Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Clay Aiken. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

John Paulus controversy

Let's not forget that Clay Aiken has NOT denied the John Paulus affair, while John passed a polygraph test. Instead, Clay's publicist made up some lame comment about Clay being on Pluto right now. 69.180.8.87 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What in the world does that have to do with it? The tabloids are BEGGING him to address this issue - if he says a word then the mainstream news can report on that and bring up all the sordid allegations. The tabloids really are hoping that Clay will sue so that they can get all that publicity. Not addressing allegations has nothing to do with the allegations being true or false. Michigan user 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that the Wikipedia article need not go into the specific graphic detials of what Mr. Aiken may or may not have done sexually with another man. However, the article should make reference to he N.E. article, (its gotten picked up by other news groups), a general statement of the allegation, the person making it. and then add quotes from Aiken denying that he is gay. I doubt very much that Mr. Aiken is in a postion to "force" himself upon anyone. (Browned). I would also note that it does not show a good side to Aiken fans that they respon to the idea that their hero is gay with violence and name calling...

I took it upon myself to disregard the large argument below (no offense guys) and post here an edited form of the article found on John Paulus’s page. I don’t really believe the argument below really is one; Wikipedia is full of articles citing celebrity controversies that are either dubious at best or based solely on the word of those making the accusations. For examples:

Britney Spears, regarding the alleged sex tape between her and Kevin Federline. // The Colin Farrell sex tape // Allegations regarding Tom Cruise’s homosexuality // The Star Tribune’s allegations against Nick Lachey // and the Laura Albert/JT LeRoy controversy, which, while likely true is still unsubstantiated right now

I argue that this story is news, whatever source it comes from, and it seems to me that there’s a growing amount of evidence supporting John Paulus’ story, whether it’s being reported in the Enquirer or not. I came to the Clay Aiken page to -find- the John Paulus page and was pretty surprised that it wasn’t mentioned whatsoever, but details about the insistence that he’s gay was. I think not including this story is a bit of a bias on the part of those who don’t want to tarnish Clay Aiken’s innocent image, and that reeks of POV to me. - Mixvio 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that every single controversy that you named was widely covered in mainstream news. Paulus has not been. 66.82.9.76 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, Paulus has been mentioned in several mainstream news outlets. - mixvio 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that if John Paulus were to be mentioned here, the proper thing to do would be a one or two sentence summary of the controversy, with a reference to the John Paulus page -- I can't see that basically duplicating sections of that page here is a good idea from an encyclopedic standpoint. For now, I've removed the material you added.
While boldness is a positive trait for an editor, given the raucous controversy about discussion of Clay's sexuality that has occurred here in the past, and to avoid edit warring, maybe the best thing to do is to continue the discussion here, and try to come to a (new) consensus about the proper NPOV way to refer to the Paulus issue? ArglebargleIV 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you think then editing it down to a summary should've been your move instead of reverting what I added, in my opinion. I'm all for continuing the discussion, however I am baffled as to the continual strife inclusion about John Paulus seems to provoke, and I'm baffled at the overwhelming resistance to it. Just because some people here choose not to believe the story doesn't negate the fact that it is unfortunately one and, as referenced in my argument above, Wikipedia includes stories based on far less evidence. I edited it as a summary, please refrain from reversion if you feel the summary is too long and instead condense it yourself. If you feel the material shouldn't be included I think it's best to state why here (as I, for example, stated clearly why I feel it -should- be here) and I'm more than happy to debate. Reversion, however, isn't an appropriate action in my opinion. - mixvio 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In the process of reverting a stupid change I made (sigh), I managed to revert your latest addition as well. It was NOT my intention to revert your changes again, but on the other hand I'm not going to touch the article for a while. Why don't you write a summary sentence or two? Do you think that it's worth the number of paragraphs you wrote? Anyway, I'm doing a hands off for a while, I really do not want to -participate in an revert war, even accidentally. ArglebargleIV 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the mention of the accidental revert, no problem. I put my summary back in. Do you still think it's too long? I tried to cut it short while still keeping the actual story around... I don't see how that can be achieved by making it any shorter but I'm open to suggestion. I really think this is something that should be included here in at least some capacity. Thanks - mixvio 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is to be mentioned in this article -- and I will not state my opinion on whether it should be or not ...

(1) It probably shouldn't be a section by itself. It probably should be associated with or after the paragraph about the Clay-is-or-isn't-gay controversy, but a consensus would have to be formed for any edits. Personally, I'm not touching that paragraph with a twenty-foot pole.

(2) Maybe a shorter version would be

In January 2006 John Paulus alleged that he had a sexual encounter with Clay Aiken. Several tabloid newspapers have published interviews with Paulus, and he has taken a polygraph examination as part of a National Enquirer investigation, which the magazine has claimed that he passed. To date, Aiken and his representatives have neither acknowledged nor denied the claims in Paulus' story.

(3) I'm not making any changes, however, just a suggestion if a change is to be made. ArglebargleIV 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with that then. Consider it changed. :) - mixvio 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Paulus entry.

There is still not one single bit of evidence that anything that John Paulus said is true. Not one single bit. Tabloid stories are NOTORIOUS for lying. Especially with photographic "evidence". Until there is SOMETHING to change the discussion that we had above - nothing has changed. And we already reached consensus on how we would handle gay rumors. There are pages and pages of debate that went into it. You don't get to just change the agreement.

That is exactly why this story has not made mainstream news. It stinks. And the FTC Complaint hoax does not grant the Paulus story any more validity. When the FTC complaint proves to have some notability - it can be considered for addition. Right now it is just a group of crackpot women that do not believe in their complaint enough to make a lawsuit out of it. If THEY don't think that it is worth it - why should we even notice it. 66.82.9.76 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ETA: On your comment that the story is news: this is not WikipediaNews. If it is still news - then it is probably too new to even TALK about adding to Wikipedia. 66.82.9.76 02:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure your angry, capital letter rant carries a lot of internal weight to you, I'm unfortunately not going to abide by the complaints of IP addresses. If you want to argue, sign in. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy is not to constantly revert a page just because you disagree with something on it. You discuss the issue and then edit the main page accordingly. The pages of pages of "gay rumors" established the consensus that yes, there was enough reason to mention in the article that there is controversy regarding his sexuality.

HOWEVER. This is not in the least what my edit was regarding. It was not regarding a gay "rumor," it was in regards to a specific allegation from a specific person (and as of now, several such specific people) that he had a specific sexual encounter with Clay Aiken. I take no stance, and neither did my edit, on whether this occurance was true or not. As I made clear in the argument at the top of this section Wikipedia is full of similiar celebrity controversies that are based on a lot less proof than this one. Just because you're clearly upset that this might've happened doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily change it.

I would agree that the National Enquirer probably stretches the term mainstream news, but this story has also appeared in the NY Post , which most certainly is mainstream, and also the NY Daily News. Argue all you want, but I'm not including this because it's true, I'm including it because it's a STORY, and Wikipedia is a repository of all knowledge, even the ones that make fans of actors/musicians/politicians, etc upset.

And I didn't mention a FTC complaint at all, nor do I know what you're talking about. Please sign in if you choose to argue further. - mixvio 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in re: the argument that this story is too new to be up here, within minutes of the World Trade Center attacks and the London Train Bombings there were already long articles talking about the events. That's a really poor argument. Wikipedia is full of pages that suggest an article mentions a current event. If that's your gripe, put the tag at the top of the article. - mixvio 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can not sign in. Wikipedia does not play well with Satellite modems. It is a known problem. 66.82.9.76 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately if you continue to revert my changes I'm going to request that the page be protected since I don't want to break the three revert rule. The talk page is the place to air your grievance and continual reversions is not the course you should continue taking. - mixvio 03:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get a word in edgewise here - but twice now I have lost long discussions on this page because of your edits. Please back off for a bit. 66.82.9.76 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means, get a word in. I've no desire to stifle debate. However, I'm not backing away from the fact that this is merited on the page and I don't intend to leave it off. I've read the entire talk pages archive and I'm aware of the consensus that has been established regarding his sexuality. My edits aren't about his sexuality. My edits are about John Paulus. If Wikipedia had been around before it was proven that Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinski, I've absolutely no doubt that there would've been a section on his article referencing the ongoing and alleged story. That still makes this worthy of inclusion until proven otherwise. - mixvio 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And you must mean edits regarding this or a similar subject, because before today I've never touched this page, so you can't be referring to long discussions about my edits specifically. - mixvio 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable - You just saved this discussion page AGAIN - and I lost my paragraphs in the process AFTER I asked for time. 66.82.9.76 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying this again . . .

I am not angry or upset (as you seem to think - notice that you use the same capitalization for emphasis). I am frustrated with people who do not read the existing discussion before editing the article. The Paulus topic has been discussed extensively. Because the topic only exists in tabloids and gossip columns it has no place in an encyclopedic reference. Note that every example that you cited was widely covered in mainstream news. The Paulus story has not been. Because it has no substance and they will not touch it. Nor should Wikipedia. 66.82.9.76 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For you to come in and arbitrarily decide to ignore the discussion that has already been going on is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you want to lock this article – feel free. But lock it in the consensus version as discussed above – not in your favorite version of it. 66.82.9.76 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for eating your replies earlier, I didn't realize you were still editing. However.

