Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 14

Image Deleted Again

I would have sworn I added Fair Use rational to the image. I did with all the other ones. Where do you find the history for what happened? Nevermind, I found the log. [4] - Maria202 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Special:Log appears to be the place where one can search for it. I did some hunting, found this History log for Image:Aiken3.jpg, and it appears that was deleted for reason "I3", which seems to be (from Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images/Media)

Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before 19 May 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.

From the history, it looks like the fair use rationale wasn't added. -- ArglebargleIV 17:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your change. -- ArglebargleIV 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. I couldn't find it in the history either. It was a screen shot. This gets tiresome. Thanks. - Maria202 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new image and this time there is fair use rational. Hope this one sticks. - Maria202 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vocal ability

Until someone can come up with a third party source for this, I'm removing it from the article. If a citation can be found we can put it back in. We know he can sing but I've not seen an analysis of his voice other than by fans, and I don't think that counts.

He is registered as a tenor-alto., and also evinces graceful control in the falsetto range. Aiken has also demonstrated his ability to hold long notes with control, which was evidenced by his rendition of the Neil Sedaka classic Solitaire, which he performed as a contestant on season two and as a guest on season three of American Idol.

Maria202 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Ripa

• Nothing on the Kelly Ripa thing here yet? 24.124.93.95 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Shannon, 11/25/2006

I'm not saying Kelly Ripa didn't exacerbate the situation or to some extent provoke it. But Aiken, who she doesn't know well like she knows Regis, put his hand over her mouth, and if he hadn't done that, the followup wouldn't have happened either. So Aiken shares in the blame for this incident, and if it deserves mention on the Kelly Ripa page, it deserves mention here also. Once this tempest-in-a-teapot dies down, maybe this sort-of-news item could be removed from both pages. Wahkeenah 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But if this sort of trivia is going to be here (rolleyes)- at least it should represent both sides of the issues. 69.19.14.30 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It did and it does. The fact that Aiken sent flowers shows that he knows he was in the wrong. Once this becomes a non-event, it could be deleted or trimmed in both pages. Wahkeenah 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that he sent flowers to Tyra Banks after he interviewed with her 2 weeks before. Just being a gentleman. 69.19.14.30 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen don't lay hands on a woman they don't know well. What part of Tyra Banks' body did he touch? Wahkeenah 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He kissed her on the lips. They held hands (as did Kelly and Clay). She held his hand up to her cheek and caressed it. Etc. But that is not the point. The point is that the hand over mouth thing happens A LOT on the R&K show. Simon Cowell did exactly the same thing not long ago. He had also interacted with the audience. Not a word from Ripa. This entire topic is absurd. 69.19.14.29 06:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Clay goofed. Kelly ranted. Rosie butted in. The media had a field day. Clay spoofed. Regis plays cleanup guy. Really not a controversy, just a media picnic making much ado about nothing. As long as any mentions are balanced, I don't care either way. It's been reported that on WRAL TV this morning Clay said he and Kelly spoke and they are cool with each other. Regis said on Extra Kelly does that to him all the time. Do we really want Wikipedia to join in the tabloid journalism? - Maria202 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is better than the multi-paragraph summary in the Kelly (and now Clay) pages. Wahkeenah 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Clay's mistake was in getting too comfortable with Kelly. Kelly's mistake was not taking it up with him in private. - Maria202 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

YES! That is precisely the point that nearly everyone seems to have overlooked in this age of pushiness and assumed-familiarity. Everybody has made nice with each other now, so this should should go away soon. :) Wahkeenah 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be gone from both pages now. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and this is just fluff stuff. Michigan user 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I deleted it from both pages. We will see who objects. Michigan user 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I object. - mixvio 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The version you keep trying to force in here is blatantly POV and much more wordy than it needs to be. I'm welcome to suggestions IF THEY ARE POSTED HERE, but if you continue to vandalize the article by forcing POV spin on the story I'll be reporting you for violating the 3RR. - mixvio 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back to the version that was here before it was deleted. It is also the version that the folks on the Ripa page agreed on. It is a balanced view of what happened, and various reactions to it. Please get consensus here before you decide ALL BY YOURSELF that your version is more NPOV. I completely disagree with you. 69.19.14.15 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal with it. Reverted your vandalism. The people on the Ripa page aren't on the Clay Aiken page. - mixvio 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal with it yourself - reverted your vandalism. This is the version that the people on the CLAY AIKEN page had before it was deleted. It actually shows a side other that just the issues that Mixvio cares about. Your version is POV. You don't get to make a unilateral decision. This version is balanced. Of course the entire thing could be deleted and we would not have to have this issue at all. 69.19.14.15 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted your vandalism again. The edit you're trying to force is larger than any other section in the controversy section. It's also twice the size of the edit I'm making. There's no consensus on this except what you want, and you can bugger off. Throwing a bunch of allegedlys around doesn't make it balanced. Stop reverting to vandalize the article or I'll have a moderator step in. - mixvio 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a moderator step in because I am really sick of your bullying. 69.19.14.15 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected. You're the only bully here, but what's new. - mixvio 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather prefer the shorter version; there's no need to puff up the article with so much aside info. But that's just my opinion. You guys need to come to an agreement so the reverting can stop. Why does the anon feel all the extra info is needed when it can be so easily acessed by the given links? --DanielCD 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a shorter version. Just do not leave it so completely POV. The only issue that NEEDS to be left in here is the hyposcrisy issue. That Ripa has done this many times herself, and that Simon Cowell did it to her recently with not a word from her. Feel free to leave out the Rosie part, or the germophobia part, or the flowers part. Just do NOT leave out the entire point of the incident. This was not a gay issue (at least until Rosie butted in), this was not a germophobia issue (at least not until Ripa had to come up with an excuse REAL quick), this was not a politeness issue (or Ripa would not be so quick to do it herself). This was all about Ripa not liking that Clay was getting the limelight. So she tried to upstage him. And she did not like it when he did not take it meekly, so she tried to take him down a peg or two in public. So feel free to shorten what you want. Just NOT the hypocrisy part. 69.19.14.44 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a repository for celebrities' various psychological shortcomings. :) I put all pertinent FACTUAL details into the story and I pointed out as unbiased as I can be what happened; for what it's worth I think Rosie O'Donnell's being stupid. But your assertion of "hypocracy" and jealousy is conjecture and not fact. Ergo it's petty and doesn't belong. - mixvio 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a repository for silly tabloid topics like this either. So why is it here? The FACTUAL details include the fact that Ripa has done this many times. And that Regis has done it to her many times. And that Simon Cowell did it to her recently. The FACT is that many entertainment shows went on and on about the hypocrisy of Ripas comments - they said it, not me. And they said that her comments were "absurd". That is a fact. The hypocrisy paragraph was completely sourced. However you just want to present one side of the issue. Which makes this version totally POV and against Wikipedia Guidelines. Either delete the entire section, or make it balanced. 69.19.14.44 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is balanced. However, if you want to add a reference about other people saying in the media that it's hypocritical, please give me your suggestion. But if you really think we need a breakdown of "On January 15 2006, Kelly Ripa put her hand over Justin Timberlake's mouth; On February 3 2006, Kelly Ripa put her hand over Paula Abdul's mouth; On July 20 2006, Kelly Ripa put her hand over Kanye West's mouth" etc, then that's just absurd. Please present me your suggestion, not more of your bitching. - mixvio 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

On November 17, 2006 Aiken was a stand-in guest host on Live with Regis and Kelly. During an interview Aiken was allegedly frustrated that he wasn't able to ask the questions on his cue cards, and attempted to ask a question but was interrupted by Ripa repeatedly. He then covered her mouth with his hand, which prompted Ripa to respond with "Oh, that's a no-no, I don't know where that hand's been, honey." [5] [6]

Some TV entertainment shows such as The Insider and Entertainment Tonight pointed out what they deemed as hypocrisy in Ripa's statements regarding the incident, since she has put her hand over Philbin's mouth several times on Live, and Simon Cowell did the same thing to her on an earlier show, with no comment from her. Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season. Ripa may have believed the statements she made, but they were construed by others as "absurd". [7] Rosie O'Donnell on the November 21, 2006 episode of The View likened the outburst to a homophobic remark by Ripa, explaining "if that was a straight man, if that was a cute man, if that was a guy that she, you know, didn't question his sexuality, she would have said a different thing. I was offended by that. I guarantee if that was Mario Lopez she wouldn't have said the same thing." [8]

Aiken later made fun of the controversy on the 2006 American Music Awards that evening with Tori Spelling. [9]

69.19.14.44 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd only change this, otherwise I'm fine:

Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season. Ripa may have believed the statements she made, but they were construed by others as "absurd". [10]

to

Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season, but this explanation was construed by others as "absurd". [11]

- mixvio 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Sounded kinda clunky anyway. 69.19.14.44 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • My view of your proposed wording : (1) Not that I'm all too fond of admitting it, but I saw several of the entertainment shows' reports on the incident. I don't remember any of them using the word hypocrisy or describing Ripa's remarks as hypocritical. If you're going to say that the shows deemed it as hypocrisy, it's going to need a good reference. (2) "but they were construed by others" are weasel words. From the single reference given, the staff of TMZ.com said it, so say that they said it, not that it was "construed by others". -- ArglebargleIV 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• How is this, then?

On November 17, 2006 Aiken was a stand-in guest host on Live with Regis and Kelly. During an interview Aiken was allegedly frustrated that he wasn't able to ask the questions on his cue cards, and attempted to ask a question but was interrupted by Ripa repeatedly. He then covered her mouth with his hand, which prompted Ripa to respond with "Oh, that's a no-no, I don't know where that hand's been, honey." [12] [13]

Some TV entertainment shows such as The Insider and Entertainment Tonight pointed out that she has put her hand over Philbin's mouth several times on Live, and Simon Cowell did the same thing to her on an earlier show, with no comment from her. Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season, but this explanation was construed by TMZ.com as "absurd". [14] Rosie O'Donnell on the November 21, 2006 episode of The View likened the outburst to a homophobic remark by Ripa, explaining "if that was a straight man, if that was a cute man, if that was a guy that she, you know, didn't question his sexuality, she would have said a different thing. I was offended by that. I guarantee if that was Mario Lopez she wouldn't have said the same thing." [15]

Aiken later made fun of the controversy on the 2006 American Music Awards that evening with Tori Spelling. [16]

- mixvio 02:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks OK to me. Need a comma after "Rosie O'Donnell". 69.19.14.44 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's added. - mixvio 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to fix the refs. They got lost in the editing. 69.19.14.44 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they're okay now; Wikipedia is being a little weird today. - mixvio 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the comment "The people on the Ripa page aren't on the Clay Aiken page," for my part, I have monitored the Ripa, O'Donnell, and Aiken pages. I haven't commented or edited further because the issue seemed to have died down. If there is an improvement on one page which is related to another page, the ethical thing to do is to look at the other page and improve it accordingly. If you know that one page has improved and you don't feel obligated to edit the other one, it is a blatent willingness and bias to ensure one article stays "clean" and another does not. Tinlinkin 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another justification for why the section should have been smaller (and also not lifed word-for-word from the Kelly Ripa page) is that Clay Aiken only had more of a tangential connection to the incident than Ripa. It was Ripa's reaction that generated attention, not Aiken's action. Anyway, at Talk:Kelly Ripa, I propose that the incident should be deleted. Discussion would be held better there. Tinlinkin 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aiken is the prime instigator. He had no business putting his hand on her mouth. Without that, none of the rest of it happens. However, everyone has made nice by now, so it would be fair to trim it from all 3 pages. Wahkeenah 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because the story is "over" doesn't mean it should be deleted. It generated a lot of media coverage. I don't think it should be deleted from either page particularly. - mixvio 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I mis-stated myself. "Trimmed", as in reduced in verbiage, not necessarily deleted. And it could easily be exactly the same verbiage on all 3 pages, which would be boring but consistent. Wahkeenah 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried hard to make the version here now the shortest it can get while still summarizing the story. :p I'm welcome to ideas, otherwise I'd suggest that this be the one copied around; but admittedly I don't really care as long as it's NPOV and documented. - mixvio 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have seen this story, I am convinced that this incident is memorable. Petty in importance but memorable. Therefore I agree with Wahkeenah that the passages should be trimmed to be concise, and perhaps the version in this article now is sufficient. But the verbiage should not be exactly the same on all 3 pages as a matter of editorial style, and I am not going to copy-and-paste what's in this article into Kelly Ripa, nor suggest that that should be done. I compliment the editors who maintain the neutal POV surrounding all of this. Tinlinkin 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the entire episode revolves around Aiken it's only fair to add his comments, which I've done. - Maria202 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire incident from both pages per conversation on Ripa page. It is tabloid news, and old at that. Michigan user 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to delete all mention of the incident, as if it never happened. Please shorten it instead. -Will Beback · † · 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it but trimmed it to a few sentences. -Will Beback · † · 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted either, but the reduction makes it sound even more irrelevant. :) But I don't care, this shit gives me a headache. - mixvio 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tours section?

Does it really need to exist? Take Madonna for example: many tours... but her article doesn't have a long list of each and every tour, who she toured with, dates and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every tour. I can understand mentions of each tour in the regular parts of the article... not an entire section just listing tours. And in case someone asks: no, a list article isn't needed in this case either. RobJ1981 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are tours less encyclopedic than Albums? They take more work, last longer, and generate more revenue. Many tours are famous and well known. "the Warped tour", The Stripped tour, etc. I don't see why they are not encyclopedic, just because not all articles have that information gathered. Michigan user 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some information on them can be listed, but the list setup is just clutter. Look at the Madonna article for example. There is no tours section, but the article does talk about tours. Granted: Madonna has tours listed in seperate articles, but in my opinion...that route doesn't need to apply for Clay just yet. I think it's just a matter of talking about the tours, instead of a cluttered lists of bullet points. RobJ1981 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about it looking cluttered. I think that trying to put the information into the paragraphs will clutter up the paragraphs. I am curious as to why you came into this article out of nowhere and added something called a "laundry tag" with no explanations. Is there some sort of Wikipedia guideline we're not aware of or is this just your opinion? As for other articles check out Bon Jovi, which also has a tour section. If we were writing about someone with a 25+ year career, such as Madonna, I'd agree it would be a bit much to list every tour, but were writing about someone with a 3 year career where, at this point in time, touring has been a major part of that career. - Maria202 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided to take a shot at rewriting the tours section as a series of descriptive paragraphs rather than in list form. It needs references, but I think they can be found. Please see below. -- ArglebargleIV 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revision looks ok. But why? It was less cluttered as a list. I think RobJ1981 was just imposing his aesthetic preference on us. There is no guideline that indicates that the paragraph format is better. 69.19.14.28 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure which format I like better, but I'd thought I'd throw it out for discussion. -- ArglebargleIV 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think for now we should stay with the list. One more tour and perhaps we can use a shortened list combined with a few paragraphs giving more detailed information. If touring continues to be a major part of his career we can consider using a second page and moving the information there. I've seen this done with other artists. - Maria202 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new tours section

Aiken's first national tour was the 2003 American Idols Live! tour, a two month, 40 city arena tour starring Aiken and the other American Idol 2 finalists.

In 2004, Aiken toured on three separate occasions. From February through April, he toured with Kelly Clarkson on the Independent tour, the first tour apart from Idol for both Aiken and Clarkson. The opening act was The Beu Sisters; then each performed half of the concert, alternating between the first and second halves, and closed the concert with a duet of Journey's "Open Arms".

Aiken's first solo tour followed from July through September of 2004, hitting 50 cities. Since the tour did not have an official name, fans dubbed it the "Not A Tour" tour. Disney sponsored the tour as part of their promotional activities for the DVD release of Aladdin, marking their first tour sponsorship. During each concert, a preview video was shown of Aiken's performance of "Proud of Your Boy" (included on the Aladdin DVD), and both the DisneyHand and Bubel-Aiken Foundation charities were featured.

Aiken closed out 2004 with his first holiday concert series, the 28-city "Joyful Noise" tour, sponsored by Ronald McDonald House Charities. Each concert featured a 30 piece orchestra as well as both adult and children's choirs from each host city.

