Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pornography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is online today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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