katefan0 wanted to source something that way then I think she was wrong. All sources need to be verifiable by other editors. -Willmcw 00:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I am speaking of rationale for inclusion, not sourcing in the text of the article in the way you describe. -Jmh123 01:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, I never suggested such a thing. I was attempting to come up with some quantifiable way of showing how much the gay rumor has permeated popular culture, that's all. I, too, have misgivings about stating with such authority that the majority of the rest of his fans don't think he's gay, but would agree with something simple that Will suggested -- it wouldn't be so difficult to just say "but not all of his fans agree" instead of something quite so definitive. It doesn't have to mean that the rest of our compromises are moot. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The general rule for Wikipedia is that any relevant, verifiable info that can be summarized in an NPOV manner is suitable for inclusion. In rare cases too much information which depicts a certain POV is added and some needs to be cut for balance, but otherwise all of the qualifying material is welcome. If we had a verifiable, non-blog/forum source saying that Aiken bleaches his hair, then it shouldn't matter how many rumors there are (or are not) on the matter. In this instance the rumors are so widespread that it would be inappropriate to ignore them. A quick Google check reveals that ["Clay Aiken"] gets 735k hits, while ["Clay Aiken" gay] get 177k hits, or 25%. I'm not sure if that answers your question. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

One more effort I

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, and there is speculation within American popular culture that he is gay. While there are, among his many fan sites, a few boards [11] that speculate about his sexual orientation, most discourage such speculation and prefer to take him at his word that he is heterosexual. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [12]. -Jmh123 02:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, this has shifted the "most" from fans to forums. Is that true? Is it quantifiable enough to state with such authority? Again, we need to quantify how he lampooned the rumors. "by playing a member of a gay men's chorus" should be added back in. I don't mean to seem obstreperous, but I won't support a version that doesn't contain that simple and accurate phrase. Otherwise, to the casual reader the information will seem pointless. It raises a question that it then doesn't answer. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• "most discourage such speculation and prefer to take him at his word that he is heterosexual." ??? Jmh, this seems like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Where did that new slant come from? I would really like to revert to the version from earlier today that I believe had quite a few approvals, since the search stats provided by Willmcw ("A quick Google check reveals that ["Clay Aiken"] gets 735k hits, while ["Clay Aiken" gay] get 177k hits, or 25%. I'm not sure if that answers your question.") seem to provide the quanitification that was being sought. WebTraveler 04:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • WebTraveler, I have no idea to which version you are referring. There have been so many. If you can't be more specific, I can't possibly respond. What controversial element of what version does the google search quantify? I thought the topic was fans, and I don't see what a google search can tell us about fans in particular--only public perceptions and that one was yielded long ago. I only asked Willmcw because the style of argument in the passages I quoted did not meet the standards he described. As for the language I used, it is the typical language in board policy statements: "We don't allow such speculation here; we prefer to take him at his word." I am far too weary to try to find examples now, and I doubt very much it would matter anyway. Yesterday NPOV, today "quantify", tomorrow ????? -Jmh123 05:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think it's definitely true that most forums discourage speculation about his sexuality. At the very least most admins want to avoid that topic because it always becomes so heated. I can only think of one other off the top of my head besides the OC that allows it. Just look at the rules on most Clay message boards and you'll see that it's a true statement. I think you could also back up the statement that most of his fans don't care to speculate, because otherwise the OC would probably have a larger membership than the small one it has now. But if you want to say "forums" I'm okay with that. (Mouse316)

• Mouse, that point makes little sense in relation to the rest of this discussion. You can't say what most fans do or don't want to do because you can't quantify it, and aside from that most fans DO engage in that kind of speculation. They simply do it behind the scenes, in private rather than "on board," with their select group of board friends where they are unlikely to encounter an idea that conflicts with their own. We can only say that most boards don't allow it (which is quantifiable) for the reason you gave, that the admins don't allow it. WebTraveler 04:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

How do you know that most fans engage in that kind of speculation behind the scenes? They might, but unless you've asked "most fans" then you can't really know that. You're accusing me of providing information I can't quantify while you're guilty of doing the same. How about "Most fans don't engage in that kind of speculation on the public message boards"? That is most likely true because most boards don't allow it. (mouse316)

WebTraveler has a point (as did Willmcw). "Most fans don't engage in that kind of speculation" is equally weak, because it fails to explain a motive as well as it could if you cut the reason to its root -- which is that they don't because most boards don't allow it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care if you keep the part about fans. I was just mentioning it. But when it comes to the motives part, I do believe if most people were desperate to discuss Clay's sexuality, then boards that allow such discussion like the OC would have a much higher membership. But that's just my opinion and I can't prove it. (Mouse316)