During the summer of 2005, Aiken's Jukebox Tour hit 26 cities in the eastern US as well as Toronto. Each concert was a 2 1/2 hour show including covers of music from each decade from the 50's to the 2000's, as well as current and future releases planned by Aiken. Continuing a trend from previous tours, each of his three backup singers were featured in soloes and spotlight segments.

Aiken's second holiday tour, the Joyful Noise 2005 Tour, was a departure from the previous year's holiday tour. After an opening performance by pop-classical pianist William Joseph, instead of a traditional concert, each show was a series of vignettes threading throughout the musical performances. In each city, a local supporting cast was recruited to supplement the traveling actors, singers, and dancers.

Aiken only toured once during 2006, the Holiday Symphony Tour, an 18-city December tour mostly throughout the eastern U.S., performing with local symphony orchestras.

Page protection

I protected the page since there seems to be a lot of reverting going on. Please try to work out your differences so the protection can be removed. --DanielCD 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection has been removed. --DanielCD 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fansites allowed?

I thought fansites and MySpace pages weren't supposed to be linked as per WP:EL?Aleta 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The MySpace page is an official site. It's my understanding that one fan site per article is ok, and the one listed is a directory of all the sites. The other listed site is a newsletter, not a fan site. - Maria202 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Section Headings

Singling out one topic for emphasis in the article is completely against the pages and pages of discussion that we had on how to present the topic of the media questioning Clays sexuality, without making it stand out like a beacon to the casual reader. The way the topic was presented in the consensus version - and then when it was repackaged in the controversy section - it was mentioned, and sourced, but not made to stand out any more than any other topic, since according to Clay he is not gay and this borders on libel, and needs to be handled delicately.

Plus in no solution would anyone ever say that you can be "accused" of being gay. Being gay is not a crime. Do you want the gay activitsts all up in arms against Wikipedia. Not a single source has ever used such verbiage. Sheesh.

Please read the pages and pages of archives on this discussion. Do not change the article relating to anything surrounding this topic without consensus from all the editors involved. 66.82.9.83 11:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• 66.82.9.83 is correct. Archived discussions surrounding this issue took place and a consensus was reached. Edit waring and creating controversy where none should exist is disruptive. I've filed a notice on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and placed a 3RR warning on Hoponpop69's talk page. This needs to stop. - Maria202 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the consensus? It wasn't clear from the archived talk - the consensus was ignore that there is any speculation? I'd say the speculation itself has been widespread enough to be relevant. JakiChan 07:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It was there for a long time. Then JP asked for his bio to be deleted because it contained the fact that he had publically recanted. He unrecanted and was angry that his bio still stated that he had recanted his story. So we put the article up for deletion, and it was almost unanimous for deletion. Then some folks who were involved in that discussion came over here and deleted all reference. Check the history--it's easy to follow. Meanwhile, BLP decisions are getting more and more clear. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. So it'll stay as it is now. -Jmh123 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Holiday Tour Corrections Needed

This statement at the end of the second to last paragraph in the 2006: A Thousand Different Ways section needs corrections -

Aiken will take a break from album promotion in December to appear with various local symphony orchestras in their Christmas shows as a replacement for LeAnn Rimes. Album promotion is set to resume with a tour beginning early in 2007.

First, there were only two concerts of the 2006 Christmas tour for which it was publicly confirmed that Clay replaced LeAnn Rimes. There were more news reports (4) of Wynonna Judd replacing Rimes, indicating that Clay's 18-date holiday tour was likely only prompted by the possibility of replacing Rimes for a few dates.

Second, the 2006 tour would be more accurately described similarly to the 2004 tour as featuring a local orchestra rather than as an appearance with local symphony orchestras. As with the 2004 tour, only a minority of the dates were sponsored by local symphony orchestras and not all the shows were supported by symphony orchestras. For most shows, the orchestra was hired to provide an opening set and support Clay and at least two of the hired orchestras were big band, not symphony, orchestras.

Third, I don't think it is accurate to say the holiday tour was a break from album promotion. Clay's involvement in promoting the album may have ended before the holiday tour, as he's done little himself to promote the album since November.

Fourth, although Clay mentioned the possibility of a tour beginning in mid-February, that did not happen. In recent interviews, he's mentioned a possible tour in the summer '07, but nothing is definite at this point. If the tour does occur, it would be arguable whether or not that tour was promoting ATDW. So, for the sake of being strictly accurate, I think it would be best to not characterize such a tour as part of the album promotion.

I suggest the following revisions to the text:

Clive Davis is credited with the cover concept. Promotion for the album has been focused on daytime and late night television appearances. Aiken will take a break from album promotion in December to appear with various local symphony orchestras in their Christmas shows as a replacement for LeAnn Rimes. Album promotion is set to resume with a tour beginning early in 2007.

Aiken's fourth album, All is Well (an EP of four Christmas songs), was released exclusively to Walmart on November 28, 2006.[11]

revised to:

Clive Davis was credited with the cover concept. Promotion for the album was focused on daytime and late night television appearances.

Aiken's fourth album, All is Well (an EP of four Christmas songs), was released exclusively to Walmart on November 28, 2006.[11]

In December 2006, Aiken mounted his third Christmas tour, comprising performances in 18 Midwest and East Coast cities. The tour opened in Waukegan, Illinois on December 1 and ended in Greensboro, North Carolina on December 23. Aiken was supported by local orchestras, which also opened the concerts with a program of seasonal music.

Also revise:

2006: Holiday Symphony Tour

-18-city tour of cities mostly in the eastern U.S. (December 2006)

-Performing with local symphony orchestras.

to:

2006: Holiday Tour

-18-city tour of cities mostly in the eastern U.S. (December 2006)

-Performed with local orchestras, which also opened the concerts with a program of seasonal music

I would normally make these minor revisions to an entry myself, but defer to the usual editors in this case.--Samtha25 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I think your changes would be a vast improvement. Looks good to me! -- ArglebargleIV 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me too. Maria202 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been 3 days and no one else commented so I went ahead and made the suggested changes. - Maria202 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion

I have no idea why you say that nowhere in the reference does it say "that". I provided a direct quote. It does say that. 69.19.14.42 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the direct quote you quoted in your edit summary :

"It is our goal to create an environment for children where INCLUSION is embraced"

This is the sentence from the article :

"His public philosophy, geared towards inclusion and service to others, is expressed in primarily secular terms."

Those two are not even close to being the same. The quote from the Bubel-Aiken Foundation talks about the goal of the BAF. The sentence from the article purports to describe Aiken's personal philosophy. The BAF quote doesn't mention secularism, and just because the BAF site doesn't mention non-secular activities certainly doesn't mean that Aiken's public philosophy is constrained by that lack of mention.

Something needs to be found that actually talks about Aiken's public philosophy, not the principles behind the BAF.

The sentence from the article is true, in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't count for beans, what matters is references and verifiability, especially when it is a direct comment on someone's personal views, and your reference doesn't support the statement. However, I'm not going to get into a 3RR reversion war anytime soon.

As a personal note : This is a content dispute, I do NOT appreciate being lumped in with the vandals.

Comments, everyone? -- ArglebargleIV 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Learning to Sing - Chapter 18, pg 227/228 discussing his faith and philosophy. Paraphrasing, if you ask him about his faith he will answer your questions but says "It's not my job to judge someone; it's not my job to mandate what someone else thinks." He also says that no child is going to have a spiritual crisis on his watch. Your not going to find any secular references regarding his charity because none exist. It's non-secular. Your asking to prove a negative. - Maria202 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, why don't we just report what he said, then, instead of trying to interpret it? -- ArglebargleIV 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism thing. I did not mean that you were doing the vandalism - there were just all those other edits in between. However, I disagree with you about the edit. The BAF is his public philosophy - it certainly is not private. It was wholely his. No one else put in any input. No person makes a statement that "this, and only this, is going to be my public philosophy". And I have never seen Rolling Stone say that it is a non-religious site, but it is still a non-religious site. The point is that Clay has talked about his religion publically, but his promoting of the concept of inclusion is expressed without religious connections. 69.19.14.42 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a second reference. - Maria202 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retraction

As much as I'd like to see this as part of the article we can't use it. Blogs are not valid as citations and P. deleted all of his retraction/confession. If he talks to a valid media publication, or if he blogs again and the media picks it up then we can use it. As it stands now, only those who actually saw what he wrote would know about this. - Maria202 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The retraction is still there:

At 3/02/2007 3:28 AM, JP said...

I have admitted that this was all a lie and that Clay and I never had sex. What's the problem. Time to move on. Clay has been a victim of a really evil scheme and I know that he is grateful for having such devoted fans who always believed in him. It's over Perc. the Claymates and Clay have both won. I hope they will forgive me for playing along with this ruse as Clay has.

There are also entries that explain the his bills were paid for a year in exchange for doing this, and that "Rick" paid him (I assume that is Rick Campbell, aka Groucho), etc.

And it was already argued on the JP article that if the blog BELONGS to the person in question - then it is valid, because it is their words. So that is different from a blog entry ABOUT someone.

I say, put it back in.

69.19.14.44 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He must have put the blog where he commented back up because after he first said it he deleted it. What's to stop him from deleting it again and making us look like idiots? Maybe we can wait a few days and see what happens. I don't want another huge fight over this and I don't trust the guy not to change his story again. What do the other editors have to say? - Maria202 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing here that can't wait a few days to see what settles down. -- ArglebargleIV 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning. Having failed in his efforts to edit his own Wikipedia entry to suit himself, JP has blogged asking his minions to come over to Wikipedia and insert his perspective into the Aiken entry. I'm not sure if he actually has any minions anymore, but we can apply for protection if necessary. Also, the JP entry has been nominated for deletion, if anyone wants to vote. See also, Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions.-Jmh123 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The JP entry was deleted Saturday evening. Some people involved in that discussion came over and deleted beaucoup stuff here. Fine with me. I left a note on their talk pages asking for support if there's any disagreement about that. -Jmh123 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Someone from a fan board is saying that she took the photo being used here. Does anyone know the source of the photo personally? It's registered to a Flickr account. Thanks. -Jmh123 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your questioning the photo but I do personally know who owns the photo and gave permission for it to be used here. The required permission is on file with OTRS at Wikimedia Commons. - Maria202 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed this, but just for the record, I questioned it because someone I know contacted me and claimed that she took the photo and presented me with a link to a photobucket album with that photo and many others taken at the same concert from the same location and angle. To bypass this issue, as we've also discussed, I've obtained permission to use photos from another fan. I've uploaded those photos, made sure they were properly licensed, and added them to the article. There's one more if you'd like to use it, here. I hope you'll also add the "changing looks" links/text we talked about. -Jmh123 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - Maria202 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

American Idol

It makes no sense to me why four seasons later the AI section needs to be "fleshed out" with trivia from a few episodes when a summarized version is more encyclopedic and shorter. The article was already getting too long and needed to be shortened. Rather than waste time trying to clean up the changes it was easier to restore the eariler summarized section. - Maria202 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! -Jmh123 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed, particularly since some of the changes lost were my own. A full discussion of Aiken's AI experience, for which he remains best known, is more relevant than much of the fluff and filler that follows. This article is likely a lost cause for public editing and needs full protection, since anything that is not fully favorable to Aiken is invariably removed. 72.73.214.14 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a strange notion of relevance. Aiken's AI season was four years ago. Since then we've seen three successful albums, two singles, six tours, a UNICEF Ambassadorship, and the Bubel-Aiken Foundation: this is not fluff and filler. I agree with Maria that trimming, not adding is needed--certainly less American Idol would be better than more. -Jmh123 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that an article about Clay Aiken that devotes approximately three times more space to his makeovers and Christmas albums throughout the past three years than his American Idol stint is worthy of an encyclopedia? Um, gotcha, thanks. Glad you're here to set me straight. Seriously, we agree this article needs a major trimming. But the most significant parts of Aiken's career from an objective standpoint are his Idol stint, his post-Idol musical career, and his extensive charitable work. I'd say each deserve about 1/3rd of the main body of the article. What we have here is essentially a shrine, downplaying the part of Aiken's career for which most Wikipedia readers know him best and would seek information about, and concentrating on fluff and filler (which is what it is, whether you care to call it that or not) that only his most devoted fans could possibly care about. The first step in getting this article under control is to protect it, then to have a recognized music editor rewrite it from a NPOV standpoint, and finally to keep it semi-protected and carefully monitored to prevent it from deteriorating into this sorry state again. 72.73.214.14 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, take a look around and get to know Wikipedia a bit. Most of Wikipedia is in a sorry state. Writing by committee doesn't lend itself to good writing. No one is going to protect a page for the reasons you suggest, no recognized music editor works here or would (cause they expect to be paid), and no one is going to semi-protect a page about a pop star forever. -Jmh123 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the "Christmas albums," comment, Christmas has formed a major part of Aiken's post-Idol career. He's released an album and an EP, had a Christmas special on NBC as well as hosting the AI Christmas special; he's had three Christmas tours with another to come this year; and there's a Christmas Day skating special to come this year. There have been a number of televised performances of Christmas music (3 or 4 in 2006 alone). A Christmas song tops his iTunes sales list, and about half of his radio chart hits are Christmas songs. What we need is a different structure, a reorganization, but not more about his American Idol season. I don't agree with your assumption about what "most Wikipedia readers know...best and would seek information about." If they already know something they won't be seeking information about it. -Jmh123 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. He was a contestant on a show, had a "makeover", came in second and there was a voting controversy. Not many care about anything else show related other than he's the best selling and most successful runner up to date. All that is covered. Everything else he's done happened after the show ended. From what I've been told, the show never even mentioned his name this past season except for one quick mention in the Clive Davis speech on the last show. This article is a biography about Clay Aiken, not an American Idol show episode synopsis. AI has their own articles, but you already are aware of that. Maria202 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised biography

We've been talking for some time about revising the Aiken biography, which, due to being written by committee over several years' time, wasn't written very well and lacked a cohesive structure. Maria202 and I decided the time had come, and we worked hard for a couple of days, surprising ourselves at how quickly it went. We established a list of main categories to replace the year-by-year approach and integrated some of the material from other categories into these, or made them sub-categories under the main list. We rewrote the lead following recommendations on featured articles, and rewrote some sections that sorely needed it. We followed BLP guidelines carefully, and also followed general recommendations regarding the writing of biographies. Maria did a lot of research into the way other biographies are written as well.

Some of the older material still does not have citations, but we felt that it was important to maintain the narrative flow. The American Idol section is, though not cited, verifiable through the program itself, as are many of the references to television appearances. Any help filling in citations and/or correcting facts, especially regarding the "early years", would be especially appreciated. -Jmh123 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to standardize the citations to the TO DO list at the top. Maria202 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I shouldn't have used the new style for the few I added yesterday--I wasn't thinking, just playing with the forms. -Jmh123 02:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A fresh pair of eyes. Cool! Thanks ArglebargleIV. Maria202 03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the rewrite! Kudos! -- ArglebargleIV 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see you working on the page, ArglebargleIV. Thanks for finding the typos and adding Wikilinks. Your input is appreciated! Here's where we worked on the rewrite if you're interested in the process. It went so fast and easily, and we were so pleased with the results, that we decided to boldly make the change now. When I look at the discussion, it's surprisingly brief. A lot of communication happened during the actual editing process, by way of italicized notes, tentative strikes, and edit comments. -Jmh123 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardize Citations

I copied over the guideline from WP:WIAFA to the TO DO list just to save us searching them out time and so we're all on the same page. Maria202 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any recommended forms there, such as format of dates and so forth. Feeling dumb here. Where should I be looking? -Jmh123 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any either. I do like the yy-mm-dd format for the retrieved dates. Also, we should be consistant with using either 'retrieved' or 'accessed' and not mix them up. We should probably decide whether or not to use Wikilinks in the references too. To me, using them in some and not others looks hodge podge with the mixture of blue and black text. I'd prefer not using them. Also, some have the entire reference in blue, others blue and black. Take a look at the Elvis Presley references. They are working on standardizing those. Scratch that, not a good example right now. - Maria202 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way the citeweb forms turn out: See #41 and 42. Is it possible to standardize to this without necessarily using the forms? When I look at the ones I did last night using the old way, they look completely different. GRR. -Jmh123 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Wikilinks from the dates of those two citewebs--looks good to me. OK by me to leave the Wikilinks out. -Jmh123 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you use the form? Maria202 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't get the author's name into the form so gave up on that idea (or I should say, it makes the author's name come up first no matter what, and that wouldn't work for us). How about this as a template: <ref>[http://www.playbill.com/news/article/109038.html "Casting Announced for Idol: The Musical"] by Andrew Gans, ''Playbill'' (06/22/07). Retrieved June 22, 2007.</ref> You can see the results in notes 65 and 66. It mimics the citeweb form, but is easier to implement because most of our notes are done similarly to this. The Playbill is in ital in the code--not coming through--but it works in the note. -Jmh123 16:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Idol: The Musical" by Andrew Gans, Playbill (06/18/07). Retrieved June 21, 2007.

