There;'s no source for "Gossip and rumors prompted I don't see any reason to advertise her book for her, and I don't think the title adds anything relevant. I agree with all of Will Breback's point's and disagree strongly with the rebuttal points below which don't actually rebut anything. I have a scan saved and am looking at it right now. It leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions, which is the best way to serve both Aiken and Wikipedia and is NPOV. Please try to work out your differences so the protection can be removed. The source doesn't include the text "If you're famous, what questions can you and can you not be asked about your sex life?
Aiken has denied this". I didn't lose it, I deliberately deleted it.
Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 14
Once this tempest-in-a-teapot dies down, maybe this sort-of-news item could be removed from both pages. Questions of Clay Aiken's sexuality, because they have generated news, are salient and germain aspects of any truly NPOV biography of him. From scratch, I think this would make a good short paragraph:. There should at least be a reference to the controversy and it seems like the points that Will wants to include are reporting on Clay's own statements and reference good sources. It doesn't mention "he who must not be named". I'm going to get conversational and blunt here.