Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 14

message: I would have sworn I added Fair Use rational to the image.  I did with all the other ones. Where do you find the history for what happened? Nevermind, I found the log.  - Maria202 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Log appears to be the place where one can search for it.  I did some hunting, found this History log for Image:Aiken3.jpg, and it appears that was deleted for reason "I3", which seems to be (from Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images/Media) Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before 19 May 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.  From the history, it looks like the fair use rationale wasn't added. -- ArglebargleIV 17:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, just saw your change. -- ArglebargleIV 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok. I couldn't find it in the history either.  It was a screen shot.  This gets tiresome. Thanks. - Maria202 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Deleted Again

message: Until someone can come up with a third party source for this, I'm removing it from the article.  If a citation can be found we can put it back in. We know he can sing but I've not seen an analysis of his voice other than by fans, and I don't think that counts. 
He is registered as a tenor-alto., and also evinces graceful control in the falsetto range. Aiken has also demonstrated his ability to hold long notes with control, which was evidenced by his rendition of the Neil Sedaka classic Solitaire, which he performed as a contestant on season two and as a guest on season three of American Idol. Maria202 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocal ability

message: Does it really need to exist?  Take Madonna for example: many tours... but her article doesn't have a long list of each and every tour, who she toured with, dates and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every tour. I can understand mentions of each tour in the regular parts of the article... not an entire section just listing tours. And in case someone asks: no, a list article isn't needed in this case either. RobJ1981 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are tours less encyclopedic than Albums?  They take more work, last longer, and generate more revenue.  Many tours are famous and well known.  "the Warped tour", The Stripped tour, etc.  I don't see why they are not encyclopedic, just because not all articles have that information gathered.  Michigan user 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some information on them can be listed, but the list setup is just clutter. Look at the Madonna article for example. There is no tours section, but the article does talk about tours. Granted: Madonna has tours listed in seperate articles, but in my opinion...that route doesn't need to apply for Clay just yet. I think it's just a matter of talking about the tours, instead of a cluttered lists of bullet points. RobJ1981 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about it looking cluttered.  I think that trying to put the information into the paragraphs will clutter up the paragraphs.  I am curious as to why you came into this article out of nowhere and added something called a "laundry tag" with no explanations. Is there some sort of Wikipedia guideline we're not aware of or is this just your opinion?  As for other articles check out Bon Jovi, which also has a tour section.  If we were writing about someone with a 25+ year career, such as Madonna, I'd agree it would be a bit much to list every tour, but were writing about someone with a 3 year career where, at this point in time,  touring has been a major part of that career. - Maria202 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Your revision looks ok.  But why?  It was less cluttered as a list.  I think RobJ1981 was just imposing his aesthetic preference on us.  There is no guideline that indicates that the paragraph format is better.  69.19.14.28 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure which format I like better, but I'd thought I'd throw it out for discussion. -- ArglebargleIV 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think for now we should stay with the list.  One more tour and perhaps we can use a shortened list combined with a few paragraphs giving more detailed information.  If touring continues to be a major part of his career we can consider using a second page and moving the information there.  I've seen this done with other artists. - Maria202 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tours section?

message: I protected the page since there seems to be a lot of reverting going on. Please try to work out your differences so the protection can be removed. --DanielCD 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection has been removed. --DanielCD 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I thought fansites and MySpace pages weren't supposed to be linked as per WP:EL?Aleta 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fansites allowed?

message: Singling out one topic for emphasis in the article is completely against the pages and pages of discussion that we had on how to present the topic of the media questioning Clays sexuality, without making it stand out like a beacon to the casual reader.  The way the topic was presented in the consensus version - and then when it was repackaged in the controversy section - it was mentioned, and sourced, but not made to stand out any more than any other topic, since according to Clay he is not gay and this borders on libel, and needs to be handled delicately.   
Plus in no solution would anyone ever say that you can be "accused" of being gay.  Being gay is not a crime.  Do you want the gay activitsts all up in arms against Wikipedia. Not a single source has ever used such verbiage. Sheesh.
Please read the pages and pages of archives on this discussion.  Do not change the article relating to anything surrounding this topic without consensus from all the editors involved. 
66.82.9.83 11:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there for a long time.  Then JP asked for his bio to be deleted because it contained the fact that he had publically recanted.  He unrecanted and was angry that his bio still stated that he had recanted his story.  So we put the article up for deletion, and it was almost unanimous for deletion.  Then some folks who were involved in that discussion came over here and deleted all reference.  Check the history--it's easy to follow.  Meanwhile, BLP decisions are getting more and more clear.  Wikipedia isn't a tabloid.  So it'll stay as it is now.  -Jmh123 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Headings

message: This statement at the end of the second to last paragraph in the 2006: A Thousand Different Ways section needs corrections - Aiken will take a break from album promotion in December to appear with various local symphony orchestras in their Christmas shows as a replacement for LeAnn Rimes. Album promotion is set to resume with a tour beginning early in 2007.
First, there were only two concerts of the 2006 Christmas tour for which it was publicly confirmed that Clay replaced LeAnn Rimes. There were more news reports (4) of Wynonna Judd replacing Rimes, indicating that Clay's 18-date holiday tour was likely only prompted by the possibility of replacing Rimes for a few dates. 
Second, the 2006 tour would be more accurately described similarly to the 2004 tour as featuring a local orchestra rather than as an appearance with local symphony orchestras. As with the 2004 tour, only a minority of the dates were sponsored by local symphony orchestras and not all the shows were supported by symphony orchestras. For most shows, the orchestra was hired to provide an opening set and support Clay and at least two of the hired orchestras were big band, not symphony, orchestras.
Third, I don't think it is accurate to say the holiday tour was a break from album promotion. Clay's involvement in promoting the album may have ended before the holiday tour, as he's done little himself to promote the album since November.
Fourth, although Clay mentioned the possibility of a tour beginning in mid-February, that did not happen. In recent interviews, he's mentioned a possible tour in the summer '07, but nothing is definite at this point. If the tour does occur, it would be arguable whether or not that tour was promoting ATDW. So, for the sake of being strictly accurate, I think it would be best to not characterize such a tour as part of the album promotion.
I suggest the following revisions to the text:  
Clive Davis is credited with the cover concept. Promotion for the album has been focused on daytime and late night television appearances. Aiken will take a break from album promotion in December to appear with various local symphony orchestras in their Christmas shows as a replacement for LeAnn Rimes. Album promotion is set to resume with a tour beginning early in 2007.
Aiken's fourth album, All is Well (an EP of four Christmas songs), was released exclusively to Walmart on November 28, 2006.[11]
revised to:
Clive Davis was credited with the cover concept. Promotion for the album was focused on daytime and late night television appearances.
Aiken's fourth album, All is Well (an EP of four Christmas songs), was released exclusively to Walmart on November 28, 2006.[11]
In December 2006, Aiken mounted his third Christmas tour, comprising performances in 18 Midwest and East Coast cities.  The tour opened in Waukegan, Illinois on December 1 and ended in Greensboro, North  Carolina on December 23. Aiken was supported by local orchestras, which also opened the concerts with a program of seasonal music.
Also revise: 
2006: Holiday Symphony Tour
-18-city tour of cities mostly in the eastern U.S. (December 2006)
-Performing with local symphony orchestras.
to:
2006: Holiday Tour
-18-city tour of cities mostly in the eastern U.S. (December 2006)
-Performed with local orchestras, which also opened the concerts with a program of seasonal music
I would normally make these minor revisions to an entry myself, but defer to the usual editors in this case.--Samtha25 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 3 days and no one else commented so I went ahead and made the suggested changes. - Maria202 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Holiday Tour Corrections Needed  

message: Someone from a fan board is saying that she took the photo being used here.  Does anyone know the source of the photo personally?  It's registered to a Flickr account.  Thanks.  -Jmh123 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why your questioning the photo but I do personally know who owns the photo and gave permission for it to be used here.  The required permission is on file with OTRS at Wikimedia Commons. - Maria202 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already discussed this, but just for the record, I questioned it because someone I know contacted me and claimed that she took the photo and presented me with a link to a photobucket album with that photo and many others taken at the same concert from the same location and angle.  To bypass this issue, as we've also discussed, I've obtained permission to use photos from another fan.  I've uploaded those photos, made sure they were properly licensed, and added them to the article. There's one more if you'd like to use it, here.  I hope you'll also add the "changing looks" links/text we talked about. -Jmh123 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Maria202 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: It makes no sense to me why four seasons later the AI section needs to be "fleshed out" with trivia from a few episodes when a summarized version is more encyclopedic and shorter.  The article was already getting too long and needed to be shortened. Rather than waste time trying to clean up the changes it was easier to restore the eariler summarized section. - Maria202 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed!  -Jmh123 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagreed, particularly since some of the changes lost were my own.  A full discussion of Aiken's AI experience, for which he remains best known, is more relevant than much of the fluff and filler that follows.  This article is likely a lost cause for public editing and needs full protection, since anything that is not fully favorable to Aiken is invariably removed. 72.73.214.14 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a strange notion of relevance.  Aiken's AI season was four years ago.  Since then we've seen three successful albums, two singles, six tours, a UNICEF Ambassadorship, and the Bubel-Aiken Foundation: this is not fluff and filler.  I agree with Maria that trimming, not adding is needed--certainly less American Idol would be better than more.  -Jmh123 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're saying that an article about Clay Aiken that devotes approximately three times more space to his makeovers and Christmas albums throughout the past three years than his American Idol stint is worthy of an encyclopedia?  Um, gotcha, thanks.  Glad you're here to set me straight.  Seriously, we agree this article needs a major trimming.  But the most significant parts of Aiken's career from an objective standpoint are his Idol stint, his post-Idol musical career, and his extensive charitable work.  I'd say each deserve about 1/3rd of the main body of the article.  What we have here is essentially a shrine, downplaying the part of Aiken's career for which most Wikipedia readers know him best and would seek information about, and concentrating on fluff and filler (which is what it is, whether you care to call it that or not) that only his most devoted fans could possibly care about.  The first step in getting this article under control is to protect it, then to have a recognized music editor rewrite it from a NPOV standpoint, and finally to keep it semi-protected and carefully monitored to prevent it from deteriorating into this sorry state again.  72.73.214.14 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Goodness gracious, take a look around and get to know Wikipedia a bit.  Most of Wikipedia is in a sorry state.  Writing by committee doesn't lend itself to good writing.  No one is going to protect a page for the reasons you suggest, no recognized music editor works here or would (cause they expect to be paid), and no one is going to semi-protect a page about a pop star forever.  -Jmh123 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  As for the "Christmas albums," comment, Christmas has formed a major part of Aiken's post-Idol career.  He's released an album and an EP, had a Christmas special on NBC as well as hosting the AI Christmas special; he's had three Christmas tours with another to come this year; and there's a Christmas Day skating special to come this year.  There have been a number of televised performances of Christmas music (3 or 4 in 2006 alone).  A Christmas song tops his iTunes sales list, and about half of his radio chart hits are Christmas songs.  What we need is a different structure, a reorganization, but not more about his American Idol season.  I don't agree with your assumption about what "most Wikipedia readers know...best and would seek information about."  If they already know something they won't be seeking information about it.  -Jmh123 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh my.  He was a contestant on a show, had a "makeover", came in second and there was a voting controversy.  Not many care about anything else show related other than he's the best selling and most successful runner up to date.  All that is covered.  Everything else he's done happened after the show ended.  From what I've been told, the show never even mentioned his name this past season except for one quick mention in the Clive Davis speech on the last show.  This article is a biography about Clay Aiken, not an American Idol show episode synopsis.  AI has their own articles, but you already are aware of that.  Maria202 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Idol

message: We've been talking for some time about revising the Aiken biography, which, due to being written by committee over several years' time, wasn't written very well and lacked a cohesive structure.  Maria202 and I decided the time had come, and we worked hard for a couple of days, surprising ourselves at how quickly it went. We established a list of main categories to replace the year-by-year approach and integrated some of the material from other categories into these, or made them sub-categories under the main list.  We rewrote the lead following recommendations on featured articles, and rewrote some sections that sorely needed it. We followed BLP guidelines carefully, and also followed general recommendations regarding the writing of biographies.  Maria did a lot of research into the way other biographies are written as well.
Some of the older material still does not have citations, but we felt that it was important to maintain the narrative flow.  The American Idol section is, though not cited, verifiable through the program itself, as are many of the references to television appearances.  Any help filling in citations and/or correcting facts, especially regarding the "early years", would be especially appreciated. -Jmh123 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note to standardize the citations to the TO DO list at the top. Maria202 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I shouldn't have used the new style for the few I added yesterday--I wasn't thinking, just playing with the forms.  -Jmh123 02:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fresh pair of eyes. Cool!  Thanks ArglebargleIV. Maria202 03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  It's nice to see you working on the page, ArglebargleIV. Thanks for finding the typos and adding Wikilinks.  Your input is appreciated! Here's where we worked on the rewrite if you're interested in the process. It went so fast and easily, and we were so pleased with the results, that we decided to boldly make the change now. When I look at the discussion, it's surprisingly brief.  A lot of communication happened during the actual editing process, by way of italicized notes, tentative strikes, and edit comments.  -Jmh123 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised biography

message: I tried to shorten the entry a bit by removing sentences here and there.  Please feel free to restore any that you want, or ask me to restore them.  -Jmh123 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think the whole article could use a bit of trimming to shorten it some and get it closer to the lower recommended length. I took out a couple of sentences in the AI section and did some rewording. Maria202 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A little pruning

message: This seems to be a never ending battle. If at all, the matter would be relevant to O'Donnell's biography, not Aikens, as it was her initial comment -- her actions -- that generated the press coverage. Also, WP:NPOV requires a balance in the article so that the article represents fairly and without bias all significant views. You have to ask yourself, is this Ripa/Aiken/O'Donnell matter part of a significant view/aspect of Clay's life? Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to the his notable activities or public life. BLP would seem to keep this matter from be used on Wikipedia to "out" Aikens. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, this is in response to a current situation on the Rosie O'Donnell biography, not this entry. See my talk page and follow the bread crumbs. Also .  -Jmh123 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ripa/Aiken/O'Donnell matter

message: I didn't lose it, I deliberately deleted it.  Do you feel that it is necessary? I don't see any reason to advertise her book for her, and I don't think the title adds anything relevant.  -Jmh123 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware.  The sentence just didn't read right and it looked like the title got lost.  Maria202 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the revision I just made?  Will it work?  -Jmh123 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that reads better. I changed a book to her book.  Maria202 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book title

message: If you look up "whitewash" in the dictionary, there is a picture of this article next to the entry!<--SARCASM (don't waste your time finding a dictionary).
This article is incredibly POV. Omitting any negative references/press on Clay Aiken with the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" or the "Rosie said it, so it should go on her page" justification is ridiculous. Questions of Clay Aiken's sexuality, because they have generated news, are salient and germain aspects of any truly NPOV biography of him. Regardless about what Clay himself or the "claymates" claim, when a Google search of of "'Clay Aiken' gay" turns up hundreds of pages from reputable sources with stories questioning his sexuality and Diane Sawyer/People Magazine ask him directly about the issue, IT IS RELEVENT! Someone above stated that "since according to Clay he is not gay and this borders on libel, and needs to be handled delicately". This is a load of hogwash. It is in no way libelous for Wikipedia to report that "person X said that Aiken is gay", even if person X is guilty of libel. Also, when has Clay Aiken said recently that he is not gay? He dodged the question in People and with Diane Sawyer, when he could have said "I am not gay". But I digress.
Whether he is gay or not, the fact that so many people are talking about it indicates that the subject itself should be included in a current, thorough, and accurate biography. An encyclopedia article shouldn't pretend that a controversy doesn't exist simply because no reputable source can prove that he is gay. Holding articles to that standard would be ridiculous. In fact, many articles that soley discuss controveries themselves would not even exist if they had to fulfill the "prove it" burden. Readers should be able to read a fair and accurate representation of Clay Aiken AND his influence on our culture and the light in which he is held by the press and the general population (not only his fans). Whether you like it or not, Aiken's sexuality IS an issue, and it is important to discuss the ISSUE ITSELF in an NPOV Article. In fact, a LexisNexis search indicates that his sexuality is discussed in the media MORE than his music). -Diego Gravez 04:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are You Serious?

message: Clay Aiken has been asked several times by major journalists, both on TV and in print, to discuss his sexual orientation. May we quote or refer to his answers?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was removed by uninvolved editors months ago on the basic of BLP. Why didn't you object then?  -Jmh123 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it have to be only fans that don't think this topic should be included?  I feel the same way about the Rob Thomas article, and the Tom Cruise article, etc. Just because these celebrities have been harassed on the subject, does not mean that Wikipedia should join in the harassment. 69.19.14.28 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referenced Aiken's fans as they have been the most proactive in suppressing this information as evidenced in Aiken's fan forums. You are correct that not only his fans share that view. I do disagree that the discussion and possible inclusion of this information is harassment. I'm not familiar with the Rob Thomas or Tom Cruise articles but I don't need to be as wp operates generally on a case-by-case basis using established protocols for treating bios of living people with specific rules. Having stated that, I stand by my above comments with the amendment that even people who are not Aiken's fans certainly also want to smooth over discussions of his sexuality. Benjiboi 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: He spoke out in his book against the church's condemnation of homosexuality.  He is outspoken about being a Christian.  Those two pieces of what might be construed as a misleading statement are true.  -Jmh123 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Clay had stated he was gay, and we printed it here - it would not harm him.  It is the constant inuendo that he is in the closet that is doing harm.  And I am sorry if you are offended that being thought to be in the closet causes harm to a persons career - but it DOES.  That is just life as it is today, whether that is right or wrong.  Wikipedia should not be contributing to that harm.  69.19.14.25 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With proper sources, of course.  Pairadox 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Clay's statements on sexual orientation 

message: ====Points favoring exclusion====
The following points are relevant:
*There is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.
*The sexuality of this person is not important or notable for any reason. This person is neither a politician running for office nor notable in any way for their sexuality.
*This person has objected to the spreading of rumours and allegations about his sexuality, and has stated that the spreading of these rumours and allegations is hurtful.
*Discussion of the sexuality of this person is insensitive and unnecessary, given the above 3 points. In such a situation, WP:BLP is crystal clear: "leave it out."
*This person has, when asked direct questions about their sexuality, denied the rumours and allegations, and indicated their distress about the spreading of such rumours and allegations. In such circumstances, including this person's public "denials" amounts to perpetuating the rumours via innuendo. That is, the fact he has denied this or that allegation on this or that talk show, if it then becomes a part of that person's encyclopaedia entry, will unnecessarily mean that the person will be forced to endure the allegation so long as the material remains in the entry. (And don't forget point number one above: there is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.)
*In summary, there are no reasons to include this material, and many reasons to exclude it. The material violates WP:BLP, and there is no consensus to include this material. The material should be excluded.
BCST2001 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was removed by uninvolved editors months ago on the basic of BLP. Why didn't you object then?  -Jmh123 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: The following points are relevant:
*There is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.
*The sexuality of this person is not important or notable for any reason. This person is neither a politician running for office nor notable in any way for their sexuality.
*This person has objected to the spreading of rumours and allegations about his sexuality, and has stated that the spreading of these rumours and allegations is hurtful.
*Discussion of the sexuality of this person is insensitive and unnecessary, given the above 3 points. In such a situation, WP:BLP is crystal clear: "leave it out."
*This person has, when asked direct questions about their sexuality, denied the rumours and allegations, and indicated their distress about the spreading of such rumours and allegations. In such circumstances, including this person's public "denials" amounts to perpetuating the rumours via innuendo. That is, the fact he has denied this or that allegation on this or that talk show, if it then becomes a part of that person's encyclopaedia entry, will unnecessarily mean that the person will be forced to endure the allegation so long as the material remains in the entry. (And don't forget point number one above: there is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.)
*In summary, there are no reasons to include this material, and many reasons to exclude it. The material violates WP:BLP, and there is no consensus to include this material. The material should be excluded.
BCST2001 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points favoring exclusion

message: *The subject's personal life is of intense interest to fans and the general public. (fixed links)
*The subject is a public figure who has sought the spotlight and who freely discuses many aspects of his personal life. 
*The subject has willingly submitted to interviews in which he has been asked, sometimes at length, about his orientation and his manner of discussing it. In none of the interviews has he declined to comment.
*Questions about his orientation have been asked by a number of legitimate journalists. These are not tabloid papers that we are using for sources. The frequency of the questions is an indication of the noteworthiness of the topic. 
*Due to the widespread discussion of the topic, both in the media and in blogs and forums, the article should address it in some manner.
*Quoting a subject about himself is not "spreading innuendo". 
*This material is reliable and neutral. No part of WP:BLP prohibits quoting a subject about himself. 
*Some of the arguments presented on this page imply that the subject's sexual orientation would not be a legitimate topic even if the subject were to hold a press conference and announce his preferences. 
*Editors opposing the material have declined to negotiate over the material, categorically refusing to allow it in any form. 
*The material had been in the article for years before being removed without discusion.
*In summary, the material complies wih WP:BLP, is noteworthy, and illustrates a major part of the subject's public personna. The material should be included in some form.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was removed by uninvolved editors months ago on the basic of BLP. Why didn't you object then?  -Jmh123 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points favoring inclusion

message: I'd have to agree with Will's take on the material.  This isn't a matter of someone adding a random, unsourced bit of nonsense saying "Clay Aiken's a homo!!!1"  Instead, he's arguing to include critical commentary that has been brought up numerous times in a variety of outside venues.  Adding information on the fact that Diane Sawyer has questioned the article's subject on national television about his sexuality isn't a violation of BLP, and, I would argue, actually adds something meaningful to the article itself. If this were just idle speculation or malicious slander, it would be different.  Esrever 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it have to be only fans that don't think this topic should be included?  I feel the same way about the Rob Thomas article, and the Tom Cruise article, etc. Just because these celebrities have been harassed on the subject, does not mean that Wikipedia should join in the harassment. 69.19.14.28 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referenced Aiken's fans as they have been the most proactive in suppressing this information as evidenced in Aiken's fan forums. You are correct that not only his fans share that view. I do disagree that the discussion and possible inclusion of this information is harassment. I'm not familiar with the Rob Thomas or Tom Cruise articles but I don't need to be as wp operates generally on a case-by-case basis using established protocols for treating bios of living people with specific rules. Having stated that, I stand by my above comments with the amendment that even people who are not Aiken's fans certainly also want to smooth over discussions of his sexuality. Benjiboi 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: He spoke out in his book against the church's condemnation of homosexuality.  He is outspoken about being a Christian.  Those two pieces of what might be construed as a misleading statement are true.  -Jmh123 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Clay had stated he was gay, and we printed it here - it would not harm him.  It is the constant inuendo that he is in the closet that is doing harm.  And I am sorry if you are offended that being thought to be in the closet causes harm to a persons career - but it DOES.  That is just life as it is today, whether that is right or wrong.  Wikipedia should not be contributing to that harm.  69.19.14.25 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With proper sources, of course.  Pairadox 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from previously uninvolved editors