I can live with that. Besides, I like using the old way since I finally got the hang of it. Maria202 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried the lead and the first paragraph, and it went pretty fast. Mostly just changing the last ] location and reformatting the dates, capitalizing the R, adding or removing periods, stuff like that. We should divide it up again I think, so we're not duplicating each other's efforts. How about I take the first half, through the end of Learning to Sing? -Jmh123 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Learning to Sing is already done. I'll pick up from there down. Maria202 17:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished. I'm going to start at the last section. My part was too easy. -Jmh123 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I were doing the same section and you wiped out all my changes. :) I need a break anyway. Maria202 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. What an idiot I am. I thought you were doing the Activism section because of the edit notes. I noticed that we aren't doing exactly the same thing, in terms of commas, periods, and so forth. -Jmh123 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did activism to make up for my messing you up. I was working on it before and stopped, because I realized I'd finished and thought I was then working where you were working, but I hadn't closed the window. Again, sorry. -Jmh123 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I laughed cause I needed a break. Maybe not but it still looks much much better. There were a couple that used the "cite web" that I left alone. And there's one that uses an archive url that I didn't touch. Maria202 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was that much difference, cause I was looking at Makeovers and you hadn't done that section, so I just did it. I think we're done. And yeah, time for a break is right. Whew. -Jmh123 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A little pruning

I tried to shorten the entry a bit by removing sentences here and there. Please feel free to restore any that you want, or ask me to restore them. -Jmh123 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd actually cut the American Idol Season 2 section even more, but in the back of my head was the person who wanted to add more awhile back. If you see things in that section that you think could go, feel free. -Jmh123 05:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the whole article could use a bit of trimming to shorten it some and get it closer to the lower recommended length. I took out a couple of sentences in the AI section and did some rewording. Maria202 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Demos

I'd love to get the exact dates and story of the demo recordings. Any clue who would know, and how to reference? -Jmh123 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Added. I googled Osceola and got only that he did some recording there for post Idol albums, which I already knew. Message board post from dardar, 6/1/05: "The demo recordings were done at Osceola Studios in Raleigh, and 2000 copies were made at American Media International, AMI, in Burlington, N.C., we learned when we bought the original demo albums "Look What Love Has Done" and "Redefined" in the spring of 2003." If she could source this to print, she probably would have. -Jmh123 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wish I did. I only added the mention I did because I found a reference and a lot of people think AI was the beginning. Maybe some of the old AI interviews from season 2 if they are still on line or maybe the WRAL archives. It may be a case of only those who knew him knew about it. If I can find it, I'll check the UNCC alumni magazine that did a feature story on him. I remember reading something about how to tell if it was an original demo or a counterfeit but don't remember where. Maria202 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If we could find anyone with scans of the originals, would those be legit sources and legal photos? And which birthday was it? 18, 19, 20?? -Jmh123 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I left which birthday out because I've read both 18th and 20th. Maybe you could find someone with all three and have them take a photo. That could be be put on flickr with a commons license and used in the article. Maria202 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this on the first two. http://www.epinions.com/content_3472007300 "Redefined" is also on the last fm site. Maria202 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I already added the last fm link to Redefined. E-opinions is basically a user-added info site--probably not a reliable source. I'll ask at some fanboards to see if anyone will provide the scans.

Ripa/Aiken/O'Donnell matter

This seems to be a never ending battle. If at all, the matter would be relevant to O'Donnell's biography, not Aikens, as it was her initial comment -- her actions -- that generated the press coverage. Also, WP:NPOV requires a balance in the article so that the article represents fairly and without bias all significant views. You have to ask yourself, is this Ripa/Aiken/O'Donnell matter part of a significant view/aspect of Clay's life? Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to the his notable activities or public life. BLP would seem to keep this matter from be used on Wikipedia to "out" Aikens. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is in response to a current situation on the Rosie O'Donnell biography, not this entry. See my talk page and follow the bread crumbs. Also [17]. -Jmh123 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Book title

I didn't lose it, I deliberately deleted it. Do you feel that it is necessary? I don't see any reason to advertise her book for her, and I don't think the title adds anything relevant. -Jmh123 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware. The sentence just didn't read right and it looked like the title got lost. Maria202 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the revision I just made? Will it work? -Jmh123 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that reads better. I changed a book to her book. Maria202 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The great plane debacle of 2007

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we don't insert an AP wire report into an article and call it research. A part of the story was inexplicably deleted from the AP Wire story, which was taken in every other aspect from the Tulsa paper, after which that paper also deleted the same part. FOX TV national news just reported that part of the story, that is, that Aiken was asleep when the lady starting hitting him. Not nearly as interesting. Wait and see if anyone cares in a week or two, and let's at least find full sources and report accurately if we must pretend to be Wiki-news. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's insatiable desire to break news cannot be denied, I have included one source not normally considered to be reliable in an effort to get the facts straight. This paragraph from the initial story: "Apparently, a former "American Idol" contestant was asleep in his seat and a woman roused him to get him to move his foot, Johnson confirmed. An argument then followed," was removed from the AP wire story, and then from the initial Tulsa World report, without explanation. Eye witnesses, and Aiken himself, have said that he was asleep at the time that the woman shoved him.

I know it's hard to believe, but the media has a tendency to sensationalize stories about celebrities. -Jmh123 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess it's a slow news day when Clay's size 13 feet make headlines. I added the People reference. At least they took the time to talk to the FBI agent that investigated the incident. This is the paragraph that was removed from the original Tulsa World article:

"Apparently, a former "American Idol" contestant was asleep in his seat and a woman roused him to get him to move his foot, Johnson confirmed. An argument then followed."

So much for journalistic integrity. Maria202 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the less reliable sources since we now have a statement confirming that he was asleep, etc. Shame some Wikipedia editors are so hot to trot to break news. Anyway, I think we handled it well. He is so right. Why one stupid, incorrectly reported story can make international news and kids in many countries are suffering without attention I will never understand. How many of these media reports will be corrected, do you think? I'm going to remove the current events tag. -Jmh123 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are You Serious?

If you look up "whitewash" in the dictionary, there is a picture of this article next to the entry!<--SARCASM (don't waste your time finding a dictionary).

This article is incredibly POV. Omitting any negative references/press on Clay Aiken with the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" or the "Rosie said it, so it should go on her page" justification is ridiculous. Questions of Clay Aiken's sexuality, because they have generated news, are salient and germain aspects of any truly NPOV biography of him. Regardless about what Clay himself or the "claymates" claim, when a Google search of of "'Clay Aiken' gay" turns up hundreds of pages from reputable sources with stories questioning his sexuality and Diane Sawyer/People Magazine ask him directly about the issue, IT IS RELEVENT! Someone above stated that "since according to Clay he is not gay and this borders on libel, and needs to be handled delicately". This is a load of hogwash. It is in no way libelous for Wikipedia to report that "person X said that Aiken is gay", even if person X is guilty of libel. Also, when has Clay Aiken said recently that he is not gay? He dodged the question in People and with Diane Sawyer, when he could have said "I am not gay". But I digress.

Whether he is gay or not, the fact that so many people are talking about it indicates that the subject itself should be included in a current, thorough, and accurate biography. An encyclopedia article shouldn't pretend that a controversy doesn't exist simply because no reputable source can prove that he is gay. Holding articles to that standard would be ridiculous. In fact, many articles that soley discuss controveries themselves would not even exist if they had to fulfill the "prove it" burden. Readers should be able to read a fair and accurate representation of Clay Aiken AND his influence on our culture and the light in which he is held by the press and the general population (not only his fans). Whether you like it or not, Aiken's sexuality IS an issue, and it is important to discuss the ISSUE ITSELF in an NPOV Article. In fact, a LexisNexis search indicates that his sexuality is discussed in the media MORE than his music). -Diego Gravez 04:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies and media focus

Per the above query, I reviewed the article and found that a substantial amount of information had been deleted from the article, apparently in May. Some of that info had been added after lengthy discussion between many editors. I don't see any discussion of its removal. If anyone has problems with this sourced, neutral information please say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It will take me a while to find the history on this but there was lots of discussion relating to BLP. The Controversy section was tagged as trivia by Jreferee according to the BLP Trivia Section and we were told to work it into the body of the article, which we did.[18] I'm surprised that you didn't open a discussion about the current version and instead did what you said others had done, make changes without discussion.

ETA: During the Request for Deletion of the JP article and preceding discussion anything considered violations of BLP was removed by Ken Arromdee[19] and others. [20]

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

Based on the request for deletion you requested and the discussion that took place on those pages I'm reverting the article back to where it was before you made the current changes. Maria202 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything that I added back was well-sourced and neutrally presented. I didn't restore the JP material Is there a specific problem with any of it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something it was already incorporated into the body of the text. Maria202 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, some of it was. What about the rest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All the documentation can be found by reading the links I provided in my eariler comment. Maria202 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of that discussion took place here. This is the text that hasbn't been moved to other sections: <!Please do not change anything about the following paragraph as the specific wording and links have been agreed upon. See "talk" for discussion. Thank you->

• In an interview with Rolling Stone in July 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, Aiken lampooned speculation about his sexuality in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus.Saturday Night Live's website

In September 2006 Aiken sat down for televised interviews with Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America, Lara Spencer of The Insider, Larry King (Larry King Live), and spoke to People magazine (October 2, 2006 issue) to discuss rumors about his sexuality.

When Sawyer asked if he was ready to come out he laughed and said that would not make any sense as it was preposterous for him to do that. He also told Sawyer that he was done answering questions, it was no one's business and those were the type of questions he thought were rude. When Sawyer asked him about the "prurient stuff" on the Internet purporting to be from him, he said, "Even though stuff I read about me in the magazines isn't true... it still makes me lose sleep." He said he hurts, not just for his mother, and he doesn't know why people are offensive.

In his televised sit-down with Lara Spencer she asked if he was ready to set the record straight about his sexuality. Aiken replied, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before (Rolling Stone, 2003). I feel like a kid who is in trouble in school and is called in, did you do this? Did you cheat on that test? And of course, no, but it doesn't matter what you say." Spencer asked him if reading the speculation in the tabloids upset him. Aiken replied, "At first it's a little bit painful, a little bit harmful, you know, to see that and think, 'Oh God there actually are gonna be people who see that and believe this,' which is preposterous." He went on to say it was painful for his mother to see such outrageous and fabricated stories.

Aiken told People, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing."

Discussing the tabloid stories with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.CNN LARRY KING LIVE Interview with Clay Aiken, 09/27/06, retrieved September 28, 2006

This is the same text that you agreed to previously, I believe. What part of it violates BLP? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You have acceded to the complaints of an editor who expresses his point with capital letters, pointed sarcasm, and emotionality, without any discussion beforehand. I think we've been down this road before, haven't we? In catering to this individual, you have restored material without taking note of content changes that have occurred in the interim, resulting in the repetition of some material and a less well-written article. If you look at the entry's history, you will see that the material in question was deleted by Ken Arromdee and FNMF in this series of edits [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25] subsequent to comments made here [26]. You will also note that I commented on these deletions on both these editor's user pages at the time, here [27] and [28]. While I have compromised many times, and suggested here [29] the possibility of restoring some of the material deleted by Arromdee and FNMF after Maria and I did a complete rewrite of this entry earlier this year, I am not inclined to give into emotional blackmail by other editors and my root position on this matter has always been clear. Rumor and gossip do not belong in an encyclopedia. -Jmh123 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which editors you're talking about and I don't know of any "emotional blackmail". Most of the material above refers to comments made by Aiken himself, and is not rumor or gossip. It's not a rumor that Aiken made jokes abot himself on SNL. Again I ask, what part of this material violates BLP? It is all sourced and neutral. Parts of it were agreed upon following lengthy negotiations among many editors. For a single editor to delete it because he deons't like it is not sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor I'm talking about is the editor you responded to today with your edits. What single editor are you talking about? If you weren't happy with the edits made by Ken Arromdee and FNMF at the time they made them, why didn't you say so then? They didn't delete the material because they "didn't like it"; they made those edits because they thought the material didn't belong in Wikipedia and was a violation of BLP, as stated in the edit comments in the diffs I have linked. Their edits have stood uncontested since May, and the stance was reaffirmed by JReferee as well when a notice was placed on the BLP noticeboard by a different editor seeking to restore the O'Donnell material.[30]-Jmh123 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jmh123's question about why I didn't respond earlier: I have over 8,000 pages on my watchlist. I only becme involved in this article is that I was recruited over two years ago to help mediate between a number of editors who were fighting over material on Aiken's sexuality. I spent several weeks negotiating with editors over this topic, after which everyone involved (including Jmh123) agreed on the core text. Anyway, that was then and this is now. What current objection is there to this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the the section copied above by Will Beback. It is not itself rumor or gossip -- it is Aiken's responses to the rumor and gossip. There are rumors and there is gossip; to mention that they exist, and essentially giving Aiken space to respond (via quotes from interviews) is certainly not a BLP violation. The paragraphs above are referenced, sourced, and not only neutral but quite fair-minded.

The link you have provided to the BLP noticeboard deals with the Ripa/O'Donnell flap -- how is it applicable to the paragraphs above? -- ArglebargleIV 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiken has said that this type speculation is an invasion of his privacy and he's done addressing it. The new BLP states "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Without the gossip and tabloid speculation none of this would have occured. To include any of this violates his privacy and the BLP. Maria202 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What Aiken says on network TV is not private. If he says things in public, and if other people report on that, then that isn't private. What private material is included here? What are we saying that Aiken or other public figures haven't said? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It puts Wikipedia in the position of being "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Maria202 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, regarding the "lengthy negotiations," those were conducted a long time ago, before the change in policy regarding BLP. I'm sure you know full well that JP wouldn't be given the time of today in today's Wikipedia.

Argyle, The BLP notice is applicable because it called attention to omissions in the article, and any Wikipedia editor who read the board could at that time have commented, yay or nay, on this or any related material. JReferee also made the following comment on this talk page at that time: "Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, '[sexual orientation is relevant if] the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.' So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to his notable activities or public life." Nobody at that time challenged that argument.

Argyle, you read the revised article and congratulated us on a job well done. The editors who made the deletions could have been engaged at the time by either one of you, but they were not.

As Maria says, Aiken's public stance has been that his private life is his business, and he has maintained that stance regarding the women in his life just as he has regarding the gay rumors. Will, he had no choice but to address the subject on network TV. It's not like he brought it up. Diego Gravez, he didn't say "I'm not gay" because, he said, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want." I can see the point of including these responses, but Maria objects strongly and I respect her opinion on this matter.

I might be reacting differently if this discussion weren't happening today just because of the comments on this page by another editor, and what appeared to me to be an ill-considered edit in response. We will always have some individual come along and complain, just as there is always someone to insist that the gerbil rumor belongs in a certain movie star's bio. We ought to tell them no thanks. This is an encyclopedia. -Jmh123 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Aikens' comments are not rumors. Aiken participating in a mock gay mens chorus is not a rumor. Interviews with Diane Sawyer, Lara Spencer, Larry King, and the Rolling Stone are not rumors. Those are reports on the subject by notable journalists. On the other hand, how many journalists have asked Aiken about his hair, which we apparently believe is an encyclopedic topic? Regarding WP:BLP, it prohibits poorly sourced material. This is well-sourced material. There is no policy reason to delete it outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the quotation from WP:BLP, it was taken out of context. Please see WP:BLP#Categories for the proper context. No one is suggesting adding a sexual orientation category to this article so that sentence of the policy is irrelevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Diane Sawyer asks about his hair almost every time he's on GMA. People devotes a permanent photo gallery to his changing looks. You are not addressing the interpretations of BLP offered by Maria, JReferee, FNMF, and Ken Arromdee, three of whom are long gone because the material was deleted last May. (This was written before your edit Will but there was an edit conflict--which BLP comment are you referring to, please?) Other than his role as pop culture whipping boy, stand-in for all the out gay men that it is no longer PC to mock publicly (a role about what nothing profound or intelligent has been asked or written) all we have is a bunch of "journalists" asking, "Are you gay yet? Are you going to come out yet? Cause you act like a pansy and the tabloids say you are." Then he gets to figure out how to answer this time. If anyone ever dealt with this whole issue with some depth and intelligence, if there was ever an act of genuine journalism anywhere that addressed it, we wouldn't keep having this freaking argument, because we'd have a decent source to turn to. (There was a Canadian article that came close, but it quoted a tabloid at length and assumed that what the tabloid said was entirely true--so it was about how he is the gay whipping boy that folks ought to quit picking on. And if you're going to keep harping on SNL, as I argued to no avail back in 2005, he did not "participate in a mock gay men's chorus".) -Jmh123 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Sawyer and People adequate sources for discussing his hair but inadequate sources for discussing other details of his life? Is a direct quotation from Aiken himself a "poor source"? The BLP quotation by JReferee that you re-quoted is this:

• "Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, '[sexual orientation is relevant if] the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.' So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to his notable activities or public life."

That's out-of-context and refers only to the use of categories (which no one is proposing). It's absurd to assert that because no one objected to the misquotation when it was written that everyone must abide by it now. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. I don't see what part of BLP this material violates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of a single legitimate reason to exclude this relevent material from a Wikipedia article. Articles should be balanced, representative, and present a neutral point of view. Despite being "an editor who expresses his point with capital letters, pointed sarcasm, and emotionality"(how uncouth!), I don't have a horse in this race, as it seems so many of the regular editors here do (Maria202, Jmh123, etc.). I came to this article actually seeking information (I am not a Clay Aiken expert), and unfortunately what I found was a slick, corporate whitewash of a biography that I probably could have read on his fan site. How many Wikipedia articles don't have a contoversy section? (Jmh123: notice the italics for emphasis, rather than capitals). Whether it is fair or not, some degree of controversy surrounds Aiken's sexuality. This contoversy has been documented in reputable sources and quotes from Aiken himself; quite different from the various "gerbil rumors" floating around regarding other celebrities.

I agree with the comment above; why are tabloid and "entertainment media" comments about Aiken's hairstyle "worthy" of an encylopedia, but well-sourced articles about his sexuality are only fit for a tabloid? This seems to be a double standard heavily biased toward "protecting" Clay Aiken's wholesome image written by someone who probably has too much of an emotional investment in the subject matter to reliably contribute to an NPOV article. Jmh, the fact that Maria objects so strongly is probably a good indication that she should not be the deciding factor on whether or not this article contains well-sourced information about a relevent topic. Please ask yourselves why you really object to including this information and add it into the article in a format that everyone can agree on. -Diego Gravez 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article as written does not violate the BLP. As stated by Jreferee on the last BLP Noticeboard complaint[31] and the editors who originally removed the contentious material, discussion of Aiken's sexuality is inappropriate and violates the BLP. I agree. Arguments on this subject should have been made when the deletions were made with those who did the deleting. Trying to re-introduce the subject now is nothing more than an end run around the BLP. Maria202 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Diego, we decided that incorporating controversies within the text was more effective writing, and there are controversies that are addressed in the entry. Just where are these "well-sourced articles about his sexuality," because I haven't seen any in any reliable source. And please do not speculate about your fellow editors' motivations--you are crossing a line. -Jmh123 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maria202, there is nothing in the BLP Noticeboard about this material. The closest are these lines:

• Isn't a discussion on the "Talk" page of the article a good first step when there is a disagreement among editors? Instead you go straight for ANI? And this notice board too?
• In particular to your request, it is inappropriate per BLP to use Rosie's statement to support a position on Clay's sexuality, whether directly in the article or through the title of a reference. This whole issue is widely discussed on the article talk page and is attended to by many editors.

So we're discussing it here, as we have in the past. In fact, the only major discussion on this topic on this page was two years ago. Arguing that editors cannot object because they missed an edit comment of "I'm deleting it myself. BLP and gossip"[32] is absurd. Let's get back to the present. What material posted above violates Wikipedia policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) As for your hair/sexual orientation comparison, when there are issues of controversy, the expectations for reliable sourcing should be more rigorous. I don't think that is difficult to understand at all. As the article has been completely rewritten since the deletions, and months have passed, I object to restoring word-for-word material that was at one time deemed acceptable especially when BLP policy has changed since the original debate years ago. While it may be absurd to expect you to miss an edit that was made at a time when an AfD quite relevant to this article was ongoing, it is also a bit absurd to expect Maria and myself to have read your mind and realized that you might object to an edit, if only you had known about it. One assumes that those who have concerns are watching via watch lists. We've been operating under what I believe is a reasonable assumption that the article as it stands now was acceptable, given that the edits you are objecting to were made in good faith by editors of some standing in the community, and we have been more than a little blind-sided today. I think the editors who deleted the material should be given an opportunity to defend those deletions if they wish to do so. Demanding that we speak for them, and right now this minute, is a bit unfair. Speaking for myself, I've been dragged back here at a time when I'm involved in other things and I have lost valuable time today on another project, and I've definitely been grumpy about that. I'm rusty on Wikipedia procedures and guidelines, and my mental focus is elsewhere. I really, really hate edit conflicts. I'm not happy, and it's showing in my comments, and I apologize for that. I think that if we're going to make a change from the article as it now stands on this issue, we need to start anew. I support the principle that it's more important to get it right than to get it into print "now", as articulated by ArbCom during the badlydrawnjeff controversy. (And yes, I know it's not exactly the same situation, but the principle still applies. It's better to exclude controversial material until there is a genuine consensus to include it.) Let's take some time, slow it down, and get some other opinions. -Jmh123 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't what happened two years ago or four months ago. We can overlook that it was in the article for 23 months, and that it's been out of the article for four months. Today, a set of sourced, neutral information was added and then deleted. I didn't drag anyone here and demand that they participate in this discussion. I have kept asking those who are in the discussion to give clear policy reasons for today's deletion of this material. I'm certainly open to condensing it or rewriting it. We don't have to settle this right now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourced or unsourced, any questions asked or comments made to Aiken were based on gossip, rumors and tabloid allegations. Gossip, rumors and tabloid allegations are not encyclopedic. From the BLP:

"Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention."

Regardless of whether he answered or not, adding this back in is repeating gossip. How difficult is that to understand? Maria202 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that direct quotes by Aiken are gossip. If we wrote, "there's a rumor that Aiken denied being gay" then that would be a rumor. If we say, "Aiken has told Diane Sawyer, 'I am not gay'." then then is a direct quote. They are very different things. By analogy, Larry Craig held a press conference recently to announce, "I am not gay". It'd be silly for us to not report that just because he's made the announcement in response to rumors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, Will, Craig made that announcement in response to being arrested for soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom, not in response to rumors. Not the best analogy. -Jmh123 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would we supress it if Craig had made the announcement without having been arrested? How do we know that the questions asked of Aiken were all in response to rumors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleading guilty to a criminal charge of a misdemanor, being asked to resign his seats on Senate committees and calling a press conference to announce his intent to resign as Senator cannot be classified as rumor or gossip. Yes, the media like to sensationalize but using Craig as an analogy to Aiken is grasping at straws. I did not say quotes made by Aiken were gossip. I said he was/was not responding to gossip, rumors and tabloid allegations. With Aiken, there is not one shred of proof that what has been said about him is any thing other than gossip and rumor. Whether you like it or not, no matter how it's spun, and no matter whether you believe the gossip and rumors or not, Wikipedia is not in the business of repeating gossip. One more quote from the BLP "Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:" Aiken has said the tabloid stories are not true and that they hurt him and his family. He has also said these type questions are insulting. Why is it so difficult to accord him some sensitivity instead of insisting on perpertrating the rumors and gossip which violate the BLP? Maria202 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So when a public figure makes an announcement, or answers an interviewers questions, we can't include it if a Wikipedia editor thinks that the statement is related to a rumor? I think that's a lousy standard. Also denying a rumor is just about the opposite of propogating a rumor. Or are you saying it's only a rumor that Aiken is not gay? Finally, if we're going to re-write the material, would it be too much to ask to have the discssuion about it on this page, rather than creating private versions? [33] It'd be nice if this could be a collaborative process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid rumours or allegations about the sexuality of a pop singer are non-encyclopaedic and violate WP:BLP. The sexuality of this singer is not notable in any way. The fact that somebody is asked a question by an "entertainment reporter" or such-like is not notable information. WP:BLP demands sensitivity to the subject of the entry: there is no reason that this singer should be forced to endure an encyclopaedia entry about themselves containing such rumours and allegations. Editors who cannot grasp that such material has no place in Wikipedia should refrain from editing biographical entries. BCST2001 05:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Diane Sawyer is not an "entertainment reporter". Even if she were, the subject is an entertainer, why shouldn't he be covered by entertainment reporters? If the sexuality of the subject were not noteworthy then he wouldn't be asked, and have his response printed, so often. The subject is a public individual. He's endured being asked these questions, he's endured answering the questions, he's endured seeing his responses printed or broadcast. If he didn't want to endure it he could find a less prominient job or not answer the questions. He submits to interviews voluntarily, possibly seeks them out. Again, quoting his direct statements is not spreading rumors or gossip. It's quoting the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the kind of comment that demonstrates an inability to comprehend WP:BLP. Whatever kind of reporter you imagine Diane Sawyer to be, she was not acting as an investigative reporter presenting an interview subject with information. Rather, she was exploiting the tabloid allegations of others and giving the subject an opportunity to deny. None of that makes the information notable. It is not notable. However "prominent" this pop singer may be, his sexuality is his business until such time as, for some reason, it becomes other people's business. At present there is no reason for it to be other people's business. For an encyclopaedia to print his denials is to engage in completely unwarranted innuendo, which is in fact no different than printing the rumours and allegations in the first place. The fact is that there are people in the world, including Wikipedia editors, who enjoy spreading innuendo about the sexuality of various celebrities: that does not make such innuendo notable or warranted in any way. There are no legitimate arguments for including the kind of material you wish to include, and you should refrain from including such information until such time as you muster a strong consensus of experienced editors to do so. You have mustered no such consensus as yet, and I strongly doubt you will be able to, given the material in question. BCST2001 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Saying that I "enjoy spreading innuendo" is uncalled for. Regarding consensus, this material was arrived at as a consensus among many editors, including Jmh123, which remained with little change for almost two years, and which was deleted without discussion. Certainly the consensus can change, or be changed. But I still don't see any language in WP:BLP that says we shouldn't quote the subject's own statements on his personal life tht were given in widely broadcast interviews. If he was asked in several interviews about his ethnic heritage, his religion, or his health would we exclude his answers to those personal questions? If he kept denying bleaching his hair would we say that the printing the denials invades his privacy? We shouldn't speculate about it ourselves, but if he keeps talking about then it's a legitimate topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternate language

Here's some a version that we could use instead of what's posted above. It's reliably sourced and neutral.

• Aiken has been the subject of tabloid gossip and gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. He describes the gossip and jokes as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it."[34] ("Clay Aiken" by Jeff Royer, Fly Magazine, December 2005, retrieved April 4, 2006) In September 2006 Aiken sat down for televised interviews with Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America, Lara Spencer of The Insider, Larry King (Larry King Live), and spoke to People magazine (October 2, 2006 issue) in conjunction with the promotion of his new album, A Thousand Different Ways. When Spencer asked if he was ready to set the record straight about his sexual orientation, Aiken replied, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." ("New Kid on the Block," by Erik Hedegaard, Rolling Stone, July 10, 2003: "One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me.") Aiken told People, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing." Spencer asked him if reading the speculation in the tabloids upset him. Aiken replied, "At first it's a little bit painful, a little bit harmful, you know, to see that and think, 'Oh God there actually are gonna be people who see that and believe this, which is preposterous.'" Discussing the tabloid stories with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.[35] (CNN LARRY KING LIVE Interview with Clay Aiken, 09/27/06, retrieved September 28, 2006)

We could trim some of it. The jokes and gnat quote seem minor, unsourced at the moment, and could be dropped. What other changes would make it better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved a comment that objected to any mention of the material, so ast to keep this section for discussing versions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

moving this here as it was almost impossible to locate:

(2) OK let's discuss what we could have in the article. Instead of working down from what I've already posted, lewt's try working up from a single sentence. Something like:

• In response to questions about his orientation from Diane Sawyer, Larry King, and others he has asked for privacy on the issue.

It may not be as good as actually quoting him, but it is shorter. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, for the reasons given. There is simply no reason not to allow this person the privacy they are requesting. Furthermore, the form of words you have chosen implies that he has made no denial. This shows the dangers inherent in including material simply for the sake of including it or satisfying prurient interest: the supposed "compromise" is in fact a greater violation than the original WP:BLP violation. It amazes me that editors do not seem to understand that sexuality is a private and personal thing, unless there is some very good reason to judge otherwise. Appearing on a popular television program, or selling some pop records, do not count as very good reasons. Numbers of Google hits on this question do nothing but show that there is prurient interest in the person: they do not establish the notability of the issue, but only demonstrate how it is that tabloid newspapers and televison programs manage to make money out of that interest. Somebody's opinion about whether somebody else is "in the closet" or not is an even less convincing reason to include this material. Editors with such a burning desire to include this material really ought to ask themselves what is really motivating them. The arguments being presented for inclusion are absurd and counter to policy. BCST2001 03:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you following the RFC comments below? Pairadox 03:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally have never objected to quoting Aiken, but to including this subject matter at all. I'm sorry, but I don't find your proposed sentence to be adequate, if the material were to be included. There is a relevant discussion taking place here that we might want to watch before making any decisions about inclusion: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sexual_preference. It just started this morning. As our current discussion has prompted the proposal, I think this is a reasonable way to gauge the responses of editors who are concerned about BLP policy. -Jmh123 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding, maybe I have again missed something, but there seems to me to be some confusion about quoting/not quoting as an issue. The argument has been made that, because he commented, the material should be included (i.e., he brought it upon himself by commenting). A counter-argument has been made that he did not comment willingly, and his comments consisted only of no-comment statements: 1) "I'm not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." "People are going to believe what they want." "I'm done. It's a waste of my time." Additionally he stated that he didn't like to be lied about and it's hurtful to think people would believe lies about him. That's the extent of it. I realize that the RfC was framed in terms of quoting/not quoting (although the responses have been primarily about notability) but I believe the quoting argument has to do with whether Aiken's having commented makes this a legitimate topic or not. -Jmh123 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing this statement perpetuates the gossip and surreptitiously includes it in the article creating a feedback loop which responsible editors avoid doing. Quoting him is not the issue. The issue is whether the subject should be included. There needs to be agreement on that first. Maria202 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any comments by the subject that you two would accept? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Put another way, if the decision is to include this material in some form, what form shall it be? If there are no objections to quoting the subject, per se, shall we just use the original meterial that was in the article? Jmh123's draft? Other suggestions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to get conversational and blunt here. There are at least a dozen or more sourcable instances where Aiken has said he is not gay. The Perez Hilton's, Billy Masters', Michael Musto's, etc. of this world choose to say he is lying. Billy Masters decided Aiken was gay back during the Wildcard show on AI2. It's been open season on him ever since. It's no wonder the guy is sick of answering on the subject. They are like dogs with a bone and will not give it up. I can guess at their motives but that's another discussion entirely. The guy could announce tomorrow that he's been secretly married for months and they'd insist it was a sham. What gives these guys the right to decide who is lying and who isn't, or who is straight and who isn't. What gives them the right to create "controversy" where none exists. Why should their opinions be "notable". Where does it stop? Unless a person chooses to make their own sexuality an issue and notable, like the Rosie O'Donnell's do, it should be a non-issue. What these guys are doing to people like Aiken, Anderson Cooper, Oprah, Kelly Clarkson, Sanjaya (a kid), Zak Efron (a kid) and others is despicable and needs to be stopped. Wikipedia should not be encouraging or validating (by inclusion) that behaviour. It's not that I object to using Aiken's own words, I object to what these people have done being thought noteworthy or encyclopedic. Maria202 00:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doens't respond to the issue in this theead: What material would be acceptable to you on this topic? ` ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Will Beback, you don't seem to hear what others are saying. There most certainly are objections to including this material in any form. Arguments you have put along the lines of: the subject voluntarily submitted to interviews, the subject voluntarily chose to become a public person, etc., simply fail to establish the notability of the sexuality of this person. The sexuality of this person is unrelated to the reason for their notability and is private, personal, and sensitive. You need to make a convincing case for including this material, and then find a consensus of established and respected editors who agree to include it. Until you have done so the controversial material you are working so hard to find a way to include must simply be excluded, on the grounds it violates WP:BLP. I hope this is clear enough for you. BCST2001 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection to material

Notice Aiken's comment: "I don't like having crap spread about me." You are spreading crap about Aiken. There is no reason to do so, and lots of reasons not to do so. The fact is: there is no content here. It is nothing but pure innuendo. Although you earlier claimed that printing a denial of a rumour is the opposite of spreading a rumour, in fact you are completely incorrect: printing a denial is a form of innuendo and a way of perpetuating the rumour. There is no content here other than that perpetuation. If I ask you, "are you gay?" and you say "I'm heterosexual," you have done nothing but say the words "I'm heterosexual." If I now print in a tabloid "Will Beback denies he is gay," that is in some way a true statement, but it is a completely manufactured and sensationalistic story. If I then go and print the same "denial" in an encyclopaedia, then I am simply proving that I have no idea what should and should not be included in an encyclopaedia. That is the precise situation in this case. You "alternate version" is wholly unacceptable. It should in fact be immediately deleted from the talk page as per WP:BLP, which applies to all pages. BCST2001 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When a famous journalist asks a question of a famous singer on a TV show seen by tens of millions of people across the world that is different from when one Wikipedia editor asks another. When more than one journalist asks essentially the same question it isn't like the one-off situation you describe. If the subject were extremely thin, and if he were often asked whether he was anorexic and always denied it, then we'd report that. This is no different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP warns "Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention." This is exactly what we, as responsible editors, should not allow to happen. The gossip bloggers and tabloids start rumors. Legitimate media questions them. Wikipedia includes the legitimate media mentions thereby adding more legitimacy and the legitimate media then uses Wikipedia as a source for continuing to spread the crap started by gossip bloggers and tabloids. It's a vicious circle. I've seen many press articles on Aiken where the text has been taken directly from this article. Using the content you propose makes us no better than the gossip bloggers and tabloids. Not only is that unacceptable it is against WP:BLP. Maria202 11:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide links to these articles you're referring to? Wikipedia isn't the source of any rumor about the subject that I've been informed of. I don't think the journalist's questions were even prompted by rumors (and no evidence has been provided that they are). Instead, it seems more likely that the questions were prompted by the subject's appearance and mannerisms. If a person is as thin as a skeleton, one needn't have heard a rumor to ask if they have an eating disorder. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, you completely missed the point of my example. Nor have you addressed any of the substantive points I have made, such as that this pop singer's sexuality is nobody's business, and he has objected to the spreading of rumour and innuendo. Furthermore, I did not say you enjoy spreading innuendo. But if you do not enjoy spreading innuendo, then please stop trying to justify spreading innuendo. That is what you are currently doing. Finally, I see absolutely no evidence in recent discussion on this talk page of any consensus to include the kind of material you are discussing. I would suggest to you that at present there is no chance of achieving such consensus. Editors should not feel any kind of pressure to compromise about WP:BLP. When material violates WP:BLP it is excluded, pure and simple. If you can find a strong consensus that this material is acceptable, then you can consider including it. Without such a consensus, the material should be excluded, and no compromise or negotiation is necessary. This is how Wikipedia is protected, and how those written about in Wikipedia are protected. That protection is just, necessary, and non-negotiable. BCST2001 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are the pop singer's charities anyone's business? Is his religion anyone's business? Is his hair color anyone's business? His fear of cats? Things he says on national TV? I'm of the opinion that anything he says publicly is potentially relevant to this article. "Spreading innuendo" would be posting things like, "The subject is unmarried and lives with his bodyguard". Posting something like "When asked about his sexual orientation he's replied that 'people will believe what they want to believe'" would not be an innuendo; it would be a direct quote from the subject on the topic. It does not violate BLP. If it does, can you quote the specific part of BLP that it violates? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is how it works. Things outside of Clay's control or influence are not likely to be relevant to this article even if made by a WP:RS. They might be relevant to another topic, but not relevant to this biography. Written material by WP:RS on things in which Clay says or does is potentially relevant to this article. It does not mean goes in, it just means it potentially can be added to the article. Wikipedia:What is a good article? is a basis for deciding whether the Clay-may-be-gay material gets into the article. This keep/keep out issue has been going on way too long. Set up a section specifically to discuss the proposed Clay-may-be-gay revision and discuss the proposed Clay-may-be-gay revision in the context of whether adding it meets Wikipedia:What is a good article?. After five days, post a note at WP:AN to have an admin determine the discussion consensus and close the discussion using top and bottom templates. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Regarding the nature of the proposed material, it could as easily be termed "Clay-may-be-straight". The most relevant concept in Wikipedia:What is a good article? appears to be "(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details". However that doesn't provide a clear path for us. The topic is Clay Aiken, and this material is undoubtedly about that topic. Whether his interview statements, or his appearance, are "major aspects" is harder to judge. The "keep/keep out" discussion has been going on for only a day - I'm not sure how that is too long. Regarding your proposal for moving forward, I created a section titled #Alternate language to discuss different ways of discussing these interviews, etc. So far the only responses have been those that categorically deny that any of Aiken's public statements on the topic may be mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, the problem with your Alternate Text section is that you have arbitrarily made the decision it will be included thereby ignoring any objections, and jumped to discussing what version is acceptable. That's not how I read what Jreferee said. Maria202 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I intended. But how can we decide if something is going to be included if we don't know what the "something" is? Or, turned around, what would be acceptable to include? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, like two years later, and the same people are still here arguing about this. oO - mixvio 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, your suggestion that discussing whether somebody has a fear of cats is equivalent to discussing their sexuality is just further evidence that you are unwilling to reflect on what WP:BLP is actually about. Furthermore, you fail to understand the concept of innuendo, despite efforts to clarify this for you: no sourced evidence of Aiken's sexual orientation has been provided; he has denied allegations; he has objected to the spreading of allegations—in this context, including his denials is engaging in willful innuendo, as already explained. As far as I can see, you have no support for your campaign. And I further continue to believe that your "alternate version" is currently violating WP:BLP on this talk page. If, over the next day or so, you do not receive clear support from a consensus of established editors to include this material, I will remove the material from the talk page. BCST2001 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There was already a consensus, borne out of a year of flamewars and fighting, to add the material in the first place. Well before you were even participating in this article. Who are you to take it upon yourself to remove it now? Perhaps you should go through the 'extensive' history on this particular discussion before tasking yourself as guardian. - mixvio 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there is certainly no consensus now. BCST2001 21:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maria202, you've repeatedly made statements along the lines of: "The questions asked of this person were asked based on tabloid stories and gossip." Is there any evidence of this? Also, you said that, "I've seen many press articles on Aiken where the text has been taken directly from this article." Can you provide links these articles? That information would help the discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The easy question first. I noticed the text in articles from this past summer tour when it was being promoted. Articles with bio info took the info directly from Clay's page. A few did a little rewriting but the lazy ones lifted the text verbatim. Since I was so involved with the rewrite it was easy to see the text was identical and I'll admit to bit of smugness over seeing my words in print. Unfortunately I did not save links and trying to go back now and find them is just too time consuming. None of it related to the subject your asking about since at that time it wasn't in the article.

The hard question. All of the gay rumors and gossip have come from places like Datalounge, the NE, Perez Hilton, Page 6, magazines like OUT and gay bloggers, some dating as far back as Wildcard night on AI2. They voice their opinions and spread their gossip but none of them have verifiable proof. The day before the NE JP story hit Clay posted this bible verse on his blog. Isaiah 51:7. Most had to look it up. "Do not fear the reproach of others, and do not be dismayed when they revile you." A thread on his fan club was started and within 24 hours there were thousands of comments of support. The next day he blogged two words. "Thank you." It didn't take a rocket scientist to see how that story hurt him.

Diane Sawyer and Larry King didn't pull their questions out of thin air and they sure didn't get them from reliable verifiable third party sources. Larry used the Diane video clips to bring the subject up. I went back and checked that transcript today. In fact, Diane Sawyer had already asked him about rumors back in 2003. Jimmy Kimmel used to make fun of him until they met and now Jimmy defends him and leaves him out of his gay jokes. He told Perez the other night that Clay would not appreciate the nickname Perez uses for him. Kimmel also told Perez he was a horrible horrible man. During AI2, reporters were crawling all over Raleigh and Charlotte looking for some dirt on Clay and all they came up with was a speeding ticket. My comments here would be considered original research and would be off limits as far as the article goes. Maria202 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The above was copied from Will's talk page without my permission or knowledge. Will, I will think twice before I ever answer a question on your talk page again. Maria202 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I must comment on this. Maria's comments are in a conversational voice and clearly not intended to be part of this debate. You should not have brought this material to this talk page, Will.

Also, a comment was made yesterday about creating "private versions." I was using that space to work out a version that I felt might be a reasonable compromise, which I might propose at some point depending on how the discussion went. It was a draft, for my own use, and was never intended to be secret or private. In fact you took that draft, without consulting me, and submitted it as a proposal yesterday. -Jmh123 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this as the RfC has already commenced:

Rebuttal to Will's points below: (moved to RfC)

JMH, if I understand correctly the RfC stays open for 5 days. No reason you can't add your comments there and in fact, you should since the next step will be to ask an admin to decide the issue. Maria202 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it remains open for 5 days, but these are rebuttals, not points pro or con. I don't know how RfC's work, but I don't think they're supposed to turn into debates. I know some people just can't STFU but I don't want to be one of those people. I'm bugged that the discussion advanced to this point so quickly, and that Will has made points that are simply untrue. Can anyone with experience say what is the proper form? -Jmh123 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know either so I followed BST's lead since he seemed to know what he was doing. Maria202 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the subtitle of the RfC is leading, not neutral, and describes Will's POV on the topic to a "t" but not the oppposing view. I think the RfC was begun too hastily, after only a couple of days of discussion. I've looked at the RfC page, and I see no guidance on how to deal with this. -Jmh123 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Maria, I do not think that an admin "decides" an RfC. Here's the blurb from the RfC page: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." So as I understand this text, this is not binding, no admin is involved, it's just a way of getting comment from the community. -Jmh123 18:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123 - I started this RfC during your brief absence in response to an editor who wrote "If, over the next day or so, you do not receive clear support from a consensus of established editors to include this material, I will remove the material from the talk page." Another editor, who was asked to comment here, said we'd already been discussing this for too long and that we had just five more days before the matter is settled. I'm not the one setting time limits here. Since the discussion did not appear to be heading towards consensus, a request for additional comment seemed like a useful and timely tool for moving forward. As for the RfC itself, we've summarized the points on both sides so that editors can see the issues easily. Other than that we shouldn't extend the debate into the RfC, but rather should allow previously uninvolved editors to give their views there. We can continue to work on a compromise version that would be acceptable to everyone while that's going on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: There's no time limit on RfCs. They tend to get fewer and fewer responses as time goes by and after a month or so they are normally deleted from the RfC list. There's no deadline on getting this material right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"We can continue to work on a compromise version that would be acceptable to everyone while that's going on." This statement says you have you have already decided the text will be included and have no interest in any view point other than your own. Instead of asking for comments on whether or not text about Aiken's sexual orientation should be included or is relevant you asked about whether or not it was acceptable to use his own words. I see that as pushing your own POV. Non-involved editors who work with with BLP problems much more than you or I reviewed the aritcle and decided the material was in violation and removed all references to it. As for the comment about the discussion going on too long, it was made by an editor unfamiliar with the fact that it's been peaceful and quiet here for months and the current discussion only been going on for one day. Maria202 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are probably going to have some material on this topic in the article. If you are of the opinion that absolutely no mention nor any quotations by the subject about the topic should be included then that is one viewpoint and you're welcome to it. If you don't want to negotiate over what text we could agree on then that's your right too. However I'd hope that some editors could work together to find a consensus on this. Lastly, I think I can safely say that I have had more experience dealing the biographies of living people than the editors who deleted the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While the latter statement may be true, that you have more experience, I have checked their user contributions, and neither is anything near a novice here at Wikipedia or at editing biographies. I hope you are not saying that you are the ultimate authority on BLP. I also hope you are not telling Maria that this matter has been decided, despite the fact that currently three editors are objecting to the inclusion of any mention of this topic. -Jmh123 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to Maria202's assertion that: "Non-involved editors who work with with BLP problems much more than you or I reviewed the aritcle and decided the material was in violation and removed all references to it." That statement was incorrect and I corrected her. I am not saying that any of us are ultimate authorities on anything. The matter has not been decided, but it isn't helpful to refuse to discuss the possible solutions. It would be more helpful, IMO, to start by trying to find what we can agree on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Where material which violates WP:BLP is added, it should be deleted without further discussion. (2) Any discussion or negotiation about what to include depends on first establishing a consensus of experienced and respected Wikipedia editors that the material may be included. (3) There is little or no prospect of establishing such a consensus in this case, and there is little evidence of any movement in that direction. (4) However experienced Will Beback may be as a Wikipedia editor, he has demonstrated a lack of comprehension of WP:BLP. BCST2001 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I agree that info which violates BLP should be removed, but we don't agree that quoting the subject violates BLP. 2) How can we say whether or not to include "it" if we haven't decided what "it" is? I've put out two sets of text: the one that was here prior to deletion and another version that I stole from Jmh123. But we can also start from scratch. Either way, let's decide what we do want to include in this article. 3) Let's find a better attitude towards working together. Why don't we assume there's a consensus out there somewhere and we just need to find it. 4) We agree that Wikipedia should not repeat unsourced rumors or gossip. You've asserted, if I understand correctly, that you regard the subject's responses to questions on topics about which people spread rumors is tantamount to reporting the rumors themselves, and that printing a statement of "I'm not gay" is the same as accusing the subject of being gay. My perspective is that a Wikipedia biography should include verifiable information from reliable sources presented with the neutral point of view. When we have to decide what to include and how to weight them our primary guide are those reliable sources. If a topic is widely reported in reliable sources then we'd be remiss to exclude any mention of it, and would skew the POV by incorectly weighting the material that's included. I believe, and have already explained in different ways, that a direct quote from a subject is not a rumor. It is possible to summarize the subject's remarks on the subject in a neutral, verifiable manner that doesn't engage in original research and that improves the article. Doing so is consistent with WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Whether you and I agree is not important. What is important is whether there is a consensus of opinion about the issue. There is no such consensus, and none is likely. (2) I am not opposed to discussion of the issue. I am against inclusion of controversial material until there is a consensus to do so. There can be discussion of the issue without committing further potential WP:BLP violations on the talk page. That is what should happen. Unfortunately further WP:BLP violations are being committed on the talk page. (3) I have no attitude either way toward "working together." But I have a clear attitude about excluding material which violates WP:BLP. Consensus is not something we "assume is out there." On some issues, consensus is possible; on other issues, consensus is not possible. In this case, the best consensus is for you to recognise the nature of WP:BLP. (4) Controversial, insensitive material about non-notable and very personal issues should clearly be left out of the article. This material is utterly non-notable: this perons's sexuality has nothing to do with their "celebrity," however much people may claim there is "interest" in it. I can only repeat: there is no reliable sourced information about the sexuality of this person. In that context, including "denials" of allegations about the sexuality of this person is simply outrageous. Why include a "denial" of a matter about which there is no actual information? There are no good motives for the inclusion of this information, whether the motives belong to fans of this person or those with an antipathy toward the person. It is quite clear that Wikipedia is moving to make clearer that rumour, gossip and innuendo about "celebrities" have no place here. This entry should reflect that. BCST2001 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the proposed material is chiefly composed of excerpts from interviews, this article from The Observer in 2002 on the negotiations involved in arranging promotional celebrity interviews is very informative, and rather humorous too. It agrees with other accounts I've heard and read. Here are some obviously relevant parts (none of these individuals named or referred to are the subject):

• At the last minute - always at the last minute - the PR casually adds, 'And, of course, he won't answer any personal questions.' Wha t?! What are we going to talk about then? 'The work' is the inevitable, deadly answer, which actually just means the plug. So then you have to make the decision - is it worth going ahead? Of course you always do, in the hope that you can swing the interview from the work to the life - and sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. The trouble is, you never actually know till you arrive what people mean by 'no personal questions'. Usually they just mean no ques tions about their rocky marriage, or a recent affair, but sometimes they actually mean no personal questions. I remember Keith Floyd refused to tell me where he bought his shoes because that was 'personal'. And Harriet Harman refused to tell me when she first got interested in politics because 'I am chronically not interested in navel gazing.'
• Then there are actors like Rupert Everett who used to have an exciting personal life but suddenly banish it when they make a hit in Hollywood. But conversely I've had plenty of people say 'No personal questions' and then chatter away perfectly happily about their childhood, or their rehab, or their PMT or whatever. In my experience, the only really taboo subject is money.
• Sometimes PRs unwittingly give you a clue as to the story - 'Whatever you do, don't ask about her sister.' 'Of course,' you say gravely, while mentally shrieking, 'Her sister? What about her sister?' You go haring back to the cuttings to find whether her sister is an axe murderess - what it usually means is that the sister has made some disobliging comments about the star. But sometimes it's odder than that. Tina Brown recently claimed that a PR rang her at Talk magazine demanding a letter 'with assurances that nowhere in our story about a particular star will we include the detail that the celebrity "bleaches her asshole"'. Of course, being Tina Brown, she didn't reveal who the star was - so now I can't look at a picture of a celeb without wondering, 'Does she bleach her asshole?'