I -have- read all of the archives and there's hardly an argument about the Paulus story. The argument is whether he's gay or not, or whether there should be a link to Openly Clay in here or not. This is not the issue involving my edit at ALL. I also cited two examples of the Paulus story that -are- being covered in mainstream media. It's because I saw the story on CNN today that I came to the Clay Aiken wikipedia page and tried to find the name of the guy so I could read the full story; I was pretty surprised to see that there was no mention of it and even further surprised to see the vehement opposition by his fans to such a reference. I say again, there has been no consensus on the Paulus issue, the only consensus has been whether it's fine to leave a link mentioning his sexuality rumors and whether it's fine to leave a link to Openly Clay. Just because you, or anyone else, don't want to -hear- the story doesn't mean that it doesn't belong here. Once again I'm reverting BACK to my edit, which is simple, short and completely NPOV. Please stop removing it, it is NOT a consensus version, it's YOUR version. - mixvio 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'll point out that the argument above, under the Gay? heading, makes a very valid point: If the Corey Clarke controversy was allowed on the Paula Abdul page then there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be here. - mixvio 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Corey Clarke controversy was WIDELY covered by mainstream news. The Paulus story has not been. The only time that the Paulus topic has come close to being mentioned is in relation to that FTC Complaint hoax that you seem to not know about. Will have to continue this converation tomorrow. But lowering Wikipedia standards to the Tabloid level is just not something that we should consider doing. 66.82.9.76 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem unable to read entire paragraphs and instead pick and choose your things to reply to. In my original summary I included links to all places reporting this story. They're now on John Paulus' main page. Two mainstream publications, The New York Post and The New York Daily News, reported this story. Furthermore, I also stated that I personally saw the story on CNN television today.

To use your own (paraphrased) words, if this is such a non-story, why the big push to get rid of it? You seem to have a personal vested interest in keeping it on; while I am ambivalent to Clay Aiken as an artist or person and only feel that Wikipedia should (and through the few examples I listed as well as many, many others I could search for) report on ALL news, even that which certain fans might find dubious or unnoteworthy because they tarnish their idol's image. Sorry. Wikipedia's not here to make you feel good about your favorite celebrities. - mixvio

Paulus' page was seriously considered for deletion as being non-notable. See the AfDs. Wikipedia is also not here to keep up with every tabloid story out there. It is a matter of what sort of reference we want Wikipedia to be. Salacious gossip - or actual notable topics. For now I consolidated the "gay" topics. 66.82.9.76 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Really you got your way for now. The topic is in the article as you requested. It certainly is not worth it's own sub-section. You are pushing reasonability. 66.82.9.76 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll choose to disregard your vaguely-immature and borderline rude comments and instead say I'm fine with your edits. I only put it in its own subsection because I didn't know where else was best (which was already talked about between myself and Arglebargle, though I'm sure you chose to overlook that bit.) I don't entirely care -where- the information is as long as it's still present. Thank you for your revision, though I will point out Wikipedia policy is also not to continuously revert articles (3 revert rule) but you do seem pretty content to disregard that one to suit your own ends. For now I'm happy where the info is pending a consensus on whether it does in fact deserve its own section or evidence turns up tomorrow saying Paulus is a liar and the information can be completely disregarded. Gay didn't need your derisive designation. - mixvio 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

mixvio, while it appears that you have worn 66.82.9.76 down with your badgering, there is not consensus to add this material. 66.82.9.76 is not anonymous, but is unable to log in to Wikipedia due to her internet connection, as stated several times on this page. For you to step into this matter with such insistence does not show a spirit of cooperation. Discussion should take place on the "talk" page as requested, and not through continually re-adding material that is in dispute. A decision does not need to be made today. I need time to read through all the arguments. The fact remains that previous discussions have not resulted in a decision to add this material, and 66.82.9.76 had every right to remove your additions. -Jmh123 04:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and by that same argument, previous discussions unfortunately didn't result in a decision to leave them off, which is why I put them back on. I see absolutely no reason why a concise, simple and reasonable mention of the story shouldn't be here whether it's considered news enough by some or not. It's a pretty simple thing and it's bewildering to me why two sentences is causing so much strife. - mixvio 04:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is late, I have had a long day, and have just come upon this extensive discussion. I expect a number of good reasons have been presented for not including this material. Surely this can keep until tomorrow. -Jmh123 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And since it was mentioned, the complete whining and violent responses to the story-- so violent, in fact, that it verges on homophobia and is bothersome to me as a gay man, doesn't induce a "spirit of cooperation" either. The compromise is to leave the summary I presented since the option you and 66.82.9.76 seem to offer is completely ignoring the story. Sorry. I could care less whether or not Clay Aiken's gay, I could care less whether or not he chooses to engage in unprotected sex with strangers, but my disinterest doesn't mean there's no story. Rather, you've moved this beyond that by the immaturity I've seen tonight on this issue, and the immaturity I've read that happened in the past over whether "gay" was appropriate or whether a link was appropriate. It's ridiculous, and really you should all be very very embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves for turning this into an issue. I can't imagine even the Michael Jackson page has to deal with this kindof lunacy. - mixvio 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from impugning my character. I have asked for time to read the discussion and respond tomorrow. It is not an unreasonable request. -Jmh123 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't realize that the buck stops with you. Please, go right ahead, if I'd realized you made the decisions on wikipedia I would've waited for you to get online. </ sarcasm>

And I didn't "impugning" your character. I involved all of you in my diatribe. Didn't mean to make you feel personally offended. Take all the time you'd like, but I counted the numbers of "Put it in," "I disagree with those who want it off" and etc in the above Gay? section and it's really very clear to me that the consensus is it should be in. - mixvio 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you Google John Paulus you find 32 news articles (gossip pages) and of that number 5 are not the ex-Green Beret. That leaves 27 by name mentions, hardly news or noteworthy enough to include mentioning him in my opinion. Oops, I forgot to sign this. Also forgot to mention the last mention by name was Feb. 23rd. Maria202 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being completely wrong in your statement, someone else already said we can't use google as evidence that John Paulus is being talked about widely. Ergo, we can't use google as evidence that John Paulus isn't being talked about widely either. - mixvio 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For someone who says they don't care and are getting tired of this you sure did jump on me pretty fast. You can check google yourself and see that I am not wrong. If google was discussed I must have missed it but I will go back and check. By you logic google can't be used to discuss the story either and in that case except for message boards and blogs I have heard nothing about this from anyone I know in real life. Maria202 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, I've nothing else better to do. I meant it was stated that the amount of google results can't be used to determine anything, not the use of google to find results itself. The NY Post article came out in the beginning of March and there was an additional NY Post article about this on Feb 27, I believe. Furthermore, the webcam allegations didn't come out until March and though not all of these have referenced Paulus' name specifically, they all make reference to this being an additional "gay" scandal that he's in. - mixvio 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And a google search on "John Paulus" brings up over 35,400 results. I strongly doubt you sat and looked through every single one of them to reach your determination that only 27 are about this John Paulus in particular. - mixvio 21:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AND, there was another National Enquirer story out on March 01 that talks about new allegations and references John Paulus. [1] - mixvio 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I did not search through 35k+ results. I confined my search to NEWS sorted by date. NEWS is published mentions, whether gossip or hard news and exludes message boards, blogs, etc. Additional gay mentions really is irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not to name John Paulus. Maria202 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not the John Paulus story should be included

