Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fan boards

If none of the other fan boards can be listed, then the openlyclay fan board should not be allowed to be listed.

This was the agreement a large number of users reached after a protracted conflict about this very issue. I've placed the link back into the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The decision to remove the links to unofficial fansites was made AFTER the agreement about this paragraph was made, therefore this paragraph needs to be revised to accomodate that decision. If THIS fansite can be listed, then they ALL should be allowed to be listed. 209.107.225.65 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it was made concurrently. It was all the same debate. I will revert again. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The agreement was that only the two fansites currently listed would be listed, because Finding Clay Aiken links to nearly every other Clay Aiken fansite on the planet aside from Openly Clay. The editors in the dispute finally compromised on having the link to OC as an in-text thing in that one paragraph. Users already had a very long, very heated argument over that paragraph and that link; it really wouldn't do anyone any good to open that can of worms up again. Hermione1980 18:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The bias in this decision is just STAGGERING. And this is SUPPOSED to be NPOV ebcyclopedia. Rubbish. 209.107.225.65 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming this wikirumorpedia??

Actually it would be POV to not include information about the 'rumours'. That the rumours exist is true. The link to the website is not meant as a link to a fansite, but as an intext citation.--Hamiltonian 20:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I think what people keep confusing with including the rumors that he's gay is that Wikipedia is not "endorsing" the idea that he is gay. We're just reporting that there are widespread rumors that he is. We're not endorsing the rumors. We're not saying the rumors are well thought out or valid. We're just saying this exist. I think some of the editors are taking it way too personally as if we're "accusing" him of being gay. No. We're just reporting on widespread rumors. It would be POV and incorrect if we decided not to report on them. We have to show both sides here. --Woohookitty 03:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You know - I was fine with the Fansite thing, until the Kelly Clarkson page was allowed to have a BUNCH of fansite listings? How is that fair? Really this page had NO direct links to fansites. You would have to know to go to Finding Clay Aiken and then go on from there. The Clayboard is the largest unofficial board. At least that would be ONE direct link. Michigan user 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

With so many disparate users working on disparate articles, Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent. It's not really useful to compare one article's treatment with another, or try to force one article into another's mold. Of course, there are some things that are universal, like NPOV. In general, though, if you dislike some aspect of the Kelly Clarkson article, you should pop over and start editing. That's the beauty of a wiki. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I should never have even attempted to include a reference in Clay's article that if you google: Clay Aiken gay, you get 576,000 hits. Of them, there is the lopsided opinion that Clay is gay. I never said it was proof of his homosexuality, but it sure proves there's speculation. I didn't mention that if you google Ruben Studdard gay, you get 149,000 hits. But if you read them, they are about Clay. I shouldn't have bothered, because this must be the most closely guarded site aside from Ronald Reagan's. Just put something there that is completely true and well-documented, for example, Reagan classified ketchup as a vegetable to stiff poverty-line kids at lunchtime, and it is a matter of SECONDS, not hours, when the keepers of the flame, so to speak, remove it, because it is in conflict with THEIR image of Reagan, and could cause pangs of disillusionment. So much for the purpose of an encyclopedia! Amazingly, Mr. Aiken, not exactly Reagan, Nixon or Mother Teresa, rates the same fierce protection. I'll say this: to write about Clay Aiken and speculating about homosexuality is like writing about the Titanic and speculating about an iceberg. -Professor Von Pie

Listen, if you had been involved in the vitriolic discussion about this paragraph a few months ago, you wouldn't want to touch that paragraph with a ten-foot pole. We've already mentioned the fact that there's speculation. We even mentioned a fan site that speculates about his sexual orientation. We don't need the number of results from a google search that would include sentences such as "Clay Aiken is not gay", which I'm sure came up in your search. It's just irrelevant, I'm sorry. Hermione1980 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
There is speculation that at one time there may have been living multi-celled organisms on Saturn. I wouldn't use the

term speculation so casually regarding Clay's sexuality. You should understand that there are no financial rewards for Clay to announce his sexuality, but desertion by his army of pubescent female fans and their mothers, shocked and dismayed that Clay will not become a member of their families as, respectively, husband and son-in-law. Heartbreaking, yes, but should that contaminate the pages of an encylopedia? A good example of what I mean is the Walter Mercado article. There is speculation that he is gay, but for balance, there is the hint he might not be. But, as with the case with Clay, look at Walter's photograph. Some balance! Walter's on TV daily. As with Clay, check out his act. If there was any mystery, they themselves clear it up within seconds. Why should reasonable (I hope), somewhat intelligent (I'm really praying) adults be expected to disbelieve their own eyes, ears and instincts? Professor Von Pie