Answering personal questions, or volunteering information, is not a requirement of a celebrity interview. Entertainers who want to keep topics off-limits negotiate limits beforehand, or refuse comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true. But - these interviews were promotional appearances for the current CD and we have no way of knowing what his contract requires during that period or whether he was willing or forced. During the promotional period the record label has complete control of the artist. The BLP policy states "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." Aiken has made it clear the gossip harms him and his family. Including it harms him. A few lines from the poem about gossip: "I am cunning, malicious and gather strength with age." "The more I am quoted, the more I am believed." "My victims are helpless."[36] Maria202 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is taking us far afield, but I will say that media outlets can, will, and do refuse to interview an individual if they will not discuss a particular topic. (I'm fairly sure it happened after the fact in one instance, when an interview had been completed, photos done--the photographer blogged about doing the photos for a high-profile glossy--but then a person of questionable veracity got the attention of the National Enquirer, and Aiken's stance was not to respond. At all. Not even with a denial, because that would've made the story much bigger than it was at the time. The interview was never published. At that time the individual was bragging in his blog about his ability to delay the album release, possibly even kill the album altogether.) Not everyone has that kind of power that your article describes. If the publication is big enough (Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair) and the subject isn't Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt, then the publication can and will set terms for an interview. Larry King would never have given Clay Aiken an hour if he weren't promised a "scoop," and, as Maria said, Aiken's record label can insist that he promote his album. I imagine there were a lot of compromises made (and there was comparatively little album promotion), but bottom line, Will, your word "willingly" is problematic. -Jmh123 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that John Paulus is a living person too. Calling someone a "creep" and "famewhore" while arguing for the careful treatment of another person is inconsistent. Aiken sought fame as well. If you say Larry King told him he'd have to talk about his personal life in exchange for an interview promoting an album then that's part of the price he paid for his fame. Getting back to improiving the article,. I proposed a one sentence version of the material as a possible starting point. Could Maria202 and Jmh123 comment on it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between telling salacious lies and singing pretty songs as a means to achieve fame. I do agree that my language was inappropriate, and I have edited myself. The question is whether Wikipedia needs to participate in exacting that price of fame or not, and this is where we disagree. -Jmh123 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection to material: Part 2

I just came across these, a couple of short reviews of the subject's Rolling Stone interview:

• "American Idol" runner-up Clay Aiken wasn't shy about using his position on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine to spill his guts. First, he says he's not gay. Second, he blabs about a letter from a fan who said she and her husband like to make love while watching videotapes of him singing. Third, he reveals he bites his toenails. Finally, Aiken said his birth father, despite being estranged for years, recently tried to contact him. "I don't want to give him the time of day," Aiken said, dismissing old Dad as "my sperm donor." Did somebody say "too much information"? "Namedropping" Press Wire Services. The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Jun 22, 2003. pg. C.1
• Losing American Idol this season has presented Clay Aiken with opportunities to tell the world more about himself -- and maybe that's an opportunity he should have passed up. Aiken is the subject of a cover profile in the next issue of Rolling Stone, in which he discusses his estrangement from his biological father, his sexuality (not gay, apparently), his bad habits (biting his toenails) and his hatred of cats. Aiken believes cats are evil; in fact, he hates them so much that he once ran over a kitten. That revelation is going to come as quite a blow to all the single cat ladies with crushes on Aiken. "Russell Crowe and the boys do a little redecorating" Tara Ariano. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Jun 19, 2003. pg. AL.4

Here's a piece that disusses the road to stardom, and mentions one reason how Aiken was more successful than his rival:

• That attitude toward fame may have something to do with Aiken's popularity. Throughout the competition Aiken was more chatty. He seemed to understand what celebrity is about: namely, opening up to interviewers and offering made-for-TV sound bites. Studdard, on the other hand, is more reserved. "When they made talk-show appearances, Clay demonstrated charisma and he seemed to want to talk a little bit more," says Rolling Stone's Levy. "Ruben spoke more like a football player in the end zone. He wanted to thank God and everyone for giving him this opportunity. Clay seemed he had more of a story to tell." "SECOND-PLACE STARDOM ; THE LOSERS ON TELEVISION REALITY SHOWS ARE TURNING OUT TO BE THE REAL WINNERS" TARA WEISS, Courant Staff Writer. Hartford Courant. Hartford, Conn.: Jul 4, 2003. pg. D.1

So we have two writers who think the subject has been very open about his personal ife, and another who suggests that his openness in interviews helped secure his fame. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He was fresh off the show, new to interviews, new to celebrity. Find me something like this regarding his media interactions dated 2006 or 2007 and I might be persuaded. -Jmh123 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite a contrast between the naive young adult of 2003 and the almost 29 year old man he is now in 2007, who says his private life is private. Yes, please do find current interviews where he is as open as he was back then. Maria202 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We can include what he's said at different times. As for his statemens in the Rolling Stone interview, he wasn't alone facing the interviewer:

• But the show is over now, and he's walked away with a recording contract of his own, from RCA Records. So certain things he may have felt it wise to hold close before, he no longer does. He's scared of water, detests house cats, vastly prefers instant grits to real and bites his toenails: All this he can freely admit to, in that cheerful silky-twangy Southern accent of his. And then one day, he seems to surprise even himself- "I can't believe I'm talking about this!" - by saying a few words about his father, one Vernon Grissom, whose last name he had until four years ago, when he legally replaced it with Aiken, his mother's maiden name. He says these things at an outdoor restaurant in Los Angeles, on Sunset Boulevard, where he'd just ordered a bowl of spaghetti Bolognese. He was sitting with his retinue (two publicists and a bodyguard who he half-suspects even tastes his food, for poison) and trying not to notice all the other patrons gazing in his direction.

He had the support and advice of two publicists, and was intentionally more forthcoming than he had been in the past. The other interviews were after this and we can assume he was even more savvy by the time he did those. The Rolling Stone didn't trick him into talking about his personal life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that a few months as a celebrity is all it takes to acquire media savvy? Or are the "other interviews" you are talking about the 2006 interviews that you've proposed we quote from? No one has said the RS tricked him, but perhaps he naively thought, having answered, that people wouldn't still be asking the same question four years later. Perhaps his experiences of the last four years have changed his attitude about discussing his personal life. -Jmh123 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The RS interview was a few weeks after AI2 ended in late May, the July 10th issue to be exact. He did say last year that he had been naive. Maria202 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm arguing, with sources to back me up, that the subject willingly participated in interviews and willingly answered the questions asked of him. I'm arguing that, per the norms of celebrity interivews, he could have placed topics he didn't want to discuss off the table. I'm arguing that the subject has willingly volunteered highly personal information, including his most intimate personal habits, his politically-incorrect view of cats, his family life, his views on premarital sex, his personal relationship status, his orientation, his mental health problems, and his medication. I'm arguing he's done all of those things while receiving the advice of entertainment managers who are knowledgeable in the details of celebrity publicity. As for ways in which he's changed since then, I'm happy to include his changing views in the article. But his statements in 2006 don't erase his statements in 2003. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Point 1: I wasn't aware our arguments against the Guardian article were meaningless. OK, you need a source. Three seconds with google yields the following article supporting my argument that celebrities are not always able to control the contents of interviews. Boston Globe:[37]. Written in 2004, this article about Cruise's unusual demands recognizes the existence of the phenomenon you describe, saying a "worldwide superstar" like Tom Cruise can do get away with making these demands, and that celebrities and their publicists do attempt to do so, but it goes on to say that not all celebrities are able to have that kind of control:

"some writers say the realities of the film business have shifted the balance in their favor, making it more important for stars to cooperate with the media, making them less able to control access or content.

"I have never been told what I can or cannot ask," Rodriguez [Miami Herald] said. But "as recently as five years ago, there was a certain level of star who you couldn't get a one-on-one interview with unless you were a national publication.

"That changed because of the nature of the publicity game," he added. "No one is any longer a box office guarantee the way they used to be. . . . Generally speaking, I think it's actually gotten better, from my perspective."

A writer and critic for the Detroit Free Press, Terry Lawson, said he agrees that stars today need to cultivate reporters to further their careers and to "be heard above the din. It's like everybody is a celebrity."

I do not agree that "he could have placed topics he didn't want to discuss off the table." I believe, as I said earlier, that he would not have received any national PR at all if he had not agreed to discuss the topic, and as Maria said, his record company has a legal right to demand that he do national promotion for his album.

Point 2: We have already stated that Aiken was naive and inexperienced with the interview with Rolling Stone, only a few weeks after American Idol ended. He was a kid, a college senior studying special ed. To use his openness in this interview to support the notion that he willingly discussed his orientation in 2007 is unacceptable.

Obviously, none of us will ever know how "willingly" he discussed the topic, but I believe the Globe article supports my contention that he would have received no interviews with media of national significance had he not agreed to address the topic, if only to say he wasn't going to address it anymore because no one would believe him and it was a waste of his time. -Jmh123 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If he wasn't willing, then what was he? Unwilling? You've already agreed he wasn't tricked. So what was he? If he was such a naive incompetent that we can't include what he said in a 2003 interview is it fair to include any of his comments or actions from 2003 or earlier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, I was under the impression that you have been applying the term "willing" for days now to the 2006 interviews. In this comment I was referring to the 2006 interviews, as those are the interviews from which quotations were taken in the deleted material we've been arguing about. You did shift the focus today to the Rolling Stone interview, and I can see now how your statement above could apply to that interview, certainly, as you just quoted it. But these are the same points you made in your points for the RfC days ago, and as the quotations that I understood to be under consideration for the RfC were from 2006, I therefore assumed that you were still addressing the 2006 interviews in your statement above. Maria and I have indicated that the situation was radically different in 2006. I thought that was clear. Thus what might have been true in 2003 was no longer true in 2006. A willingness in 2003 cannot be used to extrapolate a willingness in 2006. Isn't that the point you were trying to make with the Rolling Stone quotes--that he was willing to be quite candid in 2003, which proves that he "freely discuses many aspects of his personal life" and "willingly submitted to interviews in which he has been asked, sometimes at length,[link to LKL interview, 2006] about his orientation"? If that is not the case, then I have completely misunderstood your reason for introducing the Rolling Stone interview. -Jmh123 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'd been limiting my comments to just one set of interviews - I hadn't really been differentiating them. I'm not sure why, objectively, we should treat his comments on 2003 differently from his comments in 2006. Sure, I know he was less mature then: everybody was less mature then. 23 is still an adult. If he doesn't say anything about his personal life in the future we won't have anything more to print. But his future statements (or silence) don't really nullify his past statements. I'm not sure why the Rolling Stone interview isn't relevant. It came up simply because I ran across a copy of it and it had material that addressed the demeanor and the circumstances of the interview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, a question for you to answer. Were you never young and inexperienced? Maria202 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer to that is obvious, but immaterial. If you really think that the subject was too young and inexperienced in 2003 to take seriously what he said or did in public then let's just start the bio with 2006, or 2007, or whenever you think he's grown mature enough to be responsible for his own actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The RfC has been going on for more than five days. I assume we can all agree that the responses were almost all in favor of including the information in some form. If anyone sees a different outcome please explain why. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Clay's statements on sexual orientation

Clay Aiken has been asked several times by major journalists, both on TV and in print, to discuss his sexual orientation. May we quote or refer to his answers? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Points favoring exclusion

The following points are relevant:

• There is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.
• The sexuality of this person is not important or notable for any reason. This person is neither a politician running for office nor notable in any way for their sexuality.
• This person has objected to the spreading of rumours and allegations about his sexuality, and has stated that the spreading of these rumours and allegations is hurtful.
• Discussion of the sexuality of this person is insensitive and unnecessary, given the above 3 points. In such a situation, WP:BLP is crystal clear: "leave it out."
• This person has, when asked direct questions about their sexuality, denied the rumours and allegations, and indicated their distress about the spreading of such rumours and allegations. In such circumstances, including this person's public "denials" amounts to perpetuating the rumours via innuendo. That is, the fact he has denied this or that allegation on this or that talk show, if it then becomes a part of that person's encyclopaedia entry, will unnecessarily mean that the person will be forced to endure the allegation so long as the material remains in the entry. (And don't forget point number one above: there is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.)
• In summary, there are no reasons to include this material, and many reasons to exclude it. The material violates WP:BLP, and there is no consensus to include this material. The material should be excluded.

BCST2001 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the points made by BCST2001,

• The questions asked of this person were asked based on tabloid stories and gossip. (Possibly because the tabloid stories and gossip were heavily covered in the Wikipedia article about him.) A media fishing expedition.
• This person has made it clear that his private life is no ones business and he will no longer answer questions on the subject.
• All references to unsourced gossip, rumors and tabloid stories have been removed because of BLP violations. Adding them back in is tantamount to giving the media a new license to go fishing again.
• Since the consensus referenced below the BLP has been revised and is now enforced more than it had been in the past.
• Curiosity is not a valid reason for including gossip or his response to questions about gossip in his biography especially when he himself has done nothing to cause the gossip.

The material should remain excluded. Maria202 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional points favoring exclusion:

• By giving a platform to an individual who made false allegations[38], and linking this entry to those allegations, Wikipedia bears responsibility as a high traffic internet site for spreading those allegations, thus making the subject more "newsworthy," thus more likely to be covered in the news, thus making it a subject that Aiken is forced to address, if only to say he won't address it--and then it is argued that because he addressed it, it belongs in Wikipedia. It's circular, and if this material is returned to this article, it won't end here. -Jmh123 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• BLP guidelines have changed, or previous guidelines are now being honored for the first time. Aiken does keep his private life private and he does not discuss it willingly; when he does discuss it, it is to say that he wishes to keep his private life private. According to the BLP guidelines as I understand them, we should honor that.
• If this is a significant part of his story, it is not as a result of any action on Aiken's part. He is not responsible for the rumors, speculation, and jokes about him.
• We simply don't have the resources to do justice to this subject at this time. There's no published source that deals with this issue as anything more complicated than "are you or aren't you?" In the absence of any kind of sophisticated source material (and I'm sorry, but your respected journalists have not handled this in a sophisticated manner) we're left a non-denial denial that the vast majority of people misunderstand.
• Some people want to see these things in Wikipedia for the same reason "Little Fatty" was in Wikipedia, for the same reason someone is always trying to work the gerbil story into Wikipedia, the same reason some girl who did nothing but appear in a popular YouTube video was in Wikipedia. "You can google it," "everyone knows"--these are not valid reasons for inclusion. I learned the gerbil story from Wikipedia, I learned of gay speculation about a number of celebrities from Wikipedia, speculation I had not heard elsewhere. Like it or not, Wikipedia spreads gossip.