So I asked the admins to protect this page because I'm tired of having my edits reverted. A clear decision needs to be made whether or not a link to the John Paulus story should be included in this article. I'm of the opinion that the discussion under the Gay? heading already made it clear that the majority thought it deserves to be included, but for some people that's not enough. So that's what this section is for. I see absolutely no reason why two or three sentences doesn't belong on this page referencing the Paulus story and none of the arguments presented bear enough reason, or common sense IMO, to dispell my viewpoint. The story has been picked up in many news outlets, both tabloid and reputable, numerous, numerous blogs, and I've seen the story myself on television. The argument that this story is "too soon" is beyond ridiculous. The John Paulus page was allowed to stand after the vote for deletion so clearly there was enough people who thought it merited existance to cause a standstill. Ergo, let's try and make a rational and mature decision here, otherwise I'll suggest that this issue be moved to mediation and arbitration, if necessary. Thanks guys. mixvio 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the entire John Paulus topic is tabloid crap and has no place in an encyclopedic reference. I also get a bit peeved about being called homophobic just because I do not think that we should document outright lies for posterity. The gay topic and the John Paulus topic are different issues. When Paulus can offer at least one shred of evidence that anything that he said has some truth in it - THEN we should be having this discussion. Until then I don't think that someone trying to kickstart their gay porn career by inventing stories should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a mechanism to gain some veneer of respectability. There are a lot of outright lies out there on the internet, and I do not believe Wikipedia should be the place to catalog them. 66.82.9.70 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's as much your opinion that this is "tabloid crap" as it's my opinion that the story is worthy of inclusion. Do I think the story's true? Yes, very likely, I believe it is. Do I care one way or the other? Not in the least. That's not why I'm pushing this. I'm pushing it because it's bothersome that anytime his sexuality is speculated there's such a backlash against mentioning it. The fact of the matter is googling "John Paulus" will provide you 45,200+ results. While obviously not half of these are actually about the man, that's still considerable coverage. I do think it morally reprehensible that the man is capitalizing on the story, but Wikipedia is not here to police morals. Wikipedia is full of other such "encyclopedic references" to stories involving celebrity scandal that are based on less evidence than this. Wikipedia is also full of other such references that later go on to explain the controversy ended in the stories being proved false-- I've absolutely no disillusions that were John Paulus to get on television this afternoon and apologize, say he lied, and left it as that you would be all for including a blurb vindicating Clay Aiken from his statements; at the very least I doubt you'd be so opposed to someone else putting it here. I don't think you can claim these are outright lies because neither Clay Aiken nor his representatives have come out and tried to dispell the story in the least. When someone calls Tom Cruise gay he at least threatens to sue them. Really, it's not like I'm trying to leave something about John Dahlstrom. Paulus has volunteered lots of evidence, you're just choosing to be blind to it. And unfortunately, Wikipedia does catalog lots of internet-related hoaxes. - mixvio 13:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, my few-sentence summary of the story in no way could be construed as giving someone respectability. I said it was allegations, I said it was unverified, I said Clay Aiken hasn't responded one way or another. It was entirely unbiased and NPOV, but it should be reported. - mixvio 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tom Cruise history is exactly why Clay's team has not threatened to sue. Tom sued. He won. What did it accomplish? It took a false story and planted it into the conciousness of millions of people who would never have heard of the story except that Tom tried to defend himself. Basically suing caused more damage than ignoring. Tabloids just LOVE to be sued because it is wonderful advertising for them. They budget for it. So you really can not use that as a guage for veracity of the stories. So I think you CAN still claim that these are outright lies. I see no reason for rewarding the guy by giving him the attention that he is desparately seeking. He just wants to get his toe in the door. Then he can leverage that to widen the exposure to sell more porn. Michigan user 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Paulus has offered no evidence that I could not have typed up on my laptop. You would have to be really trying to believe the story to believe that his IM or email "evidence" has any veracity in it. He has offered no other evidence except his story, and his story mutates daily. I see no reason to report every crackpot story out there. At this point I see no reason for acknowledging this story at all. Michigan user 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And if Wikipedia were the place for you to demonstrate your criminal forensics skills, I'd agree with you. I'm not asking the mention be put here to take a stance on whether or not the story's true; FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, it's two sentences. Wikipedia is, in fact full of crackpot stories on plenty of other articles. The opposition to this is SOLELY by his fans, SOLELY because they're his fans, and not for any reason further than that. The people arguing against this are the same people who argued against in the debate for a reference to the rumors about him being gay. Get over it, and grow up. - mixvio 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your mature way of showing cooperation and gaining consensus?? But blowing up and swearing at me? And after that little explosion, and telling me to "Get over it, and grow up" you expect your statements to be convincing? Surely you do not expect Clay's enemies to come here and try to prevent a smear campaign from succeeding - do you? Why are we even going over this again? This conversation already exists on this page. You really need to settle down. Michigan user 15:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgive you for assuming my emphasis was a blow up. In fact, I find this whole thing more humorous than irritating; it's juvenile. And again, my "get over it" comment was directed in general, not to you specifically. Sorry for the confusion. We're "going over this" again because, though the above conversation indicates in my mind that more than enough people felt the Paulus reference belongs, there are a few of you seeming blind to this and instead complain that the consensus is it shouldn't be here, based on faulty logic and arguments that have no prescedent on any other page on Wikipedia. I reopened the argument as a newcomer. - mixvio 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm beyond cooperation really when my edits were violently refused and disregarded multiple times. That's why I asked the page locked. It's clear that the opposing viewpoint isn't interested in cooperation either or they'd abide by their own complaints and rules. - mixvio 15:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well everyone else seems to think that we did have consensus and that you were the one who was disreguarding it. Repeatedly. "Violently". However we are still willing to talk about it. I just completely disagree with you. Michigan user 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In this argument in particular, "everyone else" appears to be you and two other people. I'm referring to the argument above under the Gay? heading, not my own particular contribution to the discussion. That discussion in particular, while not overwhelming, has more people saying the Paulus reference should be in than those against it. And I only readded my edits after they were repeatedly deleted by two other people. Hardly "violent." My reason for adding this section was so that the consensus determined could be clearly so those against or for the Paulus reference would clearly see where the opinion is, and there wouldn't be the need for continual reverts. Like I said, the Gay? heading suggests, in my mind, that Paulus should be mentioned. - mixvio 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim to have seen this story on CNN yesterday. I have made extensive inquiries, and can find no verification for this claim. Could you elaborate--time of day, regular CNN or HN, reporter, program, etc?

An argument that it is done elsewhere in Wikipedia is not a valid argument for including gossip here. Editors for each entry make those decisions independently. In my opinion, if Wikipedia is to be respected, it must maintain a higher standard; tabloids, shock jocks, and newspaper gossip columns are not valid sources.

Regarding your "google test", see Wikipedia:Search_engine_test, subheading "Non-applicable in some cases, such as pornography": "The simple Google test by number of hits is not applicable to people or titles within a number of internet-based businesses, notably (but by no means restricted to) pornography. This is because an entire sub-industry has appeared with the sole purpose of increasing the number of Google hits certain subjects receive. They achieve this by use of a number of techniques, including multiple mirror sites, and spamming of notice boards and Wikipedia. Also, pornographic actors tend to appear in production-line quantities of entirely non-notable films. It is therefore necessary, as per Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies, for the researcher to prove that the actor or actress has established notoriety. This usually requires finding journalistic coverage, independent biographies or extensive fan clubs." Lucas has a vested interest in advancing Paulus' story, and the two of them have done an impressive job of it. That doesn't mean they should be rewarded with yet another venue in which to spread their lies.

A word about your accusations of homophobia: no one I know cares whether Aiken is gay or not. What I do care about is that Wikipedia not be used by those who wish to employ this publication to "out" him. I support an individual's right to define his or her own sexual identity. Paulus' allegations extend far beyond the claim of a sexual experience; it is the nature of those claims and the manner in which he has prosecuted those claims (Howard Stern, Lucas Entertainment) that make his story disgusting, not the suggestion that Aiken is gay.

As for your claim of majority support, you need to be aware that there is one individual arguing for inclusion under multiple IDs and anonymous IPs. Use of sockpuppets to create the illusion of a majority in order to advance a point of view is considered bad form here. In addition to myself and Michigan user, Katefan, Hermione, and Will Beback have also argued against inclusion of this reference. -Jmh123 16:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of conversation above:

Omitting the Paulus mention at this time:

Jmh123 "Even if it became a "big news" story, if it is not substantiated or if nothing meaningful is added to the story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedia-worthy."

Hamiltonian "if it becomes a bigger story, I would argue it'd be worthy of inclusion"

Katefan0 "I see no reason to include the musings of every crackpot who calls into Howard Stern or is paid off by the National Enquirer" "There's no consensus currently for adding this information."

Will Beback "Since we don't have a reliable source for the info, I think we should omit it."

Michigan user "The rumors about Clay being gay have been pushed before - that is WHY we reached a consensus on the handling of it. More unsubstantiated rumors do not change a thing."

Paulus mention supporters:

Rabinid - the guy who created the John Paulus page to begin with.

Mixvio - You.

Abstain:

ArglebargleIV "I'm doing a hands off for a while, I really do not want to -participate in an revert war, even accidentally."

Michigan user 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to you both in one post. Jmh, it was a brief mention on American Morning yesterday at approximately 7 AM, somewhere thereabouts. The story was very short, which is why I came to Wikipedia because I wanted to learn more about it. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a mention on the CNN website regarding this, which is why I referred to it anecdotally.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I think this is the best place to put this as the discussion has moved on. Complete, word-for-word transcripts, including all banter, of the 8 half hour segments of CNN American Morning on March 9 show no mention of Aiken or of anything relevant to this discussion. [2]-Jmh123 04:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the transcripts myself already. They're about the main story segments, not the side ones. I already told you I couldn't find it. Are you insinuating that I'm lying about seeing the story? I have to assume so given you chose to bold your comment. - mixvio 18:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The transcripts are complete; they include all banter between anchors, side stories, weather reports, every word spoken on CNN American Morning that morning. When you stated that you had seen this on CNN I was surprised, as I was aware of no such mention; there are many, fans and non fans, who are monitoring all media closely for any report of this story. I sought to confirm your statement in a variety of ways. I can find no other source for this. The only television mention of which I am aware is VH1's "Best Week Ever". -Jmh123 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your second point. Wikipedia is not a collection of articles assigned to editors to do whatever they please; there are prescedents, there are stylistic agreements, policy rules and guidelines. Saying that what's done on one page has no bearing on this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is intended to function as a single organism, not a jumbled collection of pages under one banner. Furthermore, while most things in tabloids or Howard Stern (whom I dislike, personally, and never listen to) are dubious at best, they do sometimes print things that turn out to be true. You cannot categorically disregard it just because it's not 100% proven yet. As I've stated many, many times, Wikipedia has many pages that include such references and they're allowed to stand. You can't throw this out because it's convenient to your point of view. Find me a clear policy that says what happens on one page stays on one page and I'll change my mind but I found no policy supporting your statement.

I didn't say it was a google "test," I pointed out that there's a lot of buzz about the story while you seem determined to relegate this to a few fringe websites. That's unfortunately not the case.

You consistently use phrases like "spread their lies" and words like "disgusting." This REEKS of POV. Like I said previously, Wikipedia is not here to be moral police. There are lots of articles on this site that I find uncomfortable and would delete if I were the Wiki-God. But I don't, because they're reporting all sides of issues, whereas your statements are violently oppressive to this solely because you don't like the story. That's not your job nor right. I personally think the man is manipulative and an asshole for capitalizing on what's nearly a blackmail situation. However, that doesn't mean a simple reference isn't merited. The Paulus page exists and survived deletion. Refusing to mention the story here is solely because you're trying to hide the story, and unfortunately it's not your reponsibility, nor Wikipedia's, to protect the reputations of celebrities that fans enjoy. Wikipedia is intended to provide all accounts of its articles and there's clearly enough buzz going on to merit a few sentence summation of the alleged controversy. I'm not asking you to provide links to the webcam photos. My summary was as concise and NPOV as I could get it and you're all just being unreasonable.

The sock-puppet thing is ridiculous. In the Gay? heading there are only two unregistered IP addresses posting comments, both of whom have enough of an individual voice to me and only one, 207.200.116.204, has anything about vandalism, etc, and that's because it's an America Online IP address. Neither have any accusations about being sock puppets nor is there any accusation of that in this talk page until two moments ago. You can't decide that they're sock puppets because they disagree with you; by that measure 66.82.9.70 may as well be a sock puppet because there's as little evidence to his/her identity as there is to 207.200.116.204's, and both of them are cited for vandalism in their talk pages. I'm not saying 66.82.9.70 is, however, and nor should you claim two other people are so arbitrarily.

And michigan, your "summary" is ridiculious. Let me repost an actual one:

Omitting the Paulus mention at this time:

Jmh123 "Even if it became a "big news" story, if it is not substantiated or if nothing meaningful is added to the story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedia-worthy."

Katefan0 "I see no reason to include the musings of every crackpot who calls into Howard Stern or is paid off by the National Enquirer" "There's no consensus currently for adding this information."

Will Beback "Since we don't have a reliable source for the info, I think we should omit it."

Michigan user "The rumors about Clay being gay have been pushed before - that is WHY we reached a consensus on the handling of it. More unsubstantiated rumors do not change a thing."

69.19.14.42

Paulus mention supporters:

Hamiltonian is NOT against it, he/she argues it's worthy but that he/she wouldn't handle it. Read more than just the inital post.

Chiefnayr - "if Corey Clarke makes it onto Paula Abdul's page, then this Paulus guy should make it onto Aiken's."

Rabinid - though I didn't see any basis for you claiming he made the Paulus page, neither here NOR on the Paulus page.

Mixvio

207.200.116.204

71.126.151.95

Abstain:

ArglebargleIV I'm willing to count this as such, though Arglebargle in the end agreed my summary was fine.

In the end I believe this matter should likely be referred to mediation or arbitration. I remain unconvinced that your (in the general sense, lest someone feel I’m picking on them again) arguments are based from anything other than a desire to protect poor, poor Clay Aiken and unfortunately that line of reasoning is insane to me and doesn’t move me to disregard my stance, nor is that what Wikipedia exists for. If I could see a reason to not include the information that was not borne out of some revolting reaction you all seem to have internally at the thought of Clay Aiken potentially engaging in a sexual act with another man, I’d be more inclined to drop it. I don’t, however, and since the opposition to this is coming from those who opposed mentioning rumors of his sexuality I detect an ulterior motive that bothers me immensely. I’d go so far as to say I don’t think rumors of Clay Aiken’s sexuality belong whereas this has more basis since it’s potentially verifiable. Again, I’m only trying to input a few sentence link to the main article, I’m not asking that you write “CLAY IS GAY” in bold and 14 point typeface. I don’t intend to change my mind based on repeated examples of crying and faulty logic and my patience level is enough that I’m content to have a moderator handle this because I feel that you’re all being petty and unreasonable and I don’t think that sense is going to prevail in this debate. - mixvio 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we need to allow adequate time for other participants to include their opinions. But on your re-vamped summary - the IP addresses just can not be used because there is too great an opportunity for sock puppetry. And you moved Hamiltonian in error. He definitely said "This story seems to have generated a few dozen "legitimate" news stories. Enough? I don't think so. ". The Chiefnayr could possibly be included even though his argument is not valid in Wikipedia. And it is easy enough to determine Rabinid's participation in the Paulus page. Go look. Michigan user 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said read further than the first post. He later clarified that it seemed to be reported in more places and was gaining momentum. And Chiefnayr is totally valid, like I told Jmh, show me a policy stating otherwise and I'll change my opinion.

And I'm happy to wait and allow adequate time, hence me saying I'm patient. But I also don't see my opinion changing and I'm sure none of you do either. - mixvio 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiefnayr's contribution was unsigned, and later "signed" by bot. He has exactly two edits at Wikipedia, one being the comment on this page. References to sockpuppets can be found in the Paulus deletion debate. As Michigan User has stated, you need only look at the history of the Paulus page to see who initiated and is the primary contributor to that entry. I will ask you again to please refrain from making offensive statements about me or any other participant in this discussion. -Jmh123 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But not here. And, interestingly enough, none of the IP addresses who commented in this discussion also commented on the Paulus page, talk or deletion. While I'm sure there's likely a giant anti-Clay Aiken conspiracy with vast resources to mimic IP addresses and so forth, I really think the paranoia is unfounded. I'll also point out that you conveniently ignored my challenge to provide a policy re: other pages. I'll state again that I didn't make any offensive statements about you specifically and if you take offense at my opinion about this infantile debate then unfortunately I can't exactly help you. I'm not here to coddle anyone. You unfortunately can't try to keep the Clay Aiken page and the John Paulus page seperate entities yet argue references between the discussion. That flies in the face of your own logic. If you choose to acknowledge the John Paulus debate then I can't see how you refute it belonging here. Either you treat the Clay Aiken argument as its own being and leave whatever "evidence" you site from the Paulus page out of the debate, or acknowledge they're both intertwined. Acknowledgement of such would only stand to reason that this page deserves a link to the Paulus article. - mixvio 18:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not "conveniently ignore" your challenge. You are so prolific in your postings that it is difficult to keep up. If you read this page, you will find this statement by Katefan0 right near the top: "With so many disparate users working on disparate articles, Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent. It's not really useful to compare one article's treatment with another, or try to force one article into another's mold." Katefan is a long-time editor and Wikipedia admin, and I am satisfied with her take on this. Not buying your other argument. An argument for deletion here is relevant to an argument for deletion there: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Paulus. As I do not have too much time on my hands, I am off to do other things. Later. -Jmh123 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Katefan's job as an admin unfortunately isn't the same as an agreed-upon policy. That's what I asked for. I'm sure you're satisfied with her take, because it's convenient for your point of view. However I asked that you provide me a clear Wikipedia guideline or policy, of which there isn't one. Consistently mentioning your long days or lack of time whenever you choose to leave the discussion is really irrelevent and pointless, in my opinion. Do you mean to guilt trip me or insinuate that I'm forcing you to participate? I'm not exactly sure of your purpose, but it seems pretty passive-aggressive to me. Please don't complain that I'm hurting your feelings (when I'm only ever directing something to you when I cite your name specifically) and then try and make me feel bad for having an opinion in this debate that I choose to defend "prolifically." - mixvio 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, much as I appreciate your kind message on my talk page (and thank you for it!), what I said above is really true. Wikipedia is inconsistent. If you have a problem with a discrete article, fix it. But we don't templatize articles. The bottom line is that there's no consensus for inserting the Paulus information; that's the pertinent policy that's in play at the moment. I still don't think this information has risen to the level of public discourse that it deserves mentioning here (or anywhere -- note that I voted delete on John Paulus). Everybody, just take a deep breath and try to pull the claws back a minute. And just for the record, I'm no fan, I think Clay Aiken is insipid and boring (sorry to those who disagree), so try not to paint everybody with such a broad brush. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only real argument I can pull out of this that approaches reason is that the story hasn't been printed in enough "reputiable" places (a subjective consideration at best) to merit mention. Fine. Then you post something stating that the story is unverified as of yet, you point it out to be printed mostly in tabloids at the moment, you refer to the fact that other than "no comment" Clay Aiken's spokespeople have only made one actual response to the story. You don't, Don't, DON'T, categorically refuse to post it because you don't care for the subject matter of the story. I'm bewildered as to why this is so difficult to comprehend. The horrendous opposition is solely manufactured by those who're fans of his (and Katefan, though you agree in this instance this debate is being perpetuated by those who initiated the gay rumors debate, something I think you were for inclusion of) who don't want a few sentences to tarnish their idol's rep. Sorry. That's not what this site is here for. There's no reason why a summary shouldn't be here and I fail to see any relevent justifications to the contrary. - mixvio 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you personally disagree with someone's reasoning, consensus still is not with you. And that is what this site is for. Sorry. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you. And just because one more person agrees with a particular viewpoint than the alternative doesn't suddenly grant that viewpoint rightness. - mixvio 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Consensus? It's unfortunate, but fairly immaterial, that you disagree with the majority view. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have, and since you decided to link the policy, I'll point out that you don't have consensus. Consensus isn't majority, which, you don't even have there. In the above summary of opinion (and I'll even be so gracious to omit the IP addresses from the decison) there's a dead tie between those who want Paulus in and those who want Paulus out. Consensus is an agreement by all parties involved and barring that you've got to go with the supermajority policy. You have neither. - 72.225.254.43 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. - mixvio 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made my position on this topic plainly clear. There is no valid reason for an NPOV mention of this controversial topic to not be included in the article. Regardless of how distasteful some editors may find the inclusion, it meets all qualifications of Wikipedia standards and it is relevant to the article. --Rabinid 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the controversy (Paulus, web cam photos, FTC, et al) was reported by US magazine in this week's issue as well. --Rabinid 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabinid, I tried to search for a reference to this in US Magazine and I couldn't find anything. Is any of this online anywhere? - mixvio 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find an online source to cite but this is is the US magazine reference:

Is Clay's career in trouble?

In February, former Green Beret John Paulus claimed to have had unprotected sex with Clay Aiken, 27 (who has denied that he is gay). Now a tabloid has printed shots of a Webcam striptease the singer allegedly sent another man. (Aiken's rep had no comment.) Reaction was swift: the New York Post reports a group of ex-fans filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, claiming Aiken's innocent Christian image was false advertising. Can Aiken hang on to his career? "Everyone is worried", a pal tells Us. "Nobody wants to see Clay go down. He is a great guy and an amazing talent."

There is an accompanying picture captioned "The Idol season two runner-up is working on a new album, due in the spring." --Rabinid 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The article already addresses the rumors about being gay. I see no reason to detail the particular rumors - as it adds nothing of value. Wikipedia should not be the place to go to look for dirty details. If we detailed every rumor out there for every celebrity we would overwhelm the actual information. 66.82.9.79 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And my edit wasn't about the gay rumors. My edit was about the Paulus story. Just because you don't like the Paulus story doesn't mean you've got the right to censor it. If this is all that you and the opposition is going to cling to, I move that the matter be sent to mediation. - mixvio 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"No Comment" from Clay Aiken's rep does not make fact out of the unsubstantiated claims made by John Paulus to the NE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not a platform for tabloid speculation or gossip blogs. The gay rumors have already been addressed, I see no reason to add more. Maria202 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone against this needs to stop lumping Paulus in with the "gay rumors." They're mutually exclusive of one another.

