Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 5

message: Whether that fanfic you posted is real or not is immaterial. I have deleted it because it should not be posted here where a child could just happen on it. Shame on you. --Wilykit 23:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how my adding back of the Openly Clay link got in past the lockdown, maybe because I started editing before the lockdown took place. Also, you should probably know that one of the anonymous people who removed the link has posted about this site in her blog at Clay's fanclub and requested people come here and oppose the Openly Clay link. I stand by my original statement that you should discount the opinions of new and anonymous users and just have Wiki regulars decide. --Wilykit 23:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty classy site, so I have to wonder why you would want to link to such a trashy site like the OC.  If it were up to me, I'd only link to the more professional sites, like the official fan club or the Clayboard, and avoid the more gossip-based sites (whether they think he's gay or straight).  Sites like the official fan club provide accurate information on Clay's career, while the main purpose of the OC is to discuss rumors and speculation.  I think it's a poor choice to link and makes Wikipedia look unprofessional.--Mouse316
I thought Wikipedia was not a censored site. One argument about leaving the link was based on Wikipedia not being responsible for what children see on the internet. What I posted and was quickly removed was proof of porn on that site available to all members.
Miklos Szabo 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *And that was from the public area of the site? If so, could you state which section in the forum it is found in, so that we could verify this? If not, would you mind re-reading my comment, in that the public area of the site does not seem to be innappropriate? --Blu Aardvark 00:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *The post in question is referring to a picture on the previous page - not an NSFW (Not Safe for Work) image at all. The links are part of the member's signature, and none of them appear to be "slash fiction", but I haven't looked at them all thouroughly yet. --Blu Aardvark 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *It's not closed to me, and I'm not registered or logged in. Regarding the links in question, the first is that individual members personal blog, the fourth *is* fanfiction, but isn't associated with OC, doesn't appear to be particularly offensive, and does have a disclaimer, which is requested that visitors read. The 2nd and 3rd link in question are to flash films, which are taking a VERY long time to load, and I'm using DSL. --Blu Aardvark 00:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: break for censorship/public/private arguments/"porn" stories

message: The question of whether particular websites have pornographic or adult content is irrelevant to this discussion. Please see Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -Willmcw 00:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
What is the criteria for relevant? It is not a source of factual information. It is not representative of the fanbase. What value is there?
Miklos Szabo 00:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd have to agree with you, WebTravel. That is, in fact, the only convincing argument I have seen for removal thus far. The other arguments tend to attack the site as a pornographic or otherwise innappropriate site, yet I have seen nothing supporting this claim. Do we really need links to all available fansites? Wikipedia isn't a links depository. On the other hand, that link also does qualify the statement in the "Fans" section above, about the speculation regarding Aiken's sexuality. If it does remain, that would be the best reason for it to. --Blu Aardvark 01:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *It could be argued, but not successfully. The reason is because these other statements and claims have not saturated popular culture, whereas the question regarding his sexual preference HAS. --Blu Aardvark 01:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *And I would say, as would many others, that it hasn't yet reached a point of media saturation where it would be considered encyclopedic. If if it did reach such a point, I for one would have no objection to seeing a minor note to that effect, and perhaps a single link to a relevant site. This is what NPOV is about. --Blu Aardvark 01:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Conan made a gay Clay joke last night so it doesn't look like he has run out of steam yet. From one of the Clay boards - "It was something about What do you do on the weekends, and Clay Aiken said "give my knees a well-deserved rest."  "  I also read that Kathy Griffin has a new Bravo special and someone who was at the taping says she talks about Clay being gay a lot. --Wilykit 13:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
"But see, the article here not only acknowledges the rumors, but points out that Clay has no problem with it, unlike a number of his discontented fans. Clay went on Saturday Night Live and poked fun at the idea. Clay presented an award with Kathy Griffin and was in good spirits both onstage and backstage. Clay is a constant guest on Jimmy Kimmel." 
He didn't find Dave Grohl's gay joke at the AMAs very funny, and even called it "crude" (or something, I don't remember the exact wording, but he didn't like it).  And geez AppleTurnover, I can't believe how many negative things you can say about Clay.  And many of the things you named are either rumors with no real evidence besides hear-say, or have been discredited by Clay himself (the New Jersey incident or Pepsi vs. Coke).  And finally, I'm am so very sick of being called a homophobe, intolerant, and other vile names just because I don't agree with you.  I happen to be a left-wing atheist with a gay family member who I love very much.  Try to work that into your narrow little schema you have going for everyone who disagrees with your point of view.--Mouse316
Whether the press is "good" or "bad" is surely a subjective opinion.  Factual information belongs in an entry such as this one, and shouldn't be edited in or out on the basis of how one user thinks it makes their idol look.  Newsweek is a pretty credible source, and a national news magazine at that, but I have seen these stories run in other newspapers.  If Clay doesn't like every joke made at his expense, well that's his right, but it doesn't mean the joke didn't take place.  As for timing, is there a time-limit on these things?  By your argument, all of the information about Clay's appearances on American Idol and his first album should also be taken down as being oh so many months ago.  As it happens, Conan O'Brian was still making Clay jokes in June of this year.  In all fairness, I do live in Raleigh, NC, which is Clay's hometown, so I probably see and hear more of the negative than gets out to the national wire services.
Finally, I wasn't calling anyone here a homophobe or intolerant, at least that wasn't my intent.  I was pointing out that there are certain quarters in Clay's fanbase that I would suggest are these things, and was merely expressing my hope that other members of his fanbase who don't subscribe to such a narrow view be allowed a chance to voice their opinions and have a place where they could be embraced.  I'm not calling for other groups to be excluded, only for this group to be included.
Apple Turnover 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography