::That is my first thought. It is wrong because right now we have gossipy "bedroom" tales, and it isn't widely reported in the media. There is no way to tastefully publish mere gossip. In that, it missed two primary criteria for Wikipedia. My arguent before is that even if it is true, it does not impact his work, and it is mere character assasination, which should not be allowed. If it was a bigger story that 100 newspapers carried over the US, and took a life of it's own thats one thing. The difference between this and Clay Atkins is that he made references to it, beyond a denial. Clay gave it a life that made it notable. In Rush's case drug abuse is something we would use to change our opinion of a person. Being gay or secretly gay should not change out opinion, and in this case, Wikipedia becomes a carrier of a "bedroom tale".