• Word! If so many Aiken fans think he's gay and want to speculate about it, why aren't there a dozen OC's? If most fans want to talk about it, why don't they demand the right to do so on their own boards by the power of their numbers, or form new boards like every other special interest group has done? Are they constitutionally unable to do so? No. There just isn't sufficient interest. -Jmh123 05:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why this discussion is even taking place as, as has been said, it's impossible to quantify what fans think, only what boards allow. As it is taking place, though, it's my experience that many fans don't want to discuss the possibility of Clay being gay in public because they think it will be bad for his career, due to the high number of religious fans he has. They want the rumors to go away and for everyone, fans and comics alike, to stop talking about them.

Back to the subject at hand, we seemed to be close to reaching a decision yesterday, but have gotten off track. This is the version WebTraveler posted yesterday which I think is pretty good and could be agreeable to everyone, or at least can get us back on track as far as getting the details down pat. Added: looking at it again now I'm more awake, I'm editing it slightly. This version talks about whether speculation is allowed, not whether the fans think he's gay, as that is so hard to measure.

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, and there is speculation within American popular culture that he is gay. While there are, among his many fan sites, a few boards that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority of his fan boards don't permit discussion of the subject. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show. --Wilykit 11:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with your rationale, but that's beside the point. I'd call this the OC version. It is a group of selected information intended to create a certain impression. It gives the OC supporters everything exactly as they wanted it: the link, and the implied diss at fan boards for being oh so mean and not letting people speculate about Clay's orientation--all because we couldn't possibly say that a majority of his fans think he is heterosexual, because that can't be quantified. To sign off on this version would mean that that all the efforts I have made to negotiate something acceptable to all, in good faith, were for naught. I must leave town now for 4 days. I made every effort yesterday to resolve this before I left; I have proposed version after version I could live with. I made a number of compromises. I can't tell you how frustating it is to have to leave at this point. -Jmh123 14:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

One More Effort II

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This was our most recent working version: Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, and there is speculation within American popular culture that he is gay. While there are, among his many fan sites, a few boards [11] that speculate about his sexual orientation, most discourage such speculation and prefer to take him at his word that he is heterosexual. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [12]. (From Jmh)

• Jmh, I can't tell you how frustrating it is on this side either. Yesterday it was YOUR revision that was[i] this close[/i] to being approved all around, and we had arrived there quite civilly, and you most of all seemed pleased. Today all of a sudden it's the "OC Version" and you are completely up in arms over it again. You seem like a completely different person today. I'm lost trying to negotiate the nuances of the wording, as I now longer know what you call "good faith" in this process. Something from yesterday to today just doesn't seem right. The version of which I speak is directly below. In the above revision, "prefer to take him at his word" is completely value-laden. -- WebTraveler 15:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, and there is speculation within American popular culture that he is gay. While there are, among his many fan sites, a few boards [9] that speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority of his internet fans perceive him to be heterosexual. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, he good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [7]." Agreeable to me. Very good revisions and justifications for them Jmh123 . Katefan0 ? Hermione1980 ? MatthewUND ? Anyone still with us? WebTraveler 22:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Another try: There has been speculation within American popular culture that Aiken is gay, and he has been the subject of gay jokes on Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live and Mad TV. There are some fan boards that welcome discussion of the rumors about Aiken's sexual orientation [11], but many do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and good-naturedly lampooned the speculation in a skit when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live's February 7, 2004 show [12].

How's that? The "butt of jokes" isn't the point of the paragraph, so I think it's clunky to start off with that. The speculation is the point, so it should lead. I think I've also taken care of the "but most boards don't like it" and the "but these boards are okay with it" talk. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I have with Katefan0's version is the use of the word "rumors" again about Openly Clay. I would prefer speculation, as that is what we do. We discuss rumors in our members section, but so do other boards like the Clackhouse. Rumors to me means people say they know things, for example, there was a rumor Clay was seen kissing a guy (this is not a real rumor, just an illustration). Speculation means discussing possibilities. Other than that it's very good. --Wilykit 16:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so: There has been speculation within American popular culture that Aiken is gay, and he has been the subject of gay jokes on Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live and Mad TV. There are some Internet fan boards that welcome discussion of the speculation about Aiken's sexual orientation [11], but many do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and good-naturedly lampooned the speculation by playing a member of a gay men's chorus during a brief skit on a 2004 episode of Saturday Night Live where he was the musical guest. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC) (Also added the gay chorus back in)

"As it is taking place, though, it's my experience that many fans don't want to discuss the possibility of Clay being gay in public because they think it will be bad for his career, due to the high number of religious fans he has." Or perhaps some people choose to take him at his word. Or, believe it or not, maybe some people just don't care either way. But back to the subject at hand, I'm alright with the last version that Katefan presented. I also prefer "speculation" to "rumors" because rumors sounds like people have actually had some sort of stories about, or proof that he's gay, when in reality the only proof I've ever seen has been, "Like, Omg, he has a gay hairdresser. They're soooooo in love." There's has never been any strong evidence that Clay likes men, really only speculation due to his mannerisms. (Mouse316)

• Mouse, with all due respect, you really shouldn't go there. WebTraveler 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

What? -Mouse316

You know very well what. Don't play innocent --Wilykit 03:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA someone needs to chill. No, I don't know what she was talking about. Is it because I said I've never seen any proof that he prefers men to women? God, no need to get so worked up over it, I was just expressing myself. So much anger coming from some of you OCers... 16 July 2005 (UTC)Mouse316

Katefan's last version works for me too. Btw, Mouse, you can sign your posts automatically with 4 tildes (~~~~) or the signature button above the edit box. This gives a link to your userpage and a timestamp. Hermione1980 20:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Hermione Mouse316 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am very satisfied with Katefan0's latest version. I hope everyone else is and we can finally put this to bed. --Wilykit 03:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Murmurs of Consensus

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I hear murmurs of consensus. Is everyone on board with the proposed change? -Willmcw 21:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think at this point we're waiting for Jmh to return; she'd said she'd be away from a computer for a few days. She was the main critic of the info so I think we should wait to see what she says about the latest version before we declare it finished, but with any luck she'll be on board. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys - thanks for waiting for me. I really appreciate it. WebTraveler, I thought I had stated what aspect of the difference between the two versions bugged me. It has to do with the phrase that follows the OC link phrase. I prefer Katefan0's alternative to Wilykit's, but this version states that discussion of Aiken's sexual orientation is not welcome on most fan boards, and thus begs the question, "Why not?" WebTraveler has rejected "prefer to take him at his word," which is based on the stated rationale of some of the boards for avoiding the topic. Some of you feel that the "majority regard him as heterosexual" is not credible because not quantifiable, even though perusal of the largest boards would make that conclusion an obvious one. There are thousands of pages of hetereosexual fan fiction, some of it quite sexually explicit (squicks me out, BTW), shipping with every female sighted within 10 feet of him, the "moms" repeatedly wishing him a happy marriage and many kids, endless squeeeing, and so forth.

Some may regard me as being stubborn about this, but whatever may be decided by this small group of people, it was a revert war that caused the locking of this page. There will without a doubt be a few who will try to delete any reference to this speculation; those aside, I believe others will accept the content only if they believe it truly does represent a NPOV. In my opinion, it needs to be said that: 1) some think he's gay; 2) others don't; 3) he said (in Rolling Stone) that he isn't. I don't think a NPOV is represented as long as point 2) is not included in some way. The current version and other proposed versions do not say "others don't"; they say "others don't welcome/permit/allow speculation", which, while also true, is a different point altogether. While I can't quantify this, I believe there are far fewer of the "not welcomers" than the "others who don't". I hope I have stated this clearly now, and I hope that others find that point 2) is a reasonable point to include in this paragraph in some way. -Jmh123 17:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have been following this discussion and subsequent dilemma closely. However, because it has been going on for sometime and the interested parties had already been established, I had not wanted to add a new name to the mix at what I felt to be a crucial time on the brink of resolution. However, since your last entry, Jmh123, I would like to impart a few thoughts for consideration. I tend to agree with your point that there is a difference of stating "does not" speculate verses "doesn't allow" and have thought it an important aspect all along. I think the key is to simply be factual in as few words and with as little explanation a possible.

I believe the entry made by Wilykit 11:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC) was, at the time, the one most seem to agree with. To me it is the most unbiased toward either 'camp'. KateFan's latest revision is also good. However, I have felt that there still seems to be an attempt, of sorts, to skew to one side or another and some of the wording in previous versions to be a bit clumsy and unnecessary. The goal should be, "Nothing but the facts, Ma'am." The interpretation left to the individual reader. As my name suggests, I tend to revise, and anally so. For consideration:

Due to the speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, Saturday Night Live, and Mad TV, among others. While there are a few communities [11] among his many internet fan sites who speculate about his sexual orientation, the majority do not. Aiken denied he was gay in a Rolling Stone interview in June, 2003, and, in fact, good-naturedly lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live, February 7, 2004. (with all the necessary links, of course)

"The majority do not," followed by the Rolling Stone information answers the why without needing to explain. For those wishing to look further, they are then free to answer their own questions free from bias. Factual. Sourceable. Concise. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes. Thanks. --AnalRevisionist 18:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I am actually in agreement with that paragraph. It seems the most NPOV of all the versions, addresses the concerns put forth by jmh135's last entry, and removes the slants of "rumors" and "choose to believe." Fine by me. WebTraveler 19:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• It's fine by me as well. --Wilykit 21:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Again, this works for me too. Hermione1980 23:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks so much for stepping in. This works for me too. -Jmh123 00:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • ON the basis of so much agreement I believe that there is editing peace and so I will unprotect the page. Thanks to all of the editors who participate in Wikipedia. If disputes break out again in the future please remember that talking civilly is the only way to get a resolution. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Fantastic! I can't tell you how pleased I am to have helped aid in the resolution of this dispute. Thanks isn't necessary, Jmh123, but appreciated. You're welcome. I, like everyone else, was simply interested in seeing the matter resolved to satisfaction for all concerned. Thanks to all of you for caring so much and spending so much time in a sincere attempt to get it right. Cheers, as well! --AnalRevisionist 02:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • Kudos to all. There were times I was uncertain an acceptable resolution would be found, but I think this is a great solution. Looks great! Apple Turnover 03:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

<wipes brow> Glad this is done to everyone's satisfaction. I would request that all the editors who have been involved in the compromise language stick around to watch this page, as I'm sure the information will inevitably come under hit-and-run assaults in the future. More eyes always better. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it remained to actually make the agreed upon changes, so I have done so. -Jmh123 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that! · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful thing to see! Cheers all around! WebTraveler 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Quick question

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am new to this discussion. I'm just wondering if anyone would object to me archiving the first 10 or so sections on this page. As I've mentioned on other pages, those of us with dialup have a heck of a time loading these pages when they get this big. --Woohookitty 06:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I wouldn't. In fact, I was thinking about doing the same thing. But be my guest. I'll keep on RC patrol. --Blu Aardvark 06:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Never mind. I just archived a massive chunk. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Best Selling Idol?

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"As of June 2005, Aiken is still the best selling American Idol performer with over 5 million albums sold."

When we finish hashing out the "gay" issues, I wonder if we can reconsider the wording, or even inclusion, of this line regarding Clay being the best selling AI performer. Personally, I would vote to just keep such comparisons off for the near future, if only to save us from having to constantly update it.

Nonetheless, if it is to stay, this line seems to be inaccurate. Clay has sold 3.6 million albums, while Kelly Clarkson is presently up to 4.5 million albums. Since Kelly is still on the charts, this is likely to go up even further, but it does seem as though Clay has yet to reach 5 million albums in any case...

Apple Turnover 05:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I have no objection to deleting the line. Whoever came up with the 5 million figure was including in-store singles' sales. I don't know Kelly's singles' figures; I know they are excellent, as are the sales of her current album. I agree that this is an unnecessary statement which is certainly subject to contention. -Jmh123 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • All right, I went ahead and just took out the line for simplicity's sake. Holding the title of "Best Selling American Idol Performer" is of questionable importance, and will no doubt be in flux for some time. Apple Turnover 03:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rudeness

There has been a lot of buzz about Clay Aiken being almost "abusive" to his assistants, or especially rude towards them and certain individuals. Perhaps these could be included in the article?

That's a good question. I think it might be difficult, though, because it would no doubt be hard to find reputable sources to summarize when treating this point. If there was a reputable, verifiable source that talked about this particular rumor there might be some way to do that. I personally have no idea. Is there such a source? · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no verifiable source for this gossip. Interesting, too, that as a Clay fan who reads everything I can about him I've never heard this supposed buzz about him being rude or abusive to his assistants. He has stated himself that he has a temper, and rumor has it he is prone to throwing a bitch fit now and then, but I've never once heard this said in regard to his assistants. --Wilykit 03:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Triple Platinum

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we please leave "Measure Of A Man" listed as double platinum? I understand there is a rumor or belief he has shipped the necessary three million units but, until it's certified by the RIAA and awarded, it's an inaccurate statement. Once he does receive the award, then we can change the wording to reflect it.

Aiken stated in a concert some time ago (2004) that the album had shipped triple platinum. Soundscan sales as of July 3, 2005 = 2,719,311. Record companies often delay applying for RIAA certification for a variety of reasons. There is no reason to stick to the figure of 2 million, but if it bothers you greatly, we could simply say the album has sold 2.7 million copies. BTW, please sign your comments. -Jmh123 08:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Until it's actually certified triple platinum, he doesn't have the distinction. If you'd like to write that he's sold over 2.7 million copies, that's fine because it's a truthful statement. It's not truthful to say he's been certified something he hasn't. He possibly has shipped the number necessary but it has not verified by the RIAA and that's why the award hasn't been issued.

Also, I thought posting in here would automatically add my info. I wasn't trying to be stealth. - Henry 24 August 2005

NPOVing the article

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm no Clay Aiken expert, but while I found most of the article to be relatively well balanced and not particular fannish, there were a few little issues I had. I didn't want to change them for fear of starting an edit war, but I'll offer a few suggestions:

• “most popular and successful star”: only one of these adjectives is needed. I would suggest which ever one could be measured (i.e. with sales figures, etc).
• “good-naturedly lampooned”: seems difficult to prove because it goes directly to his state of mind, which is impossible to know. "Lampooned" (or something more enyclopedic)

would work better on its own.

• “a few summer tour dates” "many fans called the "Not-a-Tour" “Clay's Summer Concert Tour”: in a short space, there was a series of concerts called a "summer tour", a "Not-a-Tour" and (with caps) a "Summer Tour". Which was it? If it was a tour, but people called it a "Not-a-Tour", an short explanation would be helpful.

--Hamiltonian 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just a comment on the “good-naturedly lampooned” topic. That paragraph was heatedly debated over MANY pages, and this was the compromise. I wouldn't touch that sentence with a ten foot pole.

And the tour was NOT a tour. It was a series of unrelated invitational dates that grew and grew until there were 50 or so. Since it was never an organized tour and not promoted by AEG or CCE - the fans started calling it "Not a Tour" and that term is widely used. There was no formal name given to it by Clays team, thus the waffling.

I sort of agree on the "most popular and successful star" phrase, which is both subjective and constantly changing depending on who has the most recent CD release (Kelly Clarkson being tied neck and neck). --Michigan User 21:58, 6 September 2005

Aiken's Television Acting Debut

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Have to comment about this statement: "In February of 2005, Aiken made his television acting debut, playing a minor role in the sitcom, Scrubs."

It can hardly be called his acting debut, as the Scrubs appearance followed acting in Ed, Saturday Night Live and even American Idol (in filmed sketches). There may be others I'm not aware of, but these three definitely occurred prior to Scrubs.

Apple Turnover 05:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

His first scripted TV acting experience was the 2003 Nick at Nite holiday special, where he played himself. "Ed" was early 2004. "Scrubs" would be his first real acting experience playing a fictional character, as I'm not sure you could really include an SNL sketch. --Wilykit 21:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

So it is agreed that the Scrubs appearance shouldn't be lauded as his "television acting debut". I happen to think that the SNL and AI sketches are every bit as much "acting" as anything else, and while he may have been playing "Clay Aiken" in the Nick at Nite special and in "Ed", its not the same thing as just being himself. Both were scripted parts. Just because he was playing himself does not equal just being himself. Just ask John Malkovich whether he was acting in "Being John Malkovich" for example. Or any number of appearances on any number of shows through the years when actors came on "playing" themselves.

I just think the quote downplays his previous acting roles, and should be ammended to take into account that Scrubs was the first time Clay played a character other than "Clay Aiken" on a primetime show.

Apple Turnover 04:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to an amended version, and might even do it myself if no one beats me to it. I notice that the Ed appearance is not included in the bio as of now. I think the amended version should be more substantial than simply qualifying the phrase as stated--adding Ed for sure, either here or earlier in the bio. -Jmh123 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Nature of the Jokes

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I noted the 'warning' not to change the text in a certain paragraph (and I will avoid doing that not because of the warning itself, but because I fear starting an edit war), but this sentence could use some work:

"Due to speculation within American popular culture that he is gay, Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes"

Now, while I and most of the readers do know that "gay jokes" means "jokes about his suspected homosexuality", it could also be read as "jokes that are homosexual" or "jokes that are 'gay'". Wouldn't "jokes about his suspected homosexuality" be clearer (and, hence, more encyclopedic)? (Note the use of the word suspected, rather than the word rumoured.) --Hamiltonian 05:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with the wording you're suggesting, but I would just note that this paragraph was the subject of an extensive and long-running edit war, and each word of the compromise language was chosen quite carefully. So I would recommend that you wait to hear the reactions to this suggestion before you actually make the change. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I find little that is encyclopedic in the entire paragraph. My vote is to let it stand as currently written. The word "suspected" carries strong negative connotations; "suspects" are often regarded as guilty parties not yet convicted. "Gay jokes" is lighter, and more appropriate in this gossipy little vignette. -Jmh123 15:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply