Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Clay Aiken. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Gay?

I'm not sure what the question is, but I'll use this spot to explain my edit. There is a Wiki-news division; reports from the National Enquirer are not encyclopedia material, especially when they are only a few days old. I appreciate the inclusion of various disclaimers in the language inserted here, but, bottom line: this is "news"--if you stretch the word--but certainly not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. -Jmh123 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In a way you're absolutely correct. The alternate argument though is that while National Enquirer news should not be treated as fact, its existence might be noteworthy. For instance, if the story - even if it is patently false - somehow became really big news, citing it would be appropriate. This story seems to have generated a few dozen "legitimate" news stories. Enough? I don't think so. Were it bigger? You bet. That said, I'm not putting it back in. One thing, though, is that it could be used as a source that the rumors do indeed exist. --Hamiltonian 03:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need another source to prove that such rumors exist? Check out the random 'vandal' edits that happen here continuously. Don't get me started on my sociological arguments about the meaningless preoccupation with this guy's sexual orientation. It's like the world has been overtaken by 12-year-old boys. If this particular story becomes a meaningful part of Aiken's personal history in some way, maybe, but an Enquirer article not yet out a week sure doesn't cut it. I don't agree that there are any "legitimate" news stories out there--a few newspapers are including it in their gossip sections, but that doesn't make it a "legitimate" news story. DJ's are snorting about it - did I mention 12-year-old boys? You haven't seen this on CNN or even ET. Why not? Because it's a crock. Just a guy out to make a buck and a name for himself in the porn industry. Even if it became a "big news" story, if it is not substantiated or if nothing meaningful is added to the story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedia-worthy. -Jmh123 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just saying that it might be useful as a source for the rumours. There are actually no sources in the article about the rumours - only that some fan communities speculate and that he made fun of the rumours. Nothing about the rumours themselves. It's a crafty runaround actually. This is also not the first time that a rumour of this nature has appeared in the media.

Again, the difference between fact and rumour. Clay being gay - not a fact. Rumours that he is - absolutely a fact. That being said, I'm not going to add anything - but if it becomes a bigger story, I would argue it'd be worthy of inclusion.--Hamiltonian 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the history of the edit wars? I don't think there's ever been a dispute about the fact that rumors exist. The dispute was over how to indicate this and what to say about it. I see your "read" on it, but surely don't want to get into a debate about the content of that paragraph again. Maybe with promo for the new album about to start up, and with this tabloid crap out, we'll get some kind of statement from Aiken that will enable us to modify that paragraph along the lines of "rumors are"/"Aiken says". -Jmh123 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to back up whether "most" Aiken fan-sites don't speculate about his sexuality. And also, saying "of his many fan-sites" -- does he really have MANY fan-sites? Somebody back that up. Also, Howard Stern had an interview, with a guy who claimed he had sex with Aiken. I added it. 71.126.151.95 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he really has MANY MANY fan-sites. Check the listing at http://www.findingclayaiken.com/FCA2/Clay%20on%20web/clayonweb.htm

I note that this is your first edit, via anonymous ISP. Please add your comments to the bottom, not the top of the "talk" page. There is a discussion of this topic below--I have moved your comments to that area. First, the paragraph in question is not to be altered, by agreement, after long and contentious debate. Second, Wikipedia is not in the business of news, and certainly not tabloid news. Re: fan-sites, findingclayaiken.com currently lists around 500. Re: fan speculation, see the many pages of discussion, including archives. -Jmh123 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia. In addition, the Enquirer article has been out for a while now and the man has gone on Howard Stern. I think it's relevant. 71.126.151.95 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the musings of every crackpot who calls into Howard Stern or is paid off by the National Enquirer. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah Kate, you may want to reconsider this one. This doesn't appear to be just some crackpot that "called into the HS show or is paid by the NE". The guy has not sought to hide his identity or his allegations. He has sat for several in-depth interviews with all the tabs, and also the hour-long in-studio interview with Stern, none of which he was paid for. Besides the story appearing in those maybe questionable venues, it is rampant across the net, and even the Chicago Tribune ran a small tidbit on it. As much as it may seem distasteful, by all accounts it does seem to be relevant, and sourced now in multiple ways. --207.200.116.204 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was false, Aiken could sue for slander. He hasn't. So, it's relevant. People coming out and saying that THEY had sex with a particular celebrity doesn't happen often. The article on Paula Abdul includes the Corey Clark affair. I can't see why this article shouldn't contain similar information. 71.126.151.95 13:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply disagree. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if Corey Clarke makes it onto Paula Abdul's page, then this Haulus guy should make it onto Aiken's. If you disagree with that, do you have any valid reasons as to why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiefnayr (talk • contribs) .

