Talk:Sex scandal/Archive 1

Is the double life of François Mitterrand and his secret daughter a sex scandal ? As it was in France this caused no real scandal. Ericd 23:48, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond?

---

Eddie Murphy - similar incident to Hugh Grant

---

Gary Hart? - political?

Packwood "" Warren Harding is reported to have fathered a child in a broom closet with Nan Britton. FDR with Lucy Mercer. Eisenhower - Kay Sumersby, Johnson and George Bush SR (w/ Jennifer Fitzgerald). --69.10.67.99 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

[Clay Aiken] I'm not seeding this info throughout Wikipedia as accused. I have many other Wiki edits and a long history under a different account. I created this one strictly for this particular info because of the feelings associated with it. That said, I loathe sourcable on-topic info being removed or denied inclusion simply on the basis that it may be perceived as disparaging. This is a NPOV edit, sourcable and on topic. --Rabinid 09:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This so-called scandal does not bear any resemblance to the other scandals already on this page. Can you provide a source that calls it a scandal? -Will Beback 20:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO I think it has hallmarks or similarities to elements of a number of the other "scandals" listed. I believe it was the NE article that first headlined it as "Clay's gay sex scandal". Here are a few cites I found, some of which admittedly wouldn't pass the verified sources test. [1] [2] [3] But just do a google search for Clay Aiken and scandal and you'll see what I mean.

I think another sex scandal that does seem to have at least somewhat similar bearing (though I don't think it is listed in the sex scandal article) is the Jim West gay sex scandal [4], in that he was alleged to be meeting gay men over the internet. Again, I'm not fond of edit wars. I would like to come to consensus on this and suggest other administration staff weigh in. Thanks for listening to my point of view and I apologize if I come across as snarky at times. --Rabinid 02:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The West case was revealed due to investigative reporting with many pieces of corroborating evidence., rahter than a single partner waving a sticky towel. West admitted to his actions, which had an efect on the governance of one of a large city. By comparison, a barely notable singer had legal sex in a motel with a consenting adult. It has had zero repurcussions to society at large, and hasn't made it out of the gossip pages. BTW, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. -Will Beback 06:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making with West wasn't to the reprecussions or the extent of supporting "evidence" to the story, rather the base similarities and how it is percieved in the public. They are both public figures meeting guys for sex on the internet and they both appear to have reprecussions extending to their careers. [5] [6]

If you reread my prior comment I recognized and noted that the sources I provided with regard to the term sex scandal would not pass Wiki's verifiable sources test. They were provided to give a background to our discussion as to public perception, not for inclusion as an article citation. --Rabinid 21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

West is a totally different case. He was (supposedly) using city computers to find sex partners, was supposedly offering them city internships, some of them were supposedly under-age, and there were allegations that he'd molested children in the past. All of those elem,ents are missing from the Paulus allegations. -Will Beback 06:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The details of every case are going to differ in as much as a pop-star's responsibilities to the public vastly differ from a public official's, however you can not deny the broad strokes are strikingly similar. Again, they are both public figures meeting guys for sex on the internet and the revelation of same both appear to have reprecussions extending to their respective careers. [7] [8] I will repeat again, because based on your comment in the John Paulus talk discussion you have misunderstood my position, I have not ever advocated any blog as a reliable source for inclusion in any article. Merely to the extent of this discussion, I provided some examples for you to personally view as to the term sex scandal being utilized in this instance and toward overall public perception. None of those are intended as a cite for any article, only as a point of reference in a discussion between what I would believe to be two reasonable editors. Again, I believe other admin staff should weigh in on if this constitutes a sex scandal or not.--Rabinid 09:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Clicking on links 5 or 7 will initiate the installation of Winfixer 2006 if your computer is not adequately protected. -Jmh123 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your example of the investigative reporting into the West matter with corroborating evidence is bearing out here even as we discuss. I note the use of the word "scandal" in the headline as well. [9]--Rabinid 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your "evidence" was posted on the Sucks message board today, and you have linked from someone's personal webpage. It may be photoshopped, or it may be an actual Star cover; no one knows yet as that magazine has not yet been published, but your haste in posting unsubstantiated "information" betrays the POV nature of your interest in this entire matter. I don't see how you can be expected to be taken seriously given the sorts of sources you bring here. At least this one doesn't load spyware. -Jmh123 22:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm only following the information as closely as you are. I didn't advocate citing it as a source yet. I pointed it out in the course of this discussion that there are now reports that corroborating investigative information is about to be published. As events continue to develop as we discuss them I only note that this entire debate may be coming moot. --Rabinid 23:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

