Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

OC

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Protection

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)

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)