As I've asked you several times before, please read our core policy, wikipedia:no original research. The idea that we can assert a controversial designation based only on our own impressions is in direct contradiction to that policy. It is quite obvious to anyone with eyes that the Earth is stationary while the sun revolves around it. Obvious, but not true. Let's just stick with our mission as Wikipedia editors: to summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. -Willmcw 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I was actually addressing Hermione, but didn't (although I should have) expect you to follow me around, badgering and pestering me with your Flat Earth POV. You have a neutral point of view like Clay Aiken has an extra male chromosone. Will you kindly stop following me around? Here's something way cool you can do to fulfill your mission of creating a kinder, gentler world where everybody has sex the same way you do, or wish you did: go to the Barbara Jordan article and remove the word "lesbian." This great

congresswoman, scholar and orator never publicly admitted to it, never sent out a press release acknowledging it, and had sworn her lover, Nancy Earl, to secrecy even after Jordan's death. After that, go to Miriam Hopkins, Judy Holliday and Robert Q. Lewis, which should keep you busy for a while. Your attention is a trifle flattering, but kindly bug off. Professor Von Pie

I'm afraid Willmcw is right. And I've never laid eyes on you before. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
And Professor Von Pie, assume good faith. Woohookitty - 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There are numerous, reliable sources available for Barbara Jordan's orientation. That proves the point. If we have reliable sources we use them. But we don't speculate based on our own beliefs. Regarding my appearance on this page, I've been watching this article and participating in this discussion since July. I didn't have to follow anyone to get here. -Willmcw 01:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad if you're not stalking me, though I have my doubts. Regarding Jordan, there is only one person who has witnessed her sexual practices. That is Nancy Earl, who will never confirm or deny. When asked by biographers, she is quoted as saying, "People can think what they want." That is as close as any reliable source has come to "proving" that Jordan was a lesbian. My problem with you, Will, is that you come on strong in the area of enforcement, and live to have things your way, but you do not comprehend abstract issues. You understand the difference between, say, a ton of apples and a pound of apples. But you do not understand the nuances of "proof," "witness," "evidence," "neutral," and "gossip." If you did- you too Hermione- you would see that there are thousands of variations of those themes on wikipedia. There is no question that, in this paragraph, I completely lost you after the words "pound of apples." Professor Von Pie

Phone voting log jams

Reference for telephone problems issue: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA417981.html?display=Top+of+the+Week (Note: the article requires registration to read UNLESS it is referred by Google. If you do a Google search on "american idol FCC Clay Aiken" and scan down about 1/2 page until you find this reference, you can link to it without registering.) 66.82.9.55 01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[quote] SBC also reported a call volume on May 20, 2003, up by 115 million calls, which means more than 230 million potential votes never got through, much less got counted. Together, Verizon and SBC handle nearly one-third of the long-distance market.

In reality, no phone system has the capacity to handle that kind of call volume. A logjam is inevitable and starts at the local level. AT&T, along with Telescope UK, is in charge of the Idol tabulations. "The real issue is not with the long-distance carrier network" but with jammed local phone lines, says Linda Lungo, vice president of AT&T's domestic business development.

"You've got to look at how fast the inbound phone system can receive messages," says Tom Cobbs, Database Systems Corp., which designs complex telephone and computer networks for companies. "It's a bandwidth problem. There's only so much volume they can run through that pipe at one time."

This means that, no matter how many people vote, only a limited number can get through in any two-hour period. In the second season's Studdard-Aiken contest, each of the two contestants had his own phone number, and each received roughly half of the more than 24 million votes. The winner was decided by a statistically insignificant margin: a mere 134,000 votes, or less than 1% of the total. [/quote]

This was much discussed in the communications industry and by the FCC. Michigan user 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Enthusiastic Fans

Clay has said MANY times in public that he is fine with the Claymate term. He has also said MANY times that his fans are not crazy - that they are "enthusiastic". We certainly can not refereence all the comments that every celebrity makes - this is an encyclopedia - not a diary.


The reference is not indicitive of the term "Claymates", however it is factual that both the media (talk show hosts, radio DJ's, and including general public awareness) and Aiken himself, in public statements in the past, have been critical of the nature of the overly enthusiastic fans within that group. Thus, not all fans embrace the term. --207.200.116.199 22:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to make an inflamitory edit without even a reference to back it up, then it will get reverted. 66.82.9.83 23:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back to my previous factual edit and now added a reference to Aiken's own quoted statement about obessive fan behavior and it pushing him to want to quit. While not neccesarry (as every statement on Wikipedia does not require nor carry a specific reference source), I am willing to and can provide more references to back up my original legitimate and factual edit. That said, my edit is NPOV and may only be percieved as inflammatory if you identify yourself as a "Claymate" and believe that any and all such fan behaviors are without or above criticism. --207.200.116.199 06:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

onlyidol website rip-off

Thought you'd want to know that this guy-- only idol--is claiming this work as his own, and even posting a copyright notice! -Jmh123 15:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you check the copyright link - it shows a link to Wikipedia. This is apparently acceptable according to the wikipedia fair use statement. Michigan User 66.82.9.82 15:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Only because I took the issue to Mirrors and Forks and communicated with him at length until he agreed to include the link and remove his byline. :) -Jmh123 03:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations section