I removed the content about Clay Aiken yesterday and I'm removing it again today. I do not think that it meets the standard for biographies of living people. Please see the discussion on the talk page of Clay Aiken article for other editors opinion on this matter. I think it is less appropriate in this article. There is no documented sex scandal of the type that the public would be concerned. FloNight ^talk 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the information back. Regardless of your personal belief that it does not meet the standard, after a lengthy debate consensus was reached and the information is now referenced in the Clay Aiken article. Besides the published media reports referring to it as a "sex scandal", if you read the the opening introductory paragraph for sex scandal, it defines the elements of this information: A sex scandal is a scandal in which a public figure becomes embroiled in a situation where embarrassing sexual activities (or allegations of them) are publicized. These often involve adultery or some other form of affair. Sex scandals are often associated with movie stars, politicians, or others in the public eye, and become scandals largely because of the prominence of the person involved.

There is NO reason this information should be excluded and this would appear to be another attempt at fan censorship. Should we submit this for mediation as well? --Chechypaw 04:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chechypaw : ) I don't believe in reverting the text of an editor that is engaging in discussion on the talk page of an article unless the text is a copyright violation or libel. Instead I am willing to wait for community consensus to gather before changes are made. Below is the text from Sex scandal article and Clay Aiken article. I had no part in writing Clay Aiken. I respect the hard work of the editors and their willingness to compromise to reach consensus. I think your edits to the Sex scandal article negates the work of these editors. I also think it does not meet the standands of WP:BLP. I'm not knowledgeable about Clay Aiken's personal and public life. I need to rely on yourself and the editors of the Clay Aiken article to work out the details. My interest is seeing that a living person is treated in an encyclopedic manner. To that end I'm going to invite more editors to discuss this matter on this talk page. FloNight ^talk 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From Sex scandal article.

• Clay Aiken: In a series of tabloid reports in early 2006, in contrast to his established public persona, was alleged to have engaged in a gay sexual liaison with former green beret John Paulus and of meeting other men via the internet. [10][11] Aiken's representives refused comment on the reports.

From Clay Aiken article.

• Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. While a few communities among his internet fan sites speculate about his sexual orientation , many do not. In an interview with Rolling Stone in June 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, he lampooned such speculation in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus. Aiken has also been the subject of tabloid speculation and in early 2006, The National Enquirer launched a new series of tabloid stories alleging proof of a liaison with another man. Aiken describes the jokes and gossip 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."

Personally, I don't see how the Paulus allegations, even if true, amount to a scandal. No laws were broken, no one cheated on a spouse, and it has barely been covered by the press. It is not comparable to the other entries on this page. -Will Beback 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you FloNight for your wilingness to invite others to review the edit. I do not believe my edit negates in any way the hard work of the editors involved with the Clay Aiken debate, but in the context of this article provides the reader a bit more context toward the information.

Will Beback, I would refer you to the opening paragraph of the article which qualifies what a sex scandal is, and makes no qualifications with regard to the attachment of legalities or adultry. --Chechypaw 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point it is not publicized enough to be a scandal on that basis either. -Will Beback 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is like that case involving Richard Simmons paying some guy to spank him. The story got a little publicity, but no one was particularly scandalized to discover that Simmons liked to be spanked. Likewise with this case. The idea that Aiken is gay is not a scandal, even if he does dodge the issue. McGreevey and Jim West were gay scandals because they were a surprise, they mattered, and they were the subject of serious reporting. -Will Beback 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert while discussion is underway. This case does not meet the level of notability of the others on this page, for which there was extensive mainstream news coverage. In addition, it violates the guidelines for biographies of living people. The only place this story is getting coverage these days is in Wikipedia. -Jmh123 10:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's an absurd addition which they POV-pushers signally failed to get included in the main article. It is not a "sex scandal"by any accepted definition of the term. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; for it to be considered a "scandal" someone must care about it enough to be "scandalized." I have to say no to inclusion here. It just doesn't meet the bar. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll

13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried previously to propose such an edit to have it needlessly reverted numerous times. I chose to avoid an edit war over it then. That said, it does not in any way violate the guidelines outlined in biographies of living people and is, in fact, already referenced in the Clay Aiken article. Do I really need to list all the places multiple reliable sources this information has already appeared or been published? It has been referenced on Larry King and Rita Cosby as well as the London Telegraph, SF Examiner, NY Post, NY Daily News, Entertainment Tonight Canada and the list goes on and on. I'm happy to provide you a full list if needed. A protracted edit debate was held on the Clay Aiken page over whether the level of attention the scandal has received warranted inclusion in that article. When there was no way for the fan editors to avoid it, a consensus was reached and the information is now referenced there. I note these same fan editors have turned their attention toward now censoring the information here as well. This is simply unacceptable. The multiple sources describe it as a scandal, the article describes what a scandal is, and the fan editors obviously percieve it as scandalous or they would not fight so hard to censor the information from Wikipedia when it has been, and continues to be published in so many other numerous forums. Mediation was requested previously on this issue and it seems as if it will be needed again. --Rabinid 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback I agree that the idea that Aiken might be gay is not a scandal. Being gay should not be considered scandalous. The scandal lies in the contrast of the allegations to his public image and as the introductory paragraph reads where embarrassing sexual activities (or allegations of them) are made public. --Chechypaw 06:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Clay Aiken, but I was not aware that he had a heterosexual public image. Has he been seen dating a supermodel? Or anything else to make people think that he is straight, besides some non-denial denials? Furthermore, there's still no way, and there probably never will be one, to determine if this is true. All things considered, there isn't enough of a scandal to merit including it among this short list of sex scandals. -Will Beback 07:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, with all due respect... I think if someone asks you in an interview "Are you gay?" and you respond "No," then you have a heterosexual public image. It's the same situation with Ricky Martin. That was the crux of the fan complaint, right? They said he protrayed a christian, heterosexual persona and in actuality was nothing of the sort. However, it might shock some of you to find that I don't actually believe the link to Clay Aiken belongs here. While I do think Paulus merited being on Aiken's page I think we should reserve "sex scandal" for something a little bigger than this. It's one thing to include a reference on the page of the person the liasion was with and another to bring it to the level of scandal... if only that I personally consider Clay Aiken about a B+ on the celebrity scale. - mixvio 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

mixvio, it does not surprise me. : ) As I said above, I felt that most of the editors on Clay Aiken had to make compromises. I think putting the information here, calling it a scandal, and naming Paulus are outside of the compromises you all made. It negates the goodwill of the editors on that page. I imagine most of you would not be happy to see this entry. FloNight ^talk 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well only Rabinid was present in the Clay Aiken debate, and it looks like he stopped adding this a while back. I've unfortunately never seen Chechypaw before so his motives are outside the scope of what we all agreed. That having been said I personally wouldn't vote to keep the Paulus link on this page. - mixvio 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I believe that Rabinid exagerates the exposure of the Paulus case. He states that it was talked about on Larry King Live when in fact that is just not true. Paulus was never mentioned at all. The silly FTC hoax was mentioned - and Simon Cowell blew it off as a non-issue. It would have been a perfect opportunity to mention Paulus - but the topic was just not notable enough. Certainly not the makings of a sex scandal. I don't believe that it is notable enough to include here either. -- Michigan user 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