The argument that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts is also rather debateable. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary with definitions and so forth. It's a comprehensive collection of information around a subject and unfortunately for those of you who feel some bizarre protection for Clay Aiken's public image that collective information should include everything about a subject, in this case the snowballing accusations regarding his sex life. I'll point out that the Bill Clinton wikipedia article lists every single one of Clinton's alleged affairs. Of the five people Clinton was accused of having affairs with, he only admitted to two. The Paula Jones case was settled out of court and later summarily dismissed on the basis of being groundless, while the Juanita Broadderick and Kathleen Willey cases have been knocked down many times. Are you going to argue that these stories aren't speculative and gossip as well? I'm sorry folks, you can't have these ridiculous double standards. The Paulus story isn't something relegated to the fringe of the world's consciousness, it's being widely reported and it's being buzzed about all over publications that handle celebrity stories. It deserves to be here, it deserves to be mentioned as an as-yet unsubstantiated story, and everyone else who wants to protect Clay Aiken should perhaps invest their time and energy into something that's a worthwile pursuit. - mixvio 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone who wants to smear Clay Aiken with unsubstantiated rumors should perhaps invest their time and energy into something that's a worthwile pursuit. What is your vested interest in pushing so hard. Not to hard to find out -is it? 66.82.9.54 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My "vested interest" in this is because I feel that this issue is being censored by fans of his who don't want it included solely because they're fans of his and don't want to hear the story. Unfortunately it is news whether it makes some of you feel unhappy and trying to ignore it isn't an appropriate response. And really, "smear" Clay Aiken is rather dramatic. What I edited in was a very simple two sentence summary of the charges, fully pointing out where it's been reported so far and fully pointing out that as yet it's just an accusation. If I wanted to "smear" Clay Aiken I really don't think I would've been so PC about it. Rather I really won't stand for censorship on any issues, certainly not a Wikipedia article being hijacked and protected by fans of his. What do you think I really stand to gain from a very simple and demure link to Paulus' article? Seriously, that's almost laughable. - mixvio 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think Clinton's peccadillos have gotten too much attention, feel free to go edit that article. But articles here aren't templatized, as I've mentioned before. As for suggesting that everyone who disagrees "wants to protect Clay Aiken," I would suggest that's not really assuming good faith of folks who have been contributing here for quite some time. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said to Jmh, show me a policy or guideline that says that. I think what's fair in one article is fair in another and until I see evidence suggesting otherwise I don't think it needs to be debated. I respect your role as an admin but unfortunately in my mind the opinion of one admin on this issue isn't enough. Sorry. :/ Furthermore, since the vast majority of people involved in this particular debate are the same ones who were involved in the same debate against inclusion of the gay rumors, and the vast majority of those involved in this particular debate are involved solely out of a vested interest in their celebrity's well-being (by their own admission) I don't consider them to be acting in good faith. Also, that is a guideline/suggestion and it's not rule. - mixvio 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Show you a policy or guideline that says what? That Wikipedia works on consensus? It's right here. Wikipedia:Consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. And you're right, it is only a guideline. But the three revert rule is not, which is one mechanism by which consensus may be enforced. So if it comes to that, then the consensus will win out, though I'd prefer that not be the case. Your comment about my opinion being the only one in play is disingenuous at best. Hermione1980, also an admin, agrees with me, as do two other established users (Jmh and Michigan user). How is this only my opinion? Consensus isn't with you. Pushing the issue by filibustering or weak attempts at wikilawyering aren't going to further your cause. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You do not get to decide what does or does not need to be debated. Sorry. And I do not consider you to be acting in good faith either. I consider you to be acting in self interest. But it is not your place to pass judgement on other editors validity. Because if it gets down to that - we would have to question YOUR validity. 66.82.9.54 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm totally making this into an issue out of self-interest, while you so obviously have absolutely no interest in this at all. I wouldn't for a moment think that you're arguing against inclusion because you're a Clay Aiken fan. Oh wait, I probably would because you're an IP address that's not contributed to this debate at all until now. Interesting how similar your IP address is to the ones that left all of the other 66.82.9 comments. And interesting that they're all advocating the same stance. Wanna talk about sock puppets? Hmm.... And I never said I was acting in good faith. I think this debate is infantile and retarded. Take from that whatever you want. - mixvio 01:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

HUH?? It is not all that interesting, you just have a short memory. I AM the same person as those other edits. At least the 66.92.9 edits. We've had this conversation before - you know Satellite modem etc. *sigh* I never saw a policy or guideline (that you are so fond of pointing out) - that says that a fan can not contribute an opinion on an article. Did I miss something?? And if you are not acting in good faith - then you need to remove yourself from the conversation. 66.82.9.54 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No I don't. And if you don't want people to think you're being shifty you might want to, satellite modem or not, leave some sortof a signature. - mixvio 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, I have enjoyed the articles as they have been presented by Wikipedia. But until now, I've never felt compelled to add any thoughts of my own.

I'm not even going to go into the myriad of other articles which have information which could be considered alleged or misconstrued, since this discussion has been down that road before, and it's a dead end. From a neutral standpoint, I can see both sides. However, the fact remains that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a press release. It should not serve to either accuse or adore. It should simply state the facts as they are known, and leave the reader to develop his or her own conclusions.

The defense that acknowledging this information could result in Clay Aiken's reputation being tarnished is irrelevant in this forum. If preserving Clay's reputation is the sole purpose of this article, then it's my opinion that the entirety of the article be scrapped, since that would render it pointless. Refusing to reference an allegation in this article when it has been referenced in others on this same site is as illogical as it is unethical.

I'm of the opinion that a short mention of the story, with the appropriate disclaimers, should be included. - Dooder 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Never had even one other thing to offer Wikipedia except this opinion?? Now suddenly you want to offer your opinion. . . OK. At least you can sign in - so that is good.

The disconnect here seems to be that Mixvio et. al. are starting from the premis that the story is true, and that it is being suppressed. Which irritates them.

The others seem to be starting from the premise that the story is completely fabricated and does not deserve to be acknowledged because it exists only for attention seeking purposes.

If there was any proof at all that Paulus story could have happened - then I could see a mention of it. If Clay's team rebuted the issue - then I could see mentioning it with balance. But with absolutely NOTHING except the word of a guy who admits that he is kickstarted a gay porn career that he has been thinking about for years - it seems ridiculous to allow him to control Wikipedia for his promotion purposes. 66.82.9.54 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually of a third opinion. Other than honestly not having an opinion of whether or not the story is true (to be honest, I have doubts), I think that the story has been covered to what I might describe as a medium level of notability. What I might offer as a compromise is a mention that in addition to SNL, Mad TV et al., we should mention that tabloids and internet gossip sites have also speculated about his sexuality. If the story breaks bigger (regardless of its actual truth) then a fuller mention will definitely be needed. On an unrelated note, why no mention of Clay's birth father and his mother's second husband (who may or may not have adopted him - I only have a vague recollection of a story from around the time of his season of Idol which was covered, amusingly enough, in a tabloid I believe)? --Hamiltonian 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am ignoring the LONG post below - because I have better things to do with my life that read a thesis. 66.82.9.54 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So Hamiltonian this is the current text:

Due to 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 [3] among his many internet fan sites that 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, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

The revised text that you are suggesting would be something like:

Due to 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. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality, and in one case a person interviewed stated that he had sex with Clay, although there was no proof provided. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that 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, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

Would that cover the current stories?? 66.82.9.54 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point about the father and step-father. When the artile gets unlocked - I will correct that omission. 66.82.9.54 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also ignoring the long post below. I think a new catagory should be started for RUMORS and all the gossip/rumor/speculation moved there instead of interweaving it with Post Idol Career. I have no problem with mentioning tabloids printing unconfrimed stories, they've done it before and will do it again. I do not care for the wording above. Maria202 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

wow - Brand new users are just popping out of the woodwork tonight. Hi Maria. 66.82.9.54 02:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi back at ya. I've been reading here since the beginning and finally had to jump in. As for text, I like this wording better. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there was no proof provided. Maria202 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - that is better. Then it would read:

Due to 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. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there was no proof provided. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that 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, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

How is that?? 66.82.9.54 02:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to 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. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there is no substantiating proof. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that 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, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4]. Alledgedly the NE has proof so the no proof provided statement could lead to problems. Maria202 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive the following long post:

In the interest of full disclosure, not that I really feel I’ve got to justify my position, mind you, I’m willing to provide 66.82.9 ‘’et al’’ a walkthrough of my thinking. I came to this page because I saw this story on CNN before work and I was curious as to what it was about. Seeing no mention of the story I became more curious, and after tracking down the name of Paulus I went about preparing to leave a reference.

I read the talk page and was presented with six pages of archives over arguments by fans of his who for whatever insane reason felt that a brief presentation of the rumors of him being gay was somehow wrong and didn’t belong here. By those fans of his who felt that somehow questioning his heterosexuality was somehow a bad thing that should be quashed and stomped on and hidden until people stopped talking about it. As a gay man it troubled me immensely that apparently some people can’t like an artists’ products separate of the artist themselves. I like Lauryn Hill’s cd but I find her as a person to be rather racist. I wouldn’t have lunch with her but I’m fine with myself for buying her cd because I liked the music.

So I left what I felt was a very unbiased account of the story. After talking to Arglebargle I edited it down and left a link to the main page, which I also felt was reasonable and unbiased.

I was immediately attacked by 66.82.9 very irrationally and came to realize that this issue is considered a sacred cow by his fans. I won’t have my words censored by anybody, nor do I think this story should be hidden under the rug because some people find it a touchy subject. 66.82.9 isn’t contributing an opinion, rather he/she is determinedly digging in on this because he/she’s a fan. There’s a big difference.