I've already stated some quite valid reasons, but here are a few more. One page's content does not dictate another page's content. If you're dissatisfied with Corey Clarke's mention on Paula Abdul's page, go remove it -- I don't edit that page, personally. But simply on its face, Corey Clarke had real interactions with Paula Abdul, and therefore much more chance for what he alleged to have happened. Because of this, it got quite a lot more media attention. But as I said, one article does not dictate the content of another. Also, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~ . THis'll automatically sign and datestamp your entry. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So Kate when would you presume, in your all powerful wisdom, that relevance has been reached? It must appear on Nightline or CNN first? Aiken reps, for a full month now, have only said "no comment", refusing to either acknowledge the story or deny it. That appears notable in and of itself. This guy has neither backed down from his story nor has he been paid for it. The story is continuing to be discussed on the internet, in publications, and radio. Regardless of your personal beliefs in or distaste for the elements of the story and where it first appeared, by any and all standards, minimally, the simple acknowledgement that this claim exists is relevant, sourcable and NPOV. --207.200.116.204 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"No comment" could also mean "This is so ridiculous that we're not even going to dignify it with a response". H e rmione1980 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Consensus. There's no consensus currently for adding this information. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous person dropped in a Category Gay Icon -- removed it -- not only is there no consensus that he is gay, if he was, wouldn't there have to be consensus about Gay Icon status? ArglebargleIV 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be gay to be a gay icon. However it is a dubious category because there is no definitive criteria. -Will Beback 23:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, thanks! ArglebargleIV 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding payment: Perez Hilton (Mario Lavandeira), who runs a salacious internet gossip site, offered to pay this person the day his story first appeared on filth2go.com. Whether Hilton did in fact pay him I do not know. I do know that he was paid by Lucas Entertainment to make a porn film, which began filming yesterday, and that a stated goal of his since this story began has been to attract the attention of the porn industry. So he has been compensated indirectly for this story. Regarding the absence of a denial: If Aiken issued a denial, there are those who would take that as "proof", odd as that may seem. It would also become mainsteam "news" in a way this is not--also odd, but true. A denial wouldn't change most people's minds anyway, so why bother? Many take Tom Cruise's lawsuit against the tabloids as proof that he is gay. In order to sue, Aiken would have to prove, not only libel or slander, but also malice, in other words, that the NE knew the story was not true when it was published. The NE would love the publicity such a suit would generate. Celebrities are gossiped about and lied about all the time--it's a huge industry. Check out the covers of the mags surrounding you in the grocery store line sometime. Do their stories look believable? We simply cannot accept such sources as valid. -Jmh123 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding absence of denial: For sake of arguement and brevity, I'll just grant you the point of not suing NE or any of the publications the story has appeared in. However, NOTHING is preventing him from suing John Paulus HIMSELF for a litany of things were it truly a false allegation, including defamation of character, libel, interference with commerce and/or deliberate inflicion of distress.
- Simply because of where the story or news first originates does not automatically invalidate the substance of it. The NE has been known to also be on the forefront of much reporting (specifically the OJ trial, and more recently and applicable in this circumstance, Brad Pitt's leaving Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie long before any other "reputable" publication would touch it. In point of fact, People, US, ET and others were still running smiling cover photos of Brad and Jen, while B & A were being reported on in the tabs). The common perception that the tabloids are wrong or make up stories wholesale is a myth perpetuated by publicists hired to protect their celebrity clientele. --207.200.116.204 02:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I disagree. What prevents Aiken from suing Paulus is the prospect of drawing more publicity to and extending the life of this story. Tabloids as respectable journalism? Not buying it. I've been following this since it was first planted. Paulus' story has changed more often than I change my socks, and he contradicts himself constantly. He is not credible. -Jmh123 04:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    - JMH123: I can appreciate your distaste for the subject mater, but the judgment call you've just expressed here over whether you believe it or not - or whether his claims are credible or not - just shows that you are clearly not NPOV. I am arguing here for the inclusion of an NPOV line or wordage that reflects the reality that his claims exist and can be sourced, not to the credibility or validity of the allegations. You seem to believe simply adding reference about it somehow gives truth to the allegation. Again, this man has not sought to hide his identity in any way and it can be sourced from multiple outlets, including the NY Post and NY Daily News, the 2 & 3 largest papers in New York. --207.200.116.204 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      - No. -Jmh123 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the summary of the Stern interview here:[1] (note, blogs are not reliable sources for articles).