mixo, I understand what you mean by this being outside of the Clay Aiken content compromise. But, Rabinid and Chechypaw are citing the agreed upon text to support their additon of text to this page. It is much better for you and the other editors to speak for yourselves instead of me speaking for you. So I'm going to shut up and let you do it! : ) FloNight ^talk 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How much more POV can you get than the author of the Paulus article wanting to promote visits to the Paulus page. A passing mention of a trivial tabloid event on the Aiken page does not make it of substance enough to call it a scandal. -- Triage 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One man's (Paulus) unverified version of an alleged event does not qualify as a scandal. - Maria202 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Calls for mediation before a conversation has even begun do not signal willingness in good faith to seek consensus. Most of the sources that Rabinid listed did not mention Paulus, or even refer to his accusations. The NY Post did so in its notorious Page Six gossip column. Cosby mentioned "rumors that he is gay, that he's been seen with women...." ET Canada referenced the Star webcam story and the FTC complaint (incorrectly named as a "suit"). Sources that address "rumors" or "gossip" about Aiken's sexuality without reference to Paululs and his allegations are not relevant. As FloNight said, to cite the inclusion of a nonspecific reference to Paulus in the Aiken article as justification for this addition or any other in Wikipedia is not a valid argument. This edit could be as easily regarded as a POV fork attempting to get around the Aiken page decision. Question the POV of regular editors of the Aiken page if you will (although pot/kettle), but FloNight, Katefan, and Will Beback are long-time Wikipedians who are not fans or regular editors of the Aiken page. Katefan and Will supported the inclusion of the "gay rumors" paragraph last year. FloNight, no need to shut up--it's nice to have someone else doing the arguing for a change. Frankly, I do not see a need for further arguments on this issue from any of us, and I certainly see no need to rehash the same lengthy debate here. There is clearly no consensus to add this item. -Jmh123 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

*1 Every one of the items listed in this article relate to stories that were WIDELY covered by mainstream news. The Paulus story was not covered by mainstream news at all, and in the US it virtually did not exist except in tabloids and gossip columns. Based on this alone this topic does not belong in this article.

*2 Every item listed in this article provided multiple credible sources to substantiate the claim. The Paulus story does not even have ONE credible source. Zilch. Nada. Just one mans word - and he was promoting a gay porn career.

*3 Every item listed in this article withstood extreme scrutiny by the press and the story stood. The few folks that started out supporting the Paulus story have backed off, and some of the same tabloids that were spreading the story are now openly questioning it.

*4 Every item listed in this article relates to breaking a moral or legal code. The Paulus story, even if it were true, is just based on a consensual gay encounter. So unless you are considering being gay to be breaking a moral code - this topic just does not belong on this page.

*5 The Wikipedia guideline states that Wikipedia should not be used as the sole means to promote salacious gossip. Right now Wikipedia is the ONLY media that is really discussing Paulus at all. Adding the topic to this article would be a flagrant disreguard for that guideline.

*6 The Wikipedia guildelines state that in case of doubt to lean towards protecting the living persons privacy, and to "do no harm". This entire topic violates that guideline. Clearly this story does not merit being added to this article.

-- 66.82.9.85 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in absolutely no way of the mood or disposition for another debate on this subject. It's consumed far more of my time than it sensibly should have. Rabinid, I understand the closeness of the issue to you but I ask from the viewpoint of someone who just spent the past month glued to his watchlist in defense of Paulus (when I really don't even like the guy) that everybody let this go. We've agreed to revisit the issue when Clay Aiken's cd comes out and discuss whether or not the blurb should remain, be deleted, or change. Aside from basic checks to make sure Paulus and Aiken aren't vandalized, I strongly beg everyone to avoid rehashing this issue again on other pages and in other ways. My sanity can't take much more of this. I know I'm hardly the appointed voice of ration, but I hope we can all understand that we shouldn't jump head first into another Aiken/Paulus argument when we barely averted WW3 over the first one. Please guys. - mixvio 03:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Prince Charles

• HRH The Prince of Wales.
  • Under a court order, certain details of the scandal cannot be released where it may be viewable by the British public. It is alleged that Diana, Princess of Wales had tapes on which an aide has claimed he has seen the Prince of Wales in bed with one of his male servants.

- i.e. unfounded rumour, which may not be repeated because it is unfounded and defamatory. Where is the substance to this allegation?

• • Divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales after it was revealed both had been cheating on each other during their marriage. Major James Hewitt was also involved in this scandal with rumours surrounding the parentage of Prince Harry.

- That may or may not be a sex scandal involving Diana, Pricess of Wales, but the fact that his wife shagged Hewitt is hardly Charles' fault.

Neither of these appears to be a verifiable sex scandal involving Prince Charles by any accepted defintiion of the term. Just zis Guy you know? 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Reilly

The final entry of this article is curious. I have googled "Amanda Reilly" and found no significant entry. Could this be a "revenge" edit?

Mark Oaten

Anyone have a view on whether Mark Oaten should be included in this entry ? WMMartin 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put him in, along with Chris Bryant. WMMartin 06:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)