Personally, I have Clay Aiken’s cd. A few songs are even on my favorites list in my ipod. I could care less who he sleeps with. That doesn’t mean Paulus isn’t a story. I also live in NYC. I’ve met Michael Lucas and run into him on many occasions. I personally find him to be an insipid prick of a man incapable of posing for a photograph without pursing his lips into what I presume is what he finds an attractive look. I would certainly not go out of my way to throw him any “free advertising” so I hope that all of my detractors realize that’s not why I’m for inclusion of Paulus’ story.

I am for it because I think it has as much merit as Jude Law’s nanny belongs on his page, as much as the controversy belongs on James E. West’s page, etc. I don’t think someone’s extramarital affairs, homosexual relationships, drug abuse problems or anything on one’s personal life should really be the sensationalistic news it is, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still NEWS. Just because a story upsets you personally doesn’t give you or anybody else the right to call it non-news because it isn’t on the 24 hour cable news networks in breaking headline fashion. Just because you like a musician or painter or actor’s work doesn’t mean you should feel personally attacked when they do or don’t do something that makes headlines or when someone else accuses them of doing something.

I’m not starting from the premise that the story’s true. I could care less if the story’s true. I’m starting from the premise that plenty other accusations are on plenty other wikipedia pages, much to the detriment of those who are fans of these people I’m sure, and they’re still allowed to stay on the pages. Whether the “disconnect” is because this is about an alleged affair regarding another man I’m not sure, but I really do suspect that if a woman came out and made the same claims there wouldn’t be such an aversion to the story being included. While I don’t care whether or not Paulus’ story is true that doesn’t change that it’s reported enough that I managed to hear about it. Furthermore, no one else on “my” side has said this is true. We’re saying it’s being reported and should be here. The fact that it’s not is because his fans are crying foul and complaining. That IS suppression.

If we’re going to go with the argument that the Paulus story should be ignored because it would be giving he and Michael Lucas free publicity, then I think it necessary that 66.82.9, Jmh and Michigan go forward with the following edits:

We should remove the article referencing the upcoming Half-Life 2 expansion because that would be giving Valve software free publicity. We should also remove references to Damien Rice’s new album, as well as the upcoming album by the Dresden Dolls. For that matter, we should remove links to all musician pages, actor pages and writer pages because leaving these things up provide free publicity for their various past, present and future artistic enterprises.

We should remove the articles on abortion and capital punishment, because this is free publicity for those viewpoints for and against. We should remove the articles on rape and pedophilia because this is free publicity for those who might be looking for methods to commit such things. We should remove politician pages because this is publicity for their legislative opinions. Same for paper press, printing press, computers, Microsoft, Apple, iPod, Creative Labs, Kellog, Kraft, Kleenex, cd-rom burners, flower arrangers, wedding planners, Broadway musicals.

Just to be safe it’s probably best to shut down Wikipedia because once I set my mind to it I realize this site is nothing but one big ad.

Really now. We can’t be afraid of mentioning a story because it might benefit some who we’d rather not be benefiting. I don’t think anybody here is going to read Clay Aiken’s page and be compelled to buy John Paulus’ videos online. Rather I think anyone who might be compelled to buy something of his would read this story and realize that he is clearly capitalizing and go somewhere else. Be that as it may, it’s still NEWS. We’re not here to assign morals to the news, Wikipedia is supposed to include the good and the bad, the black and the white. That’s what NPOV is. The objection to including this story by Aiken’s fanbase is coming from clear, clear, clear POV-related places. - mixvio 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Both of you grow up. (Right. "Both." Mhm.) I disagree with your "compromise," which any child can see is pushing your biased point of view. I'll continue to advocate that the article be protected and if I see that text added I'll delete it myself. I'll not accept a compromise that tries to ignore the Paulus story so broadly. Ignore that. - mixvio 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - So this is the working version.

Due to 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. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In one case an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer although there is no substantiating proof. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that 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, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

If you have something to contribute Mixvio - please contribute. But the threats are not appreciated. 66.82.9.54 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I choose, thanks. And we're stretching the definition of "threat." I'm not accepting your edits as consensus because an anonymous IP address and a convenient new user who happens to have the same stance as you and conveniently has the same argument as you and conveniently writes the same as you happens to pop up right in the middle of this discussion. Synchronicity abounds! You're only helping to further my opinion that this page is owned by "Claymates" who get icky feelings inside when someone talks about his penis. - mixvio 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio - you are violating the "No personal attacks" policy. Please try to work nicely. 66.82.9.54 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. - mixvio 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Every legitimate print media that has reported this has confined their reporting to mentioning that a story was printed in the NE and they have covered themselves by using the word alleged. The compromise text that you do not like is doing the same thing. Fact - a story was printed. Fact - no one knows whether it is true or not. I would still like to see this removed from Post Idol Career and put into a separate catagory called RUMORS. Maria202 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The original placement of the paragraph was negotiated and consensus agreed to last year. The placement was intended to be inline with the history of his career without standing out like a red light. 66.82.9.54 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Maria202 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I do hope that you won't take offense at this but I unfortunately feel that you and 66.82.9 are the same person. "Assume good faith" or not, your appearance is rather too convenient to me. For example, when 66.82.9 and Maria talk “amongst” each other, responses are rendered in minutes every time. The time between when either of them respond to me is much longer. As such I'm not responding to arguments posited by you. Nothing personal.

I've put an informal request in for mediation because I personally don't see this progressing any further. I refuse to accept a compromise that washes the story out since I specifically want this story in, not a watered down mystery synopsis of his sordid past. I think the arguments to the contrary aren't logical and are instead solely because you're fans of his and your reasoning is the textbook definition of POV.

I will be continuing to monitor this but since I don't imagine any of you will come to your senses relatively soon, and I am frustrated by the inanity of this debate, I'm abstaining from discussing this further until the mediator becomes involved. I've made my case and any rational person can see there's no reason why the text I suggested shouldn't be inserted. Sorry if that makes any of you feel bad about yourselves, it's truly not my intention to challenge your collective self-esteems. - mixvio 04:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you are wrong. I have nothing to do with Maria. But the admins can determine that easily enough. Which is exactly why I checked her status and questioned it when she showed up (see above). And Maria's appearance is no more convenient that Dooder's up above. I would love to have an admin facilitate this conversation. Then perhaps there would be less sarcasm, lecturing and personal slams. 66.82.9.54 04:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dooder isn't, however, continuing to contribute and respond to my every statement, as Maria is. And you didn't "question" it, you said hi. You did question Dooder, though, with as much sarcasm and veracity as I question you and Maria. I disregarded Dooder's stance even though I agreed with it because I disregard new users, IP addresses (which you'll remember from our earlier conversation), and sock puppets whether they're on my side or not. That's why you'll not that he/she didn't get a hello from me.

And really, there would be as much sarcasm from me admin or not because I don't feel this debate is based on a mature subject with mature people and ergo doesn't really earn much respect. Sorry if you disagree and feel that Clay Aiken's sex life is the stuff of stern reflection and quiet stoicism. Can't really help you if you feel lectured and I haven't personally slammed anyone. You might have a problem with my response and you might disagree with what I'm saying but aside from telling you to grow up when you decided to ignore my post a few bits back and then move it to the bottom of the page with several carriage returns so it was out of the way, I haven't said anything to anyone that could be construed as a personal attack. Insulting perhaps, but like I said before I'm not here to win votes on the annual Wikipedia hugs contest. That having been said, and as much as I'd love to turn this into a debate about how I'm a big mean monster, this is my last response until the mediator gets involved. Much love. - mixvio 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that you are being paranoid. The whole purpose of that comment to Maria was to POINT OUT that she was a brand new user. Which was exactly the reason for my comment to Dooder also. But . . . whatever. 66.82.9.54 05:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit concerned about having an admin check out my ip. Your entitled to your opinion even if it's wrong. Believe me, you have not made me feel bad about myself. I choose not to respond to verbal putdowns or get involved in petty arguments. I've been reading this page and reading the edit wars ever since Clay first got a page on Wikipedia. Yes, I am a fan. So what? Even though I'm newly registered here, I have as much right to voice my opinion as anyone else. Maria202 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed compromise paragraph completely disregards the substantiating proof of the published IM chats, the reported polygraph test and washcloth, not to mention the published photographs and reported other men. That is then as unacceptable as ignoring the admittedly controversial topic completely. Again I take no position of the veracity or not of Paulus claims, or the other allegations, but it does a disservice to ignore them. --Rabinid 05:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not produce IMs - he produced a typewritten transcript that he SAID was the IMs. He would have to go to the ISP provider to get the actual IMs, and verify the source IP. I can type up that kind of IMs as easily as he can. And they can say whatever I want them to say. No one has ever seen any washcloth - and he has not provided evidence that it has anything but his own stuff on it. All bluff - no substance. The article never once said what questions that he was asked during the polygraph test. The NE WANTED him to pass this test. (But I can see adding a comment on this - since it did happen). The "webcam pics" have nothing to do with Paulus, and are obvious photoshop jobs. I could do a better job. And since the sources are anonymous, I have to assume that Paulus et. al. was the source. You would have to WANT to believe this story to believe what he has offered as evidence. Really all he has offered is his story. And it stinks. 66.82.9.54 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixvio, I am sorry for your pain and I regret that we do not understand one another. This is not the place to try to heal that breach, however. I will be succinct: I am not anti-gay. Aiken could come out tomorrow and I would happily report that here. Groups or individuals with an agenda of using these pages to forcibly out him, however, have been and will continue to be met by me with considerable resistance. The public's "gaydar", jokes, rumors, gossip, tabloid trash--these do not determine a man's sexual identity. Aiken says he is not gay; I accept that. I regret that this resistance has been interpreted as homophobia by you or any other.