The material should remain excluded. -Jmh123 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Will's points:

• I asked for a slow-down when this issue arose day before yesterday, in the late evening, and it was agreed to. I return this morning to find a fully formed RFC which is already receiving comments. This doesn't deserve the characterization of "declined to negotiate."
• The link to Will's first point goes to a columnist's picture, no column, no text. How does this support the point? Now Will has demonstrated that there is salacious gossip and tabloid-style "reporting" about Aiken, and that these reports often contain factual errors which uninformed individuals may take to be the truth.
• Aiken does not "freely discuss many aspects of his personal life" nor does he seek the spotlight (no Hollywood parties, avoids the vast majority of red carpet events, lives in Raleigh, NC). Yes, he is a nationally known celebrity who sometimes appears on television, but he is no publicity seeker a la Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan--quite the opposite.
• Aiken recorded an album. In order to promote the album he appeared on television. Comments on the Post's Page Six and in Perez Hilton's blog posts (Will, these are very influential gossip sources which have taken the lead for years in trying to "out" Aiken) in the weeks prior indicated that, had he not agreed to be interviewed at all, this would be widely and publicly interpreted by the gossips as confirmation of the truth of the rumors. Now, because he did agree to be interviewed, Will is saying that Aiken willingly agreed to discuss the topics. This situation is the very definition of Catch-22.
• Quoting him responding to questions about rumor and innuendo is perpetuating rumor and innuendo.
• Will said, "Some of the arguments presented on this page imply that the subject's sexual orientation would not be a legitimate topic even if the subject were to hold a press conference and announce his preferences." That's just specious--nothing more than a dig at fellow editors who rebutted your bad Larry Craig analogy. It does not characterize the arguments made.
• The frequency of questions about orientation to which Will refers indicates nothing other than the media's obsession with salacious matters. To dignify that in any way is to stoop to the same level.
• BLP policy has changed radically since the last time this subject was debated and an agreement was reached. The material was deleted on the basis of BLP by uninvolved editors. No objection was made at the time by Will, mixvio, or any editor. -Jmh123 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Points favoring inclusion

• The subject's personal life is of intense interest to fans and the general public.[39][40] (fixed links)
• The subject is a public figure who has sought the spotlight and who freely discuses many aspects of his personal life.
• The subject has willingly submitted to interviews in which he has been asked, sometimes at length,[41] about his orientation and his manner of discussing it. In none of the interviews has he declined to comment.
• Questions about his orientation have been asked by a number of legitimate journalists. These are not tabloid papers that we are using for sources. The frequency of the questions is an indication of the noteworthiness of the topic.
• Due to the widespread discussion of the topic, both in the media and in blogs and forums, the article should address it in some manner.
• Quoting a subject about himself is not "spreading innuendo".
• This material is reliable and neutral. No part of WP:BLP prohibits quoting a subject about himself.
• Some of the arguments presented on this page imply that the subject's sexual orientation would not be a legitimate topic even if the subject were to hold a press conference and announce his preferences.
• Editors opposing the material have declined to negotiate over the material, categorically refusing to allow it in any form.
• The material had been in the article for years before being removed without discusion.
• In summary, the material complies wih WP:BLP, is noteworthy, and illustrates a major part of the subject's public personna. The material should be included in some form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above and adding that there was already a well-established group consensus to leave the material in the article for almost two years. - mixvio 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The material was removed by uninvolved editors months ago on the basic of BLP. Why didn't you object then? -Jmh123 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The material should be included. I agree with all of Will Breback's point's and disagree strongly with the rebuttal points below (which don't actually rebut anything). Jmh, you seem to be unduly focused on the "why didn't you object to its removal in May" rationale for excluding the material. Give me a break. Why can't we focus on the present? As the article stands today, it is incomplete without some reference to this issue. Using Clay Aiken's comments to document what is a very real issue is not "spreading crap about him", and it is not innuendo. The only real debate seems to be whether the material is encyclopedic (i.e., does it add something of value to a biography of Aiken?). I can't understand how anyone can honestly believe that including neutral language on the issue of his sexuality (simply acknowledging that it is an issue) is in any way a violation of the letter or spirit of WP:BLP. I understand that Aiken might want this issue to just go away, but it has not gone away and Wikipedia would be remiss for not including this information in his bio. As I stated above, in its current incarnation, it reads like a bio taken straight from a fan site: nothing but how wonderful he is. I am not claiming that he is anything but wonderful (he seems like a very nice man), but this issue of his sexuality is a big part of the reason that Aiken remains a household name in the U.S. A previous comment recommended excluding anything that is out of Aiken's control, and I agree with that to a point. But his response to these questions was within his control and this controversy is an important part of the phenomenon that is "Clay Aiken". -Diego Gravez 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a balanced and referenced paragraph about the controversy should be included.
There have been rumors. These rumors have been discussed in scandal sheets, true, but the existence of the rumors has been raised in non-tabloid sources (such as Rolling Stone magazine and television interviews) and discussed on 'respectable' entertainment shows. To fail to mention the existence of the rumors is to present a whitewashed biography -- to fail to include Aiken's responses would be a BLP violation in and of itself.
When Jmh123 and Maria202 rearranged/rewrote the article a few months back, I congratulated them on a job well done, and I still feel that way.(*) However, I think that something similar to Will Beback's paragraph shold be included as well.
BTW, just because no issues were raised a couple of months ago when the info was removed does not mean that we have forfeited our one chance to discuss it now -- and neither does the fact that the info has been in for years mean that it is inviolate. There's focus on this article now, let's discuss and resolve it now, instead of claiming it's a fait accompli either way and discussion is over.
(*) even though the reference to the fan-group-that-shall-not-be-named seemed to have disappeared, but from what I have heard, it seems to have caused the group troubles, so I now think it's absence is probably a good idea
-- ArglebargleIV 22:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved editors

I'd have to agree with Will's take on the material. This isn't a matter of someone adding a random, unsourced bit of nonsense saying "Clay Aiken's a homo!!!1" Instead, he's arguing to include critical commentary that has been brought up numerous times in a variety of outside venues. Adding information on the fact that Diane Sawyer has questioned the article's subject on national television about his sexuality isn't a violation of BLP, and, I would argue, actually adds something meaningful to the article itself. If this were just idle speculation or malicious slander, it would be different. Esrever 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"The sexuality of this person is not important or notable for any reason." This is completely wrong, the sexuality of every person on Wikipedia is of great interest to anyone looking them up, because one's sexuality has a big impact on the way someone views the world in a way that, say, being left handed does not. Clay Aiken may or may not be gay, but that's not what we should be documenting. If the poor guy is being asked in interview after inteview by even mainstream sources about his alleged gaiety, then that in itself is noteworthy; relatively few people suffer gay rumours on a level that Aiken, Travolta, and Cruise do, and that information should certainly be in any comprehensive article about them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Clay Aiken's own words in response to questions by reputable newspeople most certainly does not violate BLP. The extent to which rumors of his sexuality persist is most certainly notable. -- AvatarMN 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above three opinions by Esrever, Dev920, and AvatarMN (except the left-handed comparison). At root, this isn't about his sexuality, it's about the reports of his sexuality. Those have been shown to be notable. Just because Aiken doesn't want them to continue doesn't mean that Wikipedia should ignore them. Pairadox 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with Pairadox. The public and media discussion of his sexual orientation—and his statements in response—can be attributed to multiple reliable sources. I think that at least a brief mention in the article is warranted; leaving the issue out completely would be ignoring a notable part of the story of Clay Aiken and his fame. --Paul Erik 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretending these claims and his responses to them do not exist makes no sense. Saying that notable journalists have asked him about his sexuality, is not the same as saying he's gay. Seems like a no brainer to me. Include. AniMate 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with inclusion. Having notable journalists ask the question(s), no matter their original reason for doing so, is notable. Because this is, apparently, a contentious issue, may I venture the suggestion that the text for inclusion be drafted in a sandbox until parties can agree? Also, perhaps a request should be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to help review a draft for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues. ZueJay (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Include. His own responses are xertainly relevant and within policy. The topic is notable given that the poor kid is so deep in the closet. If he were out, it would hardly be worth mentioning. It's the closet that makes it a story.Verklempt 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep out. The basic premise is "Do no harm" . The topic is invasive, and our pruient interest in the topic does not make it valid to talk about. His fans have a great interest in the unusually large size of his . . . endowments. They discuss it's potential size with great interest. That does not make it a valid topic to write about in Wikipedia - it is a personal topic, and should stay personal unless the person specifically states otherwise. 69.19.14.24 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely reference and include. For years his sexuality has been written and joked about in national media outlets. It's admirable that Aiken's fans want to somehow smooth away any controversy and it's lamentable that sexuality is such a big issue for some celebrities but Aiken himself has commented on this subject. In the Rosie O'Donnell article we finally just went with a reference that Aiken "has been dogged about rumors of his sexuality" which is hard to dispute. We should keep in mind as well that sexuality can change so until Aiken self-identifies or one of his sexual partners comes forward it's premature to label him strait, bi or gay, just like anyone else. Benjiboi 01:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does it have to be only fans that don't think this topic should be included? I feel the same way about the Rob Thomas article, and the Tom Cruise article, etc. Just because these celebrities have been harassed on the subject, does not mean that Wikipedia should join in the harassment. 69.19.14.28 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I referenced Aiken's fans as they have been the most proactive in suppressing this information as evidenced in Aiken's fan forums. You are correct that not only his fans share that view. I do disagree that the discussion and possible inclusion of this information is harassment. I'm not familiar with the Rob Thomas or Tom Cruise articles but I don't need to be as wp operates generally on a case-by-case basis using established protocols for treating bios of living people with specific rules. Having stated that, I stand by my above comments with the amendment that even people who are not Aiken's fans certainly also want to smooth over discussions of his sexuality. Benjiboi 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course this material should be included. Clay Aiken is probably known by the general public just as much for the whole gay issue as he is for his music. There should at least be a reference to the controversy and it seems like the points that Will wants to include are reporting on Clay's own statements and reference good sources. This "gay controversy" is a big part of the public image of Clay Aiken and it doesn't violate BLP and it definitely doesn't cause him any "harm" to print it here. I am personally offended by the above comment that even the assertion that someone is a homosexual is somehow "harming" them. Referencing Clay's own comments is not spreading rumour or innuendo. Nobody is trying to insert a statement in the article that says "Clay Aiken is gay". This subject is obviously of interest to people (and not just prurient interest), it is relevant to his career as an artist who is an outspoken member of a church (Southern Baptist) that condemns homosexuality. Writing about the controversy is not making a judgment about the artist and given the inflated importance that our culture places on sexual matters, it is encyclopedic. The material should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.24.178 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He spoke out in his book against the church's condemnation of homosexuality. He is outspoken about being a Christian. Those two pieces of what might be construed as a misleading statement are true. -Jmh123 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If Clay had stated he was gay, and we printed it here - it would not harm him. It is the constant inuendo that he is in the closet that is doing harm. And I am sorry if you are offended that being thought to be in the closet causes harm to a persons career - but it DOES. That is just life as it is today, whether that is right or wrong. Wikipedia should not be contributing to that harm. 69.19.14.25 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Include the above material on Clay's sexuality. I have read the WP:BLP page and I don't think it really applies in this situation. Clay has chosen to address the issue with reliable journalists on television and in print. He didn't have to address it, but he did. Editors have commented and compared the issue to rumors about John Travolta and Tom Cruise, but it is different: 1)Travolta and Cruise have not commented publicly about these rumors, 2)The Travolta/Cruise rumors have hardly generated any speculation compared to Clay Aiken, 3)both stars have been married and been public about their relationships with women (de facto evidence of heterosexuality, not the case with Aiken), and 4) To my knowledge neither Cruise nor Travolta have been asked if they are gay on netional television. Therefore, it would be inappropriate (a violation of WP:BLP)for Wikipedia to mention the Travolta/Cruise gay rumors in their respective articles.

A closer parallel to this issue would be the articles on Anderson Cooper and Queen Latifah. Both of these celebrities have been "victims" of gay rumors in the past (although not nearly at the level of the Clay Aiken rumors) and have chosen to address the issue publicly. Mention of the "controversey" in their articles does not violate WP:BLP, uses their own statements as sources, is strictly about the speculation (and response) (rather than accusatory or salacious comments meant to be hurtful or perpetuate the rumors), and does not give the issue undue weight. If you care to read the comments in either article, you will see that they are tasteful, encylopedia-worthy, and sensitive to the privacy of the celebrities in question. The treatment of the subject in this article should be the same.

The comment above stating that mention in Wikipedia will create a feedback loop that will lend credibility to the rumors is a little over the top. The rumors are already out there. The least we can do is document the issue using the subjects own words and set the record straight (no pun intended)on an issue that the public thinks is important. The proposed inclusions do not violate WP:BLP , they are not contributing to the rumors, and they definitely do not harm Clay Aiken, because they are his words. (Rayraymitts 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

The material has likely been seen by most people likely to read this article. Once someone has said in public that he do not want to discuss X, or that he denies X, the possible misinterpretation is a risk one take when one makes that statement, and the subject undoubtedly took it into account. What would be wrong is including a published report even from an otherwise reputable source that he has never made a statement denying something. that is spreading harm. DGG (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• "There has been speculation that Aiken is gay. Aiken has denied this". There, the entire encyclopaedic part of the dispute in two short sentences :-) Guy (Help!) 23:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With proper sources, of course. Pairadox 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

In the spirit of cooperation this draft should satisfy all. It does not include inflamatory language, keeps the focus on the gossip, rumors and tabloids, does not add undue weight and I believe will not violate the BLP policy. It does not assert sexuality. It is politically correct and should not offend anyone reading it. It deals with facts that can be verified and does not interpert. It does not quote the tabloids/bloggers nor insert any of their prattle into Wikipedia but does recognize their garbage is out there. It leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions, which is the best way to serve both Aiken and Wikipedia and is NPOV. I suggest that to avoid adding undue weight to the topic, we include this in the television section. Hopefully, this will keep the sexuality fight out of Wikipedia and leave it to those who feed off that subject. (Maria)

Maria's original version:

Aiken has been hounded by gossip and rumors, prompting Diane Sawyer (Good Morning America,) Lara Spencer (The Insider) and Larry King (Larry King Live) to question him about them during televised promotional interviews (September 2006) for his new album 'A Thousand Different Ways'. Sawyer opened her interview by asking "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?" Is some of it "just bullying on a larger scale?" Responding to Sawyer's questions regarding his sexual orientation Aiken replied, "I'm not spending my time with this anymore. This is a waste of my time." His response to Spencer was "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." Discussing the tabloid stories with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.

A revision by me, in response to Pairadox's comment:

Gossip and rumors prompted Diane Sawyer (Good Morning America,) Lara Spencer (The Insider) and Larry King (Larry King Live) to question Aiken during televised interviews (September 2006) promoting his new album A Thousand Different Ways. Sawyer opened her interview by asking "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?" Is some of it "just bullying on a larger scale?" Responding to Sawyer's questions regarding his sexual orientation Aiken replied, "I'm not spending my time with this anymore. This is a waste of my time." His response to Spencer was "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." Discussing the tabloid stories with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.

Another revision by me, in response to more comments:

While promoting his new album A Thousand Different Ways in September, 2006, Aiken was interviewed by Diane Sawyer (Good Morning America,) Lara Spencer (The Insider) and Larry King (Larry King Live). Sawyer opened her interview by asking "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?" Is some of it "just bullying on a larger scale?" Responding to Sawyer's questions regarding his sexual orientation Aiken replied, "I'm not spending my time with this anymore. This is a waste of my time." His response to Spencer was "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." Discussing tabloid stories published about him with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.

