Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 3

More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miklos Szabo 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

AIFan

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

From the Openly Clay site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vitriol

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

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

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

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

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

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

Be careful what you wish for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MISS LICKING COUNTY

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

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

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

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

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

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

Jmh123 9 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Jmh123 9 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Miklos Szabo 9 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

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

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

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

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