[[User::71.141.102.200|71.141.102.200]] removed the Awards and nominations section. I'm assuming it was an error, and I'm putting it back. ArglebargleIV 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sales Tracking

Clarifying revert of Sales number edit:

For Merry Christmas with Love: Per ClackHouse: http://www.theclackhouse.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=498 [quote]Tally to-date: At least 1,211,016 copies sold through 25 December 2005. 1,030,880 copies sold through 2 January 2005. Cumulative Soundscan tally through 3 July 2005 is 1,009,735, so I guess our provisional cumulative tally would add 27,349 to that (this was the disparity as of 2 January 2005). Cumulative Soundscan tally (not including sales to Christian retailers) through 25 December 2005 is 1,176,384.[/quote] Either way the 1.2 figure is valid.

For Measure of a Man: Measure Of A Man sales to date: 2,719,311 copies sold (Soundscan confirmed total through 3 July 2005; before 27 March update, previous known tally was 2,592,782; 2,674,983 copies sold through 2 January 2005). Not sure what the sales were in the last 6 months - so leaving the 2.7 for now. 66.82.9.82 15:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (This is Michigan User in disguise. My satellite modem connection does not play well with the Sign in feature of Wikipedia).

Religious affiliation category

I'd like to get some feedback from the other editors on an issue that has come up. Carlossuarez46 has twice deleted the category of Baptist from this entry. The second time the following exchange occurred:

from Carlossuarez46 talk page: I see that you have removed "Baptists" from Clay Aiken's entry again, again saying there is no evidence. In his memoirs Aiken states that he grew up in the Baptist church, attended the Moravian church for a time as a teen, and then returned to the Baptist church (pp. 212-213). On page 213 he states, "Today I am a proud Southern Baptist." In addition to that evidence, here's a link from the Raleigh Leesville Baptist Church's website: [1]. -Jmh123 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply put the cite in the article. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

from my talk page:

Hi, I gather that you are new. When I deleted the category "Baptists" from Clay Aiken (multiple times as you put it in multiple times), it is because there is no evidence from the article or any of the citations of sources for that claim. Wikipedia strives for verifiability. Therefor, information which is known to an editor cannot just be added without citing the sources so that it may be checked. I understand that there are lots of "rumors" about Clay Aiken, but rumors aren't facts and those "rumors" tend to get deleted when someone wants to add them to his article. Hope you understand and if you'd like to edit Clay's article and add the sourcing for the religious affiliation claimed, that's what it's there for. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So the issue seems to be that the category is not appropriate unless Aiken's being a Baptist is included in the entry itself. It can't be that the sources I placed on his "talk" page are not valid and easily checked, because they are; they just aren't presented in the article itself. I wasn't the one that put the category in to begin with and honestly don't care whether it is there or not. It's been there a long time, and he is a Baptist, which was my reason for making a case for keeping it. I'm not motivated at the moment to figure out a way to include this in the narrative, but am amused at his argument, which seems to be that if we insist on deleting gay rumors from this entry (except, of course, for the ones that are already there) we damned well better not be calling the man a Baptist. Opinions? -Jmh123 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the more general argument is that if it his being a Baptist is so insignificant that it is not mentioned in the article, then classifying him as such in a category would be unhelpful. On the other hand, if his being a Baptist is significant then it should be put in the article. --Hamiltonian 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
While his being a Christian is a significant part of his identity, being a Baptist is not especially so, in my opinion. Anyone have a different view? -Jmh123 04:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A committed Baptist singer is apt to gain an immediate, strong following from that community. Often times, Baptists do indeed look favorably on each other, even on that basis alone. If it's true, this ought to be included. Merecat 07:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Platinum album certification

According to the searchable database at the RIAA's website, Measure of a Man has only been certified as a 2x Platinum album -- a 3x certification may be coming, but until it does, it only should be listed as a 2x Platinum. ArglebargleIV 05:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism report

I'm not sure where to put this -- if this is wrong, move it and let me know, thanks!

At 19:42 on 27 February 2006, 69.253.150.96 (in one edit) :

  • Reverted the article to the 13:32 16 Feb 2006 version (predating Michigan user's effort to put the album info in tables)
  • Removed the warning comment on the 'speculation' paragraph
  • Added a description of the John Paulus story to that paragraph.

I've reverted it -- due to 69.253.150.96's history at his/her talk page, is there somebody who should be notified of this? ArglebargleIV 01:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a new warning on his talk page. If he vandalizes this page again (wihout leaving some kind of commentary as to why he blanked the other edits), then leave him a final warning, or report him at WP:AIV. Kuru talk 02:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. He's done it again (and blanked his own user page), so I'll report him. ArglebargleIV 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clay_Aiken/Archive_7&oldid=1136615843"