Clay allegedly wanted John to him to perform oral sex on him, and John initially declined. He said Clay was pushing his head down. He also said that Clay wanted to "fist" him but was able to fit only two fingers. John then said that Clay wanted anal sex, but they had no condoms. According to John, Clay said "Don't worry about that." Clay then flipped John on top of him and eventually forced him down onto him, and they had unsafe sex. In fact, they had unsafe sex for 90 minutes, during which John said he never once got an erection. John said he kept trying to stop, and that Clay is "very verbal, very loud."

Apparently "John Paulus", a former Green Beret, claims he was essentially raped by Clay Aiken. Now I'm not saying Aiken is a wimp, but the thought of him forcing himself on an unwilling soldier, trained in hand-to-hand combat, and having intercourse for 90 minutes, is hard for me to believe. Since we don't have a reliable source for the info, I think we should omit it. -Will Beback 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

- Will Beback - your NPOV interpretation not only assumes things (rape) that were not claimed (and could merely be a poor description of actual events that are misinterpreted because of a poor choice of vocabulary), I almost can't believe that you would admit it is based only on a summaryof the interview, rather than listening objectively to the interview first hand.

Further, I am curious what would you pose would be a reliable source in a story of this subject matter? The New York Times? CNN? Why don't two of the two of the largest and oldest papers in the United States - NY Post and The Daily News (both competitors I note) suffice? It may be worth ponting out that when a similar, in some respects, scandal was against even a sitting US president in the Monica Lewinsky matter, that the majority of the media (including CNN and The NY Times) were at least initially very reluctant or even hesitant to run with it, let alone know how to treat it because of the graphic details and unseemly nature of the story. It was the National Enquirer and Drudgereport that have been heralded and regarded among the best reporting in that matter by journalistic scholars, as well as the NE has been cited time and again for it's in depth investigative coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. So let's break down the similarities of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Clay Aiken matter to it's most basic: A person claiming a sexual encounter with a high-profile individual, corroborating it with graphic details (& questionable evidence), whose stories are both originating on the web and from the tabloids (specifically the National Enquirer). Both individuals identity was open, non hidden for public scrutiny. The only reason the Monica Lewinsky scandal grew to the extent that it did and was eventually exposed/reported on by the reputable media was because of the legal charges involved and because it was the sitting President. Otherwise it would of stayed only reported in the tabloids and on the web. The origination of the news has no bearing on it's validity or it's truthfulness. --207.200.116.204 05:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not the job of an encyclopedia to be the first to report the news. It is quite alright for us to be at the trailing edge. The National Enquirer may be correct occasionally, as is a stopped clock. Is the characterization from the blog incorrect in some specific way? I missed the links to the articles in the NY Post and The Daily News- could you please post them again or point me to them? Thanks, -Will Beback 06:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

- - Will I understand not being the first to report the news. However it has now been nearly a month since the first published reports, let alone the website rumours which arose even earlier. (And I know you know how time speeds up on the internet - a month is like an eternity!) This then poses the question, how much time should pass before a news of this type is worthy or acceptable for inclusion? I can imagine a notation in an Wikipedia article on Mick Jagger about the long rumoured and legendary liasion between him and David Bowie. That has been oft cited, but what length of time must pass before it can reasonably be added? IMHO, a week doesn't seem acceptable, a month might depending where and how much it was cited.

I'm not trying to characterize the Stern Show summary or offering an opinion here of the validity of the story at all, my point is I think it is relevant to include a NPOV reference that the allegations exist and have been openly reported, as well as including Aiken's reps response of "no comment", especially in the context of the topic here. Here are the citations from the NY Daily News [2] and the NY Post [3] (I've pointed you to My Way news syndicator for the complete Post article as when sourced from the NY POST site, it requires registration). Both of these cites are only the original reporting on the story, as follow up articles were also published. Further, it is worth noting that a simple google search currently brings up 91,500 references when searching for: "John Paulus" "Clay Aiken". That seems pretty substantial on it's own face, to at least minimally notate that the claim does exist. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I am aware how editwars can brew over fans that wish to maintain control over a page, attempting to prevent anything that they percieve as damaging to their artist. As such, I'd invite you to share this with or bring in some of the other mediation staff as well. In this case, the more objective heads we can bring to this, the better I believe. --207.200.116.204 07:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The story was in the News and Post gossip sections on Jan. 27, and both referenced the Enquirer as a source. The Post gossip section, Page 6, on 2/1 reported briefly on an interview with Paulus. As far as I know, nothing has been reported in either paper since. There's a tabloidy feel to the urgency to get this into Wikipedia NOW. FYI, Aiken's rep did say to the Star: "Clay's on a flying saucer with his alien parents, busy kidnapping monkeys. We cannot comment till he gets home from Pluto." If you join Lucas Entertainment, only $24 for 30 days, you can watch JP tell his story in all its x-rated detail. [4] Lucas is paying JP for this as well as for a film which includes recently filmed sex scenes between Lucas and JP. Real NPOV stuff. -Jmh123 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess I stand corrected on the timing. I was informed earlier in the week that the story was already 3 weeks old. I apologize if I was misled. I really have no opinion on this one way or another other than IMHO it meets the test for relevancy and sourcing for inclusion. I have not any sense any urgency or non urgency on this. It is currently topical though which is when a vast majority of edits are made. My example of the legendary Mick Jagger/David Bowie liason still leaves the question to be debated of what is the appropriate timeframe before such subject matter should be included. I would support the inclusion of either the "no comment" or the monkeys comment.--207.200.116.204 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- From the beginning JP has indicated a desire to break into the porn industry, and stated that he hoped to star in a "reenactment" of the 90-minute miracle. For the sake of NPOV, shall we also include a link to Lucas Entertainment and to Perez Hilton's site [5], where the ad rates have tripled since he "discovered" Paulus? I say leave tabloid journalism to the tabloids. There's a reason this hasn't been reported by CNN or even Entertainment Tonight or Inside Edition, and it isn't because they fear the story. It's because the story stinks. -Jmh123 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This probably could bear more debate now. These has gone from being reported in far more than just the tabloids. There are more than one man making public allegations. There have been photos published and an FTC complaint has been filed. [6] --Rabinid 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Paulus thing has ONLY been in tabloids. The FTC complaint hoax has NOT resulted in any lawsuit. It was just more publicity seeking behavior trying to force the Paulus topic into mainstream news. There were 250,000 FTC complaints entered the night of the Ruben/Clay finale. The resolution? Nothing. A few sources have brought up the topic of public image vs private image and how ridiculous the idea of such an FTC complaint is. That does not relate to Paulus in any manner. And for the complaint to even make SENSE you would have to prove the GAY point FIRST. Which brings us back full circle. The pics are a joke. Even I could produce that sort of "evidence" on my home laptop. All in all this is the same "Clay is Gay" crap that we reached consensus on already. 69.19.14.36 03:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of his sexuality is a bigger topic than the Paulus claims now. It appears that they although they may have some linkage, they appear to be two different issues. The FTC complaint is citeable from a number of verifiable sources, regardless of the ultimate outcome. The complaint charges the record companies with False advertising and misrepresentation in how he was marketed. That is noteworthy by itself.

If in a few months the FTC complaint proves that it has any merit or noteworthiness - that would be the time to add it in. Not when it is the topic of the day, which will probably be forgotten in a week or two.

I'm unsure where you are sourcing the 250,000 FTC complaints with regard to Ruben/Clay outcome, but that would seem noteworthy too for inclusion. The sexuality issue and claims of the several documented men and photos now is another issue, and I would argue that it weighs in favor of the inclusion of an NPOV line or wordage that reflects the reality that theses claims exist and can be sourced, not to the credibility or validity of the allegations. --Rabinid 04:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So far the Paulus claims are just tabloid trash, more of the same. In 3 or 6 months or whatever - if the FTC complaint proves to have any merit or noteworthiness, we can add it in at that time. At this moment however - it is just a tabloid push to add credibility to a story that otherwise has no substance. Wikipedia does not exist to track the current gossip of the day - even if it exists. The rumors about Clay being gay have been pushed before - that is WHY we reached a consensus on the handling of it. More unsubstantiated rumors do not change a thing. Michigan user 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as you want to deny it this is not only a tabloid story. This has been reported on in the Telegraph (the biggest most respected paper in the UK) US Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, NY Post, NY Daily News, Seattle Post Intelligencer and numerous other verifiable, reliable sources. This is not Watergate or the Iraq war, but this also is not a tabloid story and does not just consist of the Paulus claims. Consensus was reached on the subject at one point in time. It does not mean it can not be debated again. --Rabinid 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, The FTC is noteworthy enough on it's own merit to include an NPOV mention. The charges of False advertising and Misrepresentation are serious ones. --Rabinid 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing two different topics. There is the Paulus topic. That is tabloid trash. It will never be appropriate for this page until proven. Paulus/Lucas calling in several additional anonymous claims is not proof.

Then there is the FTC complaint hoax. That raises a potential issue of public image vs private image. That has nothing to do with Paulus. And the FTC complaint is ONLY valid if the complainers can prove that Clay is Gay. They can not. That is why it is so silly. And that is basically what the papers that have mentioned it re-inforced. They are saying that it is NOT a valid complaint. They are also basically saying that the complainers are wacko. In any case it is not a valid topic to put in an encyclopedia. It has no substance.

And no matter what - this is not the place to put gossip that is unsubstantiated. No matter how much you want it to be true - saying it many many times in many many places does not make it true. Getting other people to repeat it does not make it true. The ONLY way that this could ever be notable is if in hindsight it becomes clear that there was some notable impact that could not have been caused by anything else. To date there has been no notable impact. We will not be able to determine if this FTC complaint is notable for quite some time yet. And even then - it would be mentioned without introducing Paulus into the issue, because the FTC complaint hoax relies on Clay being gay and his lifestyle - not on Clay having sex with a particular person. So sit back and wait until July or August and perhaps by then we will see some impact. Pushing to put it in now is just you pushing an agenda that is not yet notable. 69.19.14.30 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I resent your implication and personal attack that I have some agenda because I have asked for more debate on the subject. That does not assume good faith. Your POV is noted and one could infer that it has had some impact or you wouldn't be against any discussion of the topic.

If you have no POV then what is the BIG rush. Just wait and we will find out if this topic is notable or not. The ink is barely dry at this point.

I shudder as I dare ask what you would consider proven or more substantial in this instance than multiple published verifiable sources and photos that have not been officially challenged in any way? Whatever your belief of the allegations or not, minimally it is noteworthy to include an NPOV that the admittedly controversial claims exist.

A shred of evidence other than Paulus's word, and the stories in a tabloid would be a start. So far there is just thin air. It is not the issue of whether Clay is gay or not that is at stake here. It is the fact that this stuff is just not true. And it is not Clay's job to challenge the photos or the story. It is Paulus' job to prove it. He has not.

The FTC complaint could certainly be noted without mentioning the Paulus allegations: In February 2006, nine former fans of Aiken filed an FTC complaint against record companies RCA and Sony/BMG charging False advertising and Misrepresentation in the marketing and promotion of Aiken and other artists. [7] There. No mention of Paulus and NPOV. --Rabinid 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When the FTC complaint becomes a notable issue - we can discuss the phrasing. If Wikipedia documented every passing irritation of clusters of fans for every celebrity out there - they would run out of server space REAL quick. This is just not any more notable than all those others disgruntled fans of every celebrity. This is NINE people. Who CARES what they think?? Why is their little grumble so much more notable that any other groups grumble? Right now it looks like the thought of the day - that no one will even remember tomorrow. So why would we document such a non-event. 69.19.14.42 02:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The notability is that this "little grumble" (as you've put it) has been presented to a governmental agency with investigative and enforcement powers. That "little grumble" is comparable and as serious as someone filing a police report on a criminal complaint. --Rabinid 01:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply disagree. People do file frivilous complaints to the FTC. There is no penalty for doing so, as there would be in the case of filing a false report in a criminal matter. There are many who question the identity of these "fans" [8] [9] and suggest that the press release was issued in an attempt to draw attention to Paulus from a different direction when the original story had failed to capture the attention of mainstream media. -Jmh123 15:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but once again you are wrong. If you had done your homework, you would find there are penalties for filing false FTC complaints, as there are penalties for filing false complaints to any governmental agency. 108th Congress S. 1327[108]: REDUCE Spam Act of 2003

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT (b)(4) civil penalties for knowingly submitting a false complaint to the Commission. [10] Your cited sources are internet message board/newsgroup postings and do not qualify as verifiable sources, as opposed to the numerous media outlets that have reported on the complaint. --Rabinid 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I only wish that the FTC would investigate these particular petitioners. It is my understanding that most of the half a million (on average) reports they receive every year are filed and forgotten. As for my citations, not advocating as a source, purposes of discussion only, yada yada yada [tm Rabinid]. -Jmh123 06:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand hwy people are uncomfortable with including refernece to a N.E. article that has a man claiming that he had sex with Clay Aiken. For starters that N.E. is (with all due respect) not the best news source in the county. It got some articles that are good to read for a laugh (alien babies in trailor parks and the like). Also we all know that when a young American celebrity "comes out", it pretty much ruins their career. Yet, "John Paulus" has been getting threats from some diehard Aiken fans about his news report that he had a sexual liason with Mr. Aiken at a hotel. The story has been picked up by some gay press publications. Hence it should be at least referenced. (Browned)

Browned, what gay publications are you referencing? Can you copy a link here for us all to review? Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Browned replies, gay online news organizations have picked up the story, and it is being talked about the the "GayPolitics" message board at WorldCrossing, where some members of the Gay Press listen and contribute. Again, I can see not wanting to mention the graphic detials of the allegation. However, the article should mention the N.E. article, the person make the accusations and then comments made by Aiken in reply. The fact that some Aiken fans are militanly opposed to the mere suggestion that their hero is gay, is initself a problem.

Kate, NEXT Magazine published a cover story with Paulus. Others include Queerday [11] and 365Gay.com [12], Queerty [13], Gay Chicago Magazine and many, many others. --Rabinid 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, broke my self imposed exile to post this. I did a google search for "valleyprettyboy," which is the screenname Paulus claims Clay Aiken used online, and I found this [14] NY Daily News article. I'll note that though the tone of the article is sarcastic it isn't "The National Enquirer says and let us totally cover our asses because we're terrified of the subject matter" like "some" people keep saying every other non-tabloid publication has been. Noteworthy enough for some of you? And that's called referencing people. When CNN reports on a story they say the AP presented it first. CNN's not saying that because they're afraid someone's going to sue them. They're doing it because the AP broke the story first. The story is also in the Washington Blade [15], In Newsweek [16], Out.com [17], Hollywood Skinny [18], and I got tired of wading through blogs at that point. Is that not enough reputable coverage guys? The argument that this is such a teeny teeny story carries no creedence because the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is, come tomorrow if Paulus reneg his story and say he was lying, we have the capacity to actually delete the reference without any effort whatsoever. Furthermore, if it's such a teeny teeny story then why're you arguing so wholeheartedly against it being here in a NPOV capacity? Wanna talk about pushing agendas? I don't want the story here because I think it's true. I don't care if it's true. I want the story here because it's still NEWS and it should be reported. - mixvio 06:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You've misnamed one of your sources. #16 is not Newsweek. In your research you've come across one of the big holes in Paulus' story. He had to change that screenname to another when he found out there were problems with valleyprettyboy as an ID--and he amended his IM "transcripts" accordingly. Keep looking, maybe you'll find the new one, and then maybe you'll find the traces of the creation of that new ID--to January 12, 10 days after the alleged encounter. Could you move your proposal to the bottom of the page please, just so the proposals appear one following the next? Thanks. -Jmh123 07:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You misread what I wrote. I didn't say it was in Newsweek, I said it was In Newsweek. The name of the publication.

Futhermore, I extensively searched the screenname and found no references to the screenname being switched. Where did you read that? I did, however, find two gay profiles online under that screenname. Both seemed to be from the same person as they contained similiar information and both were shifty about who they were. Quoting one, "i will be happy to send (my pics) to you if you can PROMISE me ABSOLUTE discretion" and "i have a web cam now to prove that my pics are real." Both profiles were last updated on the 4th of february. According to both profiles the user was looking to meet people in Portland and said that the user was only in town briefly. According to Clay Aiken's website he was in Portland in November on tour. The profiles say the user has green eyes, brown hair, 6'1 tall. This bio site [link to copyvio website removed] also says the same thing.

Whether planted or not I don't care. Nor do I care about Paulus' story. I am in no way offering this as evidence of him being gay, because I'm quite aware of how easy it would be for someone to go in after hearing about the screenname and create fictious accounts either as a joke or to bolster Paulus' story. It could've been Paulus himself. But I'm not here to play his detective, which is why I didn't mention the profiles before. I don't CARE if it's true. That doesn't negate that it's being reported. That's why it should be here. I moved my suggestion to the bottom. - mixvio 08:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The controversy and story were discussed during the "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" show on NPR this past Saturday. I'm wondering if we can agree this is mainstream yet? --Rabinid 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just listened to the audio clip. The question asked was why did 9 anonymous women file an FTC complaint against Aiken and his record company. The entire Aiken question/discussion was 1 minute and 30 seconds long. [19] It's under Panel Round 2. George W. Bush and his yellow Oval Office rug was the first question so Aiken is in good company. I guess if the yellow rug is mainstream you could say the FTC complaint is also. Maria202 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Brown replies, failure to put in a suitable PG-rated statement about Aiken's sexuality undermines the credilibity of Wikipedia and looks homophobic (even if Aiken is 1000% straight).