As for the proposed text, here's my contribution:

Due to 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. There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In January 2006 an alleged sexual encounter was reported to the National Enquirer, and picked up by other tabloids, newspaper gossip columns, and radio shock jocks. Aiken has not yet commented on the allegation. While there are a few communities [3] among his many internet fan sites that 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, he good-naturedly lampooned such speculation on Saturday Night Live in the opening monologue featuring him as a member of a gay men's chorus when he appeared as the musical guest on February 7, 2004 show [4].

I'm still not entirely happy with this. My argument continues to be that, as an encyclopedia it is not Wikipedia's job to stay abreast of the news, & certainly not rumor and gossip. There is a disconcerting trend in that direction within the media, and I would like to see Wikipedia take the high road rather than be part of that trend. Inasmuch as it has been careless of the reputation of others, the reputation of this publication has suffered [3]. There is an arc to every story, and the arc to this story is not yet complete. I would prefer to wait until that is the case, rather than providing space for speculation. -Jmh123 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If it’s really necessary for this to be hidden deeply into the article so no one will find it, this is the ONLY wording (or something similar) I will find acceptable:

There have also been some tabloid stories and internet gossip sites that have speculated about his sexuality. In January 2006 John Paulus (main article: John Paulus) reported an alleged sexual encounter to the National Enquirer. It was picked up by other tabloids, newspaper gossip columns, and radio shock jocks. Aiken has not yet commented on the allegation.

If you’re going to reference the date then you’re referencing the specific example and there’s absolutely no reasonable reason why you can’t reference his name. Let's not quibble with petty details, all right? To do otherwise is suppressing the story and I’m not satisfied with that. - mixvio 07:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - we can pull the date also, if you insist. I firmly do not think that Paulus should get any benefit from spreading his lies. His particular name is really not the issue anyway- is it?? It is the story that you want on the Aiken page. 69.19.14.44 12:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is the only wording you find acceptable because you want a link back to the John Paulus page. I do have to wonder why you are so vested in having his name appear. Let's call a spade a spade. The National Enquirer printed accusations made by John Paulus regarding an alleged sexual encounter. So far there is no corroborating evidence nor any witnesses. At this point Paulus's only claim to fame are his accusations and that my friend is nothing more than tabloid fodder. Maria202 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said to 69 before, please explain to me what benefit you really think I'm capable of garnering through Paulus' identity being here. If you can't, stop being so ridiculous in your suggestion that this is why I'm pushing it. Furthermore, please explain to me what benefit you think Paulus is going to get with his name here? Like I stated previously, not wanting his name here because you don't want him getting free advertising isn't an argument and it only further expouses your completely non-neutral viewpoint. Every page on Wikipedia is free advertising and unless you're advocating the removal of all such instances this stance is irrelevent to the discussion. I want his name in because the point is I want the story WITH him in. I don't want a sneaky sentence that hints about the story but misses the point because his Claymate fans are uncomfortable with the subject matter. That's the same as describing the appearance and taste of a chicken to someone but refusing to call it a chicken because you don't want Purdue to get a customer. Anybody who reads this Wikipedia article and then buys John Paulus' pornography was going to buy his pornography already. I'm flabbergasted by the lack of reason in this discussion.

Furthermore, Paulus has presented evidence and two other people have come forward with allegations. Just because others in this discussion are apparently advisors to CSI:Miami doesn't negate the fact that evidence has been positioned. We're not here to investigate his claims, we're here to present it. This is where the breakdown occurs. You don't want the story here because you don't think it's true and you don't want any untruths in the Clay Aiken page because you feel like your star's image is being attacked. Whereas I and the opposition don't CARE if it's true, we care that it is now a news story being carried in many outlets and it deserves to be mentioned in the article in a NPOV capacity. "IN January 2006 someone claimed that they may or may not have slept with Clay Aiken BUT THERE'S NO PROOF WHATSOEVER AND HE'S A TOTAL LIAR LIAR POOPIE HEAD" isn't NPOV. - mixvio 16:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a benefit that I think thta you are garnering:

You believe that celebrities do not have a right to "stay in the closet", that they should: "use their stature for the benefit of all of us" [[4]]

You believe that Clay is gay - because, well - just because you do: "I say if people like Clay Aiken choose to stay in the closet, as I fully believe he has . . . "

You believe that this story will help "out" Clay, which is your POV goal. It does not really matter if the story is true or not for your goal.

What is weird is that Clay HAS responded with a polite denial to the point of exhaustion. Only in the face of outright rudeness has he responded in kind. And he has refused to allow the possibility of being labeled gay to coerce him into removing his gay employees - because that would just not be fair. Yet the treatment that some portion of the gay community has given him has done more to set back their cause than they could ever get out of one celebrity advocate. 66.82.9.55 17:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes me grin. No dear, thank you for taking my actual statements out of context. If you bothered to read the entire entry instead of looking for sound bites you could cut and paste, you would've seen that though I do believe Clay Aiken is gay, I could care less. Believe it or not the majority of those in the gay community don't sit around devising elaborate schemes in order to out the celebrity segment. If you'd bothered to read the entire entry you would've seen that I reiterated exactly the same stance there that I've maintained here all along. And I believe you've finally pointed out your POV and your lack of "good faith," since I'm sure hunting down my website surely has relevence to this discussion. I'm frankly surprised no one thought to google my screenname before now. Don't be so childish. I couldn't care whether he's in the closet or not. What's YOUR goal? - mixvio 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I'm unfortunately aware of the insignificance a lowly wikipedia entry has in the world. If my "goal" were really to "out" Clay Aiken I think my efforts would be better spent saving up for a full-page ad in the NY Times and a billboard in Times Square. Some of those involved in this discussion unfortunately forget that the end of the world doesn't reside in this entry. So amusing.... - mixvio 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out something interesting I happened to discover. Earlier in the discussion I mentioned finding gay profiles online that, whether they were orchestrated or not, supported the claims that Clay Aiken's been online to meet gay guys. One in particular mentions him having a webcam, which he says he can use to verify that his photographs are real. This profile in particular hasn't been updated since Feb 04. The webcam story didn't begin circulating until a month later, in the beginning of march. I've been unable to find a single story that reported the webcam pics prior to march 01. Meaning that someone couldn't have read the webcam story and then gone online to make a fake profile. For this to be fake you'd have to assume that Paulus or someone else was willing to go through the trouble of creating a fake profile online with the webcam information, waiting a month to mention it, then creating fake webcam photos to send out to tabloids and hope that someone happens to search for the profiles to find the planted information (since the profiles I saw in particular have never been mentioned anywhere. Only Yahoo's been mentioned.) I dunno. I guess you have to wonder how determined someone is and how crazy they are. I'm just putting this out here because I found it to be amusing. I don't care one way or the other. - mixvio 19:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out that Lucas has a great deal of money at stake here. And he has been orchestrating media blitzes for a long time. However in theory the webcam pictures have nothing to do with Paulus. At least that is what Paulus and friends would have us believe. The "Clay is Gay" thing has been going on for a LONG time. Over 3 years there have been hundreds of photoshopped pictures. Everyone knew that. So . . . . what is your point. Just doing a bit of CSI investigating??? 66.82.9.73 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Clay is Gay issue has been going on since he first appeared on AI. I'm aware of that. That's not my point. My point is only suddenly has anybody claimed that they chatted with Clay Aiken on webcam, and that this profile using the screenname Paulus says he used says he has a webcam and hasn't been modified since BEFORE the webcam story broke. So in order for this profile to be fake you have to be willing to believe that someone's going through the trouble of creating a profile with the intention to wait and break a story a month later and hope someone decides to do some searching. I would be more inclined to believe the profiles were frauds if the webcam story was accompanied with "The source says they found Clay Aiken's profile on so and so website under so and so screenname." However, it wasn't. The webcam story says Yahoo and no screenname. I'm not arguing that someone wouldn't go through that trouble but I do find it a stretch. If I were going to manufacture a story about a celebrity, a story that's much to my detriment at every turn (and you can't argue that Paulus' story doesn't reflect very negatively towards him, from the chatroom hookups to the unprotected sex to the way he's used the story to popularize himself) I'm sorry, but I would choose to attack a celebrity who's one, more famous, and two, more attractive personally. I'm willing to believe that someone would go through the trouble to create such a story filled with such profiles, but I'm sorry, I find it difficult to believe they'd go through the trouble for Clay Aiken.