Will's rewrite:

In 2003, shortly after Americn Idol, Aiken told Rolling Stone that, "One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me." Aiken was interviewed by Diane Sawyer (Good Morning America,) Lara Spencer (The Insider) and Larry King (Larry King Live) in September 2006. Sawyer asked, "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?" Is some of it "just bullying on a larger scale?" Responding to Sawyer's questions regarding his sexual orientation Aiken replied, "I'm not spending my time with this anymore. This is a waste of my time." His response to Spencer was "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." During an interview with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know tabloid stories published about him are not true.

my latest:

Gossip and rumors prompted Diane Sawyer (Good Morning America,) Lara Spencer (The Insider) and Larry King (Larry King Live) to question Aiken during televised interviews (September 2006) promoting his new album A Thousand Different Ways. Sawyer opened her interview by asking, "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?" Is some of it "just bullying on a larger scale?" Responding to Sawyer's questions regarding his sexual orientation Aiken replied, "I'm not spending my time with this anymore. This is a waste of my time." His response to Spencer was, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." Aiken told the Rolling Stone in June of 2003, just after the end of his season on American Idol: "One thing I've found of people in the public eye...either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me." During the interview with King, Aiken said the people who know him know tabloid stories published about him are not true.

comments:

oops—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria202 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I reworded one sentence slightly. Looks OK to me. -Jmh123 01:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "hounded" is very POV. Pairadox 01:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In Rosie O'Donnell he's "dogged"--is that preferable? I suggested an alternative. Thanks. -Jmh123 02:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs something that doesn't involve canines of any sort, unless it's a direct quote. (I hadn't seen the Rosie article and oy vey, I really don't want to go there.) Pairadox 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I did? :) "Dogged by rumors" was better than multiple earlier proposed alternatives. -Jmh123 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There;'s no source for "Gossip and rumors prompted..." Are we omitting the Rolling Stone interivew for some reason? Why does it matter which album he was promoting? The source doesn't include the text "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?" Is some of it "just bullying on a larger scale?" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is there. See note 2. The album promotion phrase provides context. This will go within the article, and should be contextualized, no? It is preferable to the deleted version, which implied the interviews were for the express purpose of discussing his orientation, when in fact, the interviews were in the context of album promotion. The citation is not to a complete transcript. The full transcript is only available for a fee. How to cite in this case? I've seen many citations in Wikipedia to television programs. Shall we YouTube it? -Jmh123 03:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's our source for him promoting an album? Also, we don't mention what tabloid stories are, so to discuss them regarding Larry King is confusing. Why do we quote Sawyer, but not quote Aiken from the Rolling Stone interview. Also, we cite the '"fly magszine" interview to support his assertion that he'd answered the question already, while a presual of the interview shows he didn't answer the question. Is the Sawyer interview on YouTube? Even so, I'm not sure we're helping by quoting her. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Musicians do interviews to promote albums. He sang songs from the album on GMA, and on many shows at that time. Actors promote movies, TV personalities promote TV shows, authors promote books. This is standard practice. The album was released on Sept. 19, hence the flurry of interviews around that date. You Tube: [42]. I just rewatched this, and Sawyer says he is there to talk about his new album; she also supports the now deleted phrase "gossip and rumors prompted." We do not quote Rolling Stone because these are subsequent interviews conducted years later, but we cite it to support his statement that he has answered before. Not sure why Fly was there--deleted. Tabloids: I rephrased slightly. -Jmh123 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no source and it's not really relevant to the questions or the answers. I also re-wrote the King entry slightly. If we're going to quote from interviews the Rolling Stone response was more informative than the Sawyer response. I've addded it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, we are thinking about article placement, flow, good writing, stuff like that. This was to go in the television section. Can we please do revisions with the quality of writing in mind? -Jmh123 03:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We can split it up and put the print interviews in a different section, or we We can create a section for it like "personal life". That's not an impediment. Lets just write the besst paragraph we can and worry about where it goes later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing the best paragraph is what we are trying to do, Will, and in my opinion, your revision is not well-written. -Jmh123 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's bad about it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I've tried to comment tonight I've run into an edit conflict and my connection is running slooooooow. These questions were a small portion of the entire interviews which were focused on his new album promotion. Removing the reason is giving a false impression for the interviews. If there was no interview for the album, there would have been no interview at all. Maria202 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If we have a source for the interviews being tied to an album promotion, and if we agree that that fact is relevant, then we can include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I need a break. I'm going to take a few moments after I type this. Will, considering placement in the article before writing a paragraph is a good idea. Contextualizing the paragraph is a good idea. Contextualizing the interviews is good writing. -Jmh123 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So we can create a section called "personal life". Many biographies have such a section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph has nothing to do with his personal life; it is about media interest in his sexual orientation. There is no actual information about his personal life in it. -Jmh123 04:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

His sexual orientation isn't part of his personal life? Well, we can call the section "media interest in his sexual orientation" or whatever fits best. I don't think this is the most pressing issue right now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Calling it "media interest in his sexual orientation" is a fancy way of calling it an "Is Clay Gay?" section. This material fits very well as a paragraph at the end of the television section, and Maria stated that the television section was the location she had in mind while writing it. I think it is important to think of contextualizing this material instead of thinking about "how to get the gay stuff in there." It's a very short story, however important it may be to pop culture. See RfC comments at the end of the page, the new ones.

"There has been speculation that Aiken is gay. Aiken has denied this". There, the entire encyclopaedic part of the dispute in two short sentences :-) Guy (Help!) 23:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With proper sources, of course. Pairadox 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd add one more: 1) Speculation 2) Media asks 3) Aiken answers -Jmh123 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A portion of his promotional schedule from his official RCA artist page. http://www.clayaiken.com/

09-21-2006 Check out the latest tv commercial for Clay Aiken right here! HI MED LOW - Real HI MED LOW - Windows Media

09-21-2006 Soundcheck Performance Check out Clay's Wal-Mart Soundcheck performance online now at

09-15-2006 9/15 - The Tonight Show with Jay Leno - performance of "Without You" 9/18 - Entertainment Tonight - Clay segment 9/19 - Good Morning America - Performance of "Without You" & "A Thousand Days" & Interview (will air around 8:30-9:00AM) 9/19 - Entertainment Tonight - Clay segment 9/20 - Good Morning America - Diane Sawyer Interview - Part 1 (will air around 7:30-8AM) 9/20 - Entertainment Tonight - Clay segment 9/21 - Good Morning America - Diane Sawyer Interview - Part 2 (will air around 7:30-8AM) 9/21 - Entertainment Tonight - Clay segment 9/22 - The View - Performance of "Without You" & Interview 9/22 - Entertainment Tonight - Clay segment 9/24 - Good Morning America - Weekend Show - Performance & Interview 9/26 - Entertainment Tonight - Clay segment 9/26 - Jimmey Kimmel Live! - Outdoor 2 Song Performance & 2nd Couch Interview Guest

09-15-2006 Be sure to check out Clay's album on iTunes first thing Tuesday morning - it will have a little something extra included! Maria202 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that this is a promotional schedule. Nor is it clear to me why it's important to this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note my response to your earlier comment above. ^^^ I don't know why you are stuck on this issue. Could others help us out here? Does the list above appear to be a list of appearances promoting an album that was released on Sept. 19 (last year) or not? If the problem is a source for the release date, it's in the article, on Billboard, google and so forth. I have above added five progressive versions of the paragraph, from the original to my lastest revision in response to Will's. I'd like to hear from some uninvolved editors on all this, as I think there's way too much back-and-forthing going on between the three of us. I will check back late tomorrow night. Thanks. -Jmh123 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the three TV interviews are the least informative while the two People and Rolling Stone interviews are more to the point. From scratch, I think this would make a good short paragraph:

• Shortly after achieving sudden fame on American Idol Aiken told Rolling Stone magazine that, "One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me."[ref] In subsequent interviews he's expressed frustration over questions about his sexual orientation, telling People magazine, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing."[ref]

That text is short, comprehensive, and NPOV. It doesn't mention "he who must not be named". We could add that he call Sawyer "rude", but I don't think we need to make it longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a heck of a time finding where this section went. After a quick read, both of the last two revisions seem like viable compromises. I've got the RCA press release cite that spells out the interviews were promotion for the album. Like you said Will, we don't need to rush so since JMH won't be around all day there's no reason we can't come back to this tomorrow. In the meantime I'll copy the new text from both new paragraphs to my draft page so we can see how it fits in with the article. When I have had time to read and digest the proposed changes I'll make any comments about it here. When I'm done with the copy I'll let you know and put the link here. By the way, another case of the media getting it wrong. Clay didn't say Diane was rude, he said he thought the questions were rude but she had a job to do. Maria202 10:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The draft version[43] now contains the proposed paragraphs. At this point my concerns are not so much about wording as they are about placement, flow and how to make this fit with the rest of the article, which was reworked and rewritten using the good article guidelines.

• American Idol section: My concern with placing the paragraph here is that while the subject first came up immediately after AI it has gained more attention over time. The Rolling Stone interview took place within weeks of the end of AI2 so the first sentence needs a bit of tweaking to make better sense. Additionaly, the People mention needs to have 2006 added to clarify the time frame involved.
• Print section: Using a new section and comparing it to the rest of the article it is so short that it doesn't fit. We need to pad it out with more magaizine covers/interviews otherwise, as JMH said, it looks like just another way of asking is he/is he not and adding undue weight. No other print articles are mentioned anywhere else in the article as it's just not a notable subject.
• Television section: It was the 2006 Diane Sawyer interview, and the followup interviews that referenced hers, that was used to argue that this topic hit mainstream media and that's why my original paragraph was written to fit into the TV section. Used here the first sentence needs to be reversed to reflect that the interviews were the vehicle used to bring up the subject and to not imply the subject was the reason for the interviews.

Once we decide where the best placement in the article is we can get into flow and grammer. We worked hard to make this a good article, lets not screw it up. Maria202 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Placement and flow" are not policies of Wikipedia. You haven't addressed the issues with your proposed material. There's no source for "Gossip and rumors prompted..." and it is not NPOV. The print interviews are certainly notable and I can provide citations to prove it. We can add additional material from the interivrews if the complaint is that the paragraph is too short. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote used was wrongly attributed to People magazine. There is no mention of Rolling Stone or having answered previously in either the print edition or the online article recap. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1536827,00.html Maria202 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotation really is from People - it's the full version which is obviously excerpted in the online version. The full version was in the article previously, and that's where I got it from.[44] But the original article is available in online archives:

• Aiken openly acknowledges that the education has, at times, been painful. After leaving L.A. to return full-time to his hometown of Raleigh, N.C., he has found himself yanked back into the spotlight as the subject of relentless tabloid and online gossip about his sexuality. In January a tabloid ran a story in which a former Green Beret claimed that he had had an affair with Aiken. Then in March, Webcam photos surfaced in which a man who looked like Aiken performed a striptease on a site for gay men. "The first thing was, 'That doesn't look like me,'" he says of his reaction to the photos, which quickly made the rounds online. "But then I thought, 'Well, a little bit.' But it's not. So I laughed at it. But what was different and what bothered me was that [the rumors] kept on. I would have friends over at the house who I went to high school with and there was always like this little gorilla in the room."
• The gorilla--or elephant, choose your own metaphor--became "harder and harder to ignore," Aiken says of the is-he-or-isn't-he speculation about his sexuality. "[It was there] every time I turned around. The elephant in the room probably followed me to the mall and the grocery store."
• During that time, did anyone ever simply ask him, "Are you gay?" "No," says Aiken. "Nobody said it. I think because people who are with me, people who know me best, even fans, they know, you know, who I am. They know what's true."
• When he is asked, Aiken doesn't answer the question directly. "What do you say [to that question]? You know what it's like? It's like when I was 8. I remember something would get broken in the house, and Mom and Dad would call me in and say, 'Did you do this?' Well, it didn't matter what I said. The only thing they would believe was yes. I used to think, 'Why would they ask? They think I did it. It doesn't matter what I say.' That is what I've discovered. It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want."
• Why didn't he respond to the tabloid reports? "I guess it goes along with something my mom has told me growing up my entire life. I could try and go on the defensive and attack back or I could leave it alone. I think certain people and certain magazines have gotten enough publicity. I have always been told to let the negative stuff fall away."
• His friends say that Aiken was surprisingly unbothered by the rumors. "He is really resilient," says his Raleigh roommate Kristy Barnes, 28, who also serves as president-COO of the singer's nonprofit Bubel/Aiken Foundation, which creates inclusion programs for special-needs kids. "Believe it or not, he gets over things very quickly." Still, she notes, "he was a little bit drained by [the gossip]." How does Aiken's mom, Faye Parker, 60, handle the constant scrutiny of her son? "My mother has had a tough life," says Aiken, referring to his mother's divorce from his biological father, Vernon, who Aiken says was abusive. (He died in '04.) "She's a tough lady. Tougher than I am sometimes. I think what bothers her more than anything is the fact that I have to deal with it. It's her son. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing."

I don't know what you mean about no mention of the Rolling Stone. Why would he mention a 2003 Rolling Stone interview to People in 2006? Regarding your proposed text, do you have a source for Sawyer's questions being prompted by gossip? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing." The first 2 sentences are from People. The last 2 are not. Just about every article out there calls this crap either gossip, rumors or speculation. Do you like the word speculation better? Maria202 03:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the excerpt I posted above. The quotation should have had an ellipses in the middle to show that non-continuous text is quoted. Again, we don't have a source saying that Sawyer's questions were prompted by gossip, so we can't say that. Here's a draft that incorporates your suggestions:

• *In 2003, shortly after achieving fame on American Idol Aiken told Rolling Stone magazine that, "One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me."[ref] In subsequent interviews he's expressed frustration over questions about his sexual orientation, telling People magazine in 2006, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want...I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing."[ref]

How's that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The last two sentences are also from People, Maria. I have a scan saved and am looking at it right now. Sorry to see no input from other editors today or tonight. If we were to go the print route, I think the Rolling Stone, People, Time and Entertainment Weekly feature stories/interviews should all be included. These are the four significant print interviews in widely read, national publications that I can remember right now. (Later thought of Elle, October, 2003.) If anyone can't get access to the full Rolling Stone interview via Lexis Nexis (or as a Rolling Stone subscriber), one of us can put it on a temporary page. Will, can you put People up if necessary? The Time interview can be found here: [45] and EW here [46]. I am assuming that, in proposing a print section, you're not proposing it just as a coat rack for addressing questions of sexual orientation Will. We wouldn't want to put undue weight on his orientation as a print topic. -Jmh123 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The ellipses need to be there, I was looking for the entire quote. Maria202 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you both read the input we've already received from other editors? #Comments from previously uninvolved editors. Those are more responses than I've seen from any RfC I can remember. We can't expect to get that kind of response routinely. I've posted a couple of reviews of the Rolling Stone interviews, which mention the highlights. If we can identify what topics are of interest then I can post the relevant excerpts. The "print" section is not my first suggestion. I recommend a "personal life" section - many articles on public figures have them. But if you guys want to keep the article split up by which media is doing the interviews, then "print" is a logical section. Sure, we can summarize all of his print interviews in such a section if that's what editors want. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting the cover of Rolling Stone was a big deal. It had been in the article previously under the AI section so we can put it back in there. Using that fact to lead off Will's paragraph fits it into the AI section nicely and doesn't add undue weight. His body of work (AI, music, television, touring, charitable endeavors) is already covered in the article. I am also assuming it's not Will's intention to add undue weight to the sexual orientation issue.

Rolling Stone featured Aiken on the cover of their July 2003 issue. In the cover article Aiken told the magazine that, "One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me."[ref] In subsequent interviews he's expressed frustration over questions about his sexual orientation, telling People magazine in 2006, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want...I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing."[ref] Maria202 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it that there is no further disagreement about the text that Maria has posted above. I will insert it into the article in the AI section with proper refs. Let's continue to discuss other additions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Does anyone object to my having modified "questions" with "continued"? Also, the ellipses leave the impression that the crap to which he refers is being called gay, whereas the context indicates that it is the tabloid stories to which he refers. Could we add [tabloid] before crap or does anyone have an alternative suggestion? Or perhaps we could delete the lines following the ellipses? -Jmh123 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to "continued", nor do I object to removing the two sentences after the ellipses. They were part of the original material we had in this article, and I included it under the assumption it was a continuous quote. We discovered that it wasn't and for the reasons you mention it is not directly connected to the material being discussed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will. It is misleading as written, so I have deleted those lines. -Jmh123 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That was misleading and I'm glad it's been changed. Maria202 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)