And where's your proof that Lucas has any money at stake in this? What "media blitzes" are you talking about? Sounds to me like someone's got some personal beef with him. He told me I have a small penis, you think I'm out to promote his movies from that experience? If he suddenly felt that Paulus were his cash cow I think he would've stuck him in more than an audition movie and a single scene in another movie. I think he'd repolish his website to announce proudly that yes, the illustrious John Paulus is exclusively signed to his studio. You're stretching it. Michael Lucas has nothing at stake in this and whether Paulus' story checks out or not has absolutely no bearing on the people who'd buy his videos. People don't generally tend to buy porn because of the checkered past of the performers, they buy it on other "facets" of the performers' identity. Like penis size, muscle mass, attractiveness. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that or not, but porn star bios don't generally rank highly on Amazon.com's sales reports. - mixvio 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Lucas' stake, see his official home page: [5]. Note that Paulus is featured on the top right hand corner, as well as in the listings on the right hand column. A Paulus DVD is due March 15, and has been advertised in sponsored links that come up with Aiken searches on various search engines, as well as on the Perez Hilton site, and so forth. Lucas accompanied Paulus to his Howard Stern interview and has probably arranged for a lot of his publicity on radio, internet sites, tabloids, etc. See the bolded passage above about the Wikipedia:Search engine test and gaining publicity for porn stars. -Jmh123 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but the web cam has been part of urban legend on gay gossip sites for years. There are a number of ID's purporting to be Aiken's floating about, and impersonating Aiken online has been a popular "entertainment" for years as well. Many have claimed to have talked to him, and to have received publicity photos "proving" his identity. The only thing new about the whole mess is that one person has claimed to have actually met Aiken in person and had relations with him. -Jmh123 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me a single story. Searching "clay aiken" + webcam did not provide me a SINGLE link that was written before march 06. I searched through many of them in order to be sure I was on firm ground. - mixvio 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one: [6] August 29, 2005. Scroll down to the first comment. -Jmh123 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that then. The screenname has been available prior to the march webcam stories. That still doesn't render anything true or untrue, though. You're all lost in this quagmire of whether the story's real or not. I don't know any way to express the fact that I don't care any more vocally. I want the Paulus story to be included because it's news and it's available all over the place. I'm pushing for the inclusion because a group of his POV fans don't have the right to stifle it because they don't want it here. I don't care if Paulus is a saint incarnate and couldn't tell a lie. I don't care if he wanted to date Aiken. I don't care if Aiken's really some devilish moral pit of deception and manipulation. I. Don't. Care. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong when so many other Wikipedia pages have equally-tabloidial stories on their pages. - mixvio 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The screenname and the webcam story that you just claimed did not appear until March 6 of this year. If you don't care, why are you trying to find "evidence" that you think proves Paulus' story? -Jmh123 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Lucas isn't profiting from Paulus. Check out the dvd description straight from Lucas Entertainment "A tight-bodied stud gets caught up in a massive tabloid scandal, losing his job in the aftermath. In an exquisite career overhaul, former Green Beret, John Paulus, fulfills his porn dreams ". Maria202 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But Mixvio - you have to understand that I have fought to keep similar stuff off other articles also. Because I do not believe that malicious gossip (or any gossip) has a place in Wikipedia. I strongly want Wikipedia to be a respected source of information, and cheapening it like this damages that goal. The issue is much bigger than Clay Aiken and his particular problems. Just because like-minded folks and I can not keep all the garbage out - does not mean that it is not a goal to strive for. 66.82.9.73 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find evidence that proves Paulus' story. Again. That's your assumption because you have a vested interest in showing that I care so much about this being true. I was pointing the profiles out because it amused me. Nothing more than that.

Lucas isn't profiting from Paulus any more than he's profiting from any other model signed to his studio. You're really overreaching the market share that Lucas has. Most other studios hold him in high contempt for his treatment of models and his behavior in the industry as well. He's only advertising Paulus as any other person in a similar situation would be advertised. I think it's unreasonable to claim otherwise.

And I'm going to request that you stop claiming the "gay agenda" card. Using someone's affiliations to discredit their argument is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. While I'm sure that the same can be said for my discrediting your arguments because you're Clay Aiken fans, I feel that the paranoid gay agenda claim carries more weight. Otherwise I might abridge my opinion that your edits to the page are from those with a strong bias to a homophobic POV agenda. - mixvio 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Mixvio - I might oonsider your request to not use the "gay agenda" card - except that it seems to fit so well in this case. And perhaps it SHOULD carry more weight based on this statement that you made: "I hate Clay Aiken....He's got a good voice, but I'm sorry, he's a faggot. We can smell his scent. We recognize our kind." [[7]] Sort of makes a person think that you do not have a NPOV. 66.82.9.73 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on contributors. Don't cast aspersions on peoples' motives. We're all allowed our opinions. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that my personal website has no bearing on this discussion, certainly not an entry I wrote two years ago. That comment was sarcastic anyway and you'll note that I also said I copied the cd into iTunes, a detail you chose to leave out. And I don't understand why you feel it necessary to continue quoting and linking it, since the same opinion there is the same opinion I continue to maintain here. I'd go further to say the constant linking probably could be construed as a personal attack as well. Regardless it doesn't really look good for your argument that you've resorted to miscategorization and taking statements on my personal site out of context. A lesser person might take offense, but I think it just proves my point that you're motivated to defend this out of some personal crusade you seem to have to protect Clay Aiken's good name. Shrug. - mixvio 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just found an article posted in the NY Post on Feb 13 that says RCA put Clay Aiken's album release on hold until the John Paulus allegations blow over. You don't think that sort of a story merits being included either, right? - mixvio 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep - in the gossip column the speculated about that with no source. However the same week Entertainment Weekly printed a story saying that RCA says that they plan to release the CD in the May timeframe. They actually cited their source. So do I believe the NY Post gossip? No - I don't. 69.19.14.24 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RCA just announced the release date is June 20, right in line with the projected date. Seems the NY Post had incorrect information. - Maria202 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I really do love how comments posted on the Perez Hilton blog get picked up by the NY Post Page Six and become news. Gotta love it. Maria202 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I really do love how people have a problem with a specific person, IE Perez Hilton or Michael Lucas, and then choose to disregard everything one or the other of them happen to say because they don't like them. I don't go to Perez Hilton or Michael Lucas for my news, celebrity/tabloid or not, but that doesn't change the fact that I highly doubt Perez Hilton is out with photographic equipment and microphones to get the "scoop." He's consistently critisized by other users for stealing stories from other pages, so do you really think this story originates with him? No, it doesn't. It came from someone else and he repeated it. - mixvio 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I DID NOT say Perez Hilton posted the comment, not did I make any personal remarks about him. I said it was a comment posted on his blog, as a matter of fact it was repeated several times. Anyone can post there anonymously. Secondly, I have been following this story from the beginning, including reading every comment on Hilton's blog so I am totally familiar with what was said and where it was said. I've listened to most of the radio interviews with Paulus and read the tabloid stories so I do know what I'm talking about. Maria202 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mhm. - mixvio 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that some of those involved here, no longer being able to attack the Clay Aiken page militantly in order to make sure the gayness stays off of this page, have moved to the John Paulus page and I had to ask that that one become protected too because they were arbitrarily deleting the Clay Aiken-related story from there as well. While it really, truly pisses me off, I also find it hysterical that this singer means that much to them. - mixvio 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep insisting this is about gayness - when in fact it is about gossip, and how it should be handled. Michigan user 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. - mixvio 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on this page ever since the Paulus scandal began breaking. It seems that I have a far longer-standing record with wikipedia than most of the people involved in this edit war. Many of them seem to be here SPECIFICALLY due to the fact that they are fans of Clay Aiken, and they feel some fan-worship need to protect him from gossip. This has gone on long enough.

Wikipedia is a source of factual information. It is a FACT that gossip, whether true or not, is going on right now. It is APPROPRIATE to include this gossip in the main article, because it is an integral part of Aiken's history as a celebrity. Whether or not that gossip is TRUE is irrelevant to whether the fact that gossip went on should be mentioned. Stating that gossip occurred is not akin to stating that the gossip is true.

Aiken's "gay-gossip" has gone on for far longer (and far more prominantly) than most gay-gossiped celebrities. That makes it even more appropriate for mention than some celebrities who have experienced it less - yet have it mentioned in their articles. (Robbie Williams comes to mind.)

I am neither a fan of Aiken nor am I a "hater". I have never heard a Clay Aiken record, so I have no opinion on him as an artist. All I am concerned about are the facts, and the fact is, this gossip is ongoing.

Paulus' claims grow more and more extreme by the day, with him now claiming that he has in his possession a wash cloth with Aiken's semen on it. This is unequivocably the MOST EXTREME "gay-accusation" ever made against an allegedly heterosexual celebrity. Even Tom Cruise never had someone claiming they had DNA evidence that they experienced a sexual encounter with him. So at this point, EVEN IF ALL OF THE CLAIMS AND GOSSIP PROVE TO BE UNTRUE, it is a historically signifigant moment in both Aiken's and in celebrity history.

There is absolutely no justification for NOT including a mention of this gossip/the Paulus incident in this article other than, as previously mentioned, some desperate need to protect Aiken from the facts. The FACTS are, the gossip is going on, and it is severe, and it is signifigant.

Obviously no one is suggesting a section be added that says "Clay Aiken is gay because so-and-so said the following things." But it SHOULD say "Aiken experienced what may be one of the most signifigant cases of attempted "outings" of a celebrity when in 2006 so-and-so made extensive claims that he had a homosexual experience with Aiken. These claims included X, Y, Z including a wash cloth with semen. As of March 2006 there has been no evidence to support these claims, but their severity is one of the most aggressive campaigns to assert a celebrity's homosexuality in recorded history." Or SOMETHING like that. Pacian 10:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The "gay-gossip" issue has been discussed before and consensus reached. It IS referenced in the article - because it IS notable. The Paulus story is just some person trying to get attention at Aiken's expense. It is unsubstantiated, and just a passing footnote of NO notability in the history of Aiken. I do not see that it is worth calling out any more that the passing gossip that Aiken and Kim Locke were romantically involved. Time showed that it was a non-issue - not worth being mentioned in an encyclopedic reference, any more that this is. 66.82.9.80 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Might be wise to look into the history of accusations against celebrities before tossing around phrases like "most aggressive...in recorded history" and "MOST EXTREME...ever." Overwrought responses like this do not convince. I think it is essential for a Wikipedia contributor to be careful with his/her research and his/her statements. I have lost patience for contributors who play fast and loose with the facts. For the record, Paulus' claims do not "grow more extreme every day"--he hasn't spoken about this in several weeks, and the washcloth, or towel, depending on the report, has been a part of his story from day one. There is no way such "DNA evidence" has any forensic or legal validity, as I am sure JP and the National Enquirer know full well. As you are a long-time participant in this publication, would you please look into the work of contributors Katefan0 and Will Beback, who have opposed any mention of this story at this time? Neither are fans, and both are long-term and respected participants in Wikipedia. -Jmh123 14:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)