Talk:Cara Cunningham/Archive 1

message: Here's a link to a confirmation of the Howard Stern interview, if "has been featured on Howard Stern" is an assertion of notability worth incorporating. Ichormosquito 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Benjiboi 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Stern 

message: God I hate this guy. orangekubrick  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangekubrick (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. 88.107.105.224 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider contributing to articles on subjects that are more to your liking. Comments on talk pages should be limited to discussion the article and the contents of the article not our personal opinions thereof. Benjiboi 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: why does this really insignificant person have an wikipedia page? couldn't we use wikipedia for more important things?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.154.99 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate this guy 

message: Most of the video views were probably 10 seconds long after the viewer hears the tone of his (its) voice and begins to dry heave in the living room floor while struggling to unplug the computer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.40.51 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is Pretty 

message: ** Blitzer, Wolf. (September 11, 2007) CNN The Situation Room Round Two of Iraq War Hearings; Bin Laden Taunts United States - Part 2. Sect: News; Domestic; Time: 16:00 EST; Tran: 091103CN.V16.
** Fort Worth Star-Telegram (September 12, 2007) People Watch. Page B16.
** Cooper, Anderson (September 11, 2007) CNN Anderson Cooper 360° Embarrassing comeback attempt. 19:57 PM EST.
**Sanchez, Rick (September 12, 2007) CNN Special/Live Event Iraqi Prime Minister Speaks Out; New Evidence in Madeleine McCann Case? - Part 2 Sect: News; International; Tran: 091201CN.V54.
**La Gazzetta dello Sport (September 13, 2007) 1.8 Million visits; "Left Britney" Plant of a fan prevails on YouTube. (translated from Italian: "1.8 Milioni di visite; "Lasciate Britney" Il pianto di un fan trionfa su YouTube.") Section: Gazzetta; Page 34. Benjiboi 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. References added except Anderson Cooper and Rick Sanchez which coincidentally were about the Crocker from the Iraq war n the news at the same time. Benjiboi 11:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional leads from AfD discussion 

message: You can tell he's faking in all of his movies. He was on the news because they thought he was being serious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.39.243 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow. 

message: I love how this gets an article but Zeitgeist the film doesn't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.136.86 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, Crocker has better sources.  Zeitgeist will get an article in time.  Ichormosquito 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeitgeist 

message: If this article gets deleted, keep checking Google News for more sources.  If you can prove he has relative staying power, and you will likely be able to considering his large and rabid fanbase, you can always create the article again.  Ichormosquito 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already deleted once. If it's deleted again, it may very well have to be blocked from recreation altogether. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...not if he keeps getting coverage.  Look what happened to Tay Zonday.  Ichormosquito 03:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A message to this article's editors 

message: This is not worthy of being on wikipedia, delete it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michfan2123 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to discuss your reasons for deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Crocker_%28Britney_Spears_Fan%29 Keithbrooks 09:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, This Chris Cockup character is about as notable as what I had for lunch last week. Comradeash 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider contributing to articles on subjects that are more to your liking. Comments on talk pages should be limited to discussion the article and the contents of the article not our personal opinions thereof. WP's coverage of this subject will be held to the same standard as any other article so WP's reputation should be fine either way.Benjiboi 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Chris Crocker has done nothing notable.  Whining for 10 minutes is not worth a wikipedia page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.17.204 (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please delete this! Chris Crocker has defined a new level of lame and with wikipedia having an article like this, the lameness is leaking right into it. don't ruin wikipedia and keep this bullshit on it. delete this fool.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.226.110 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is going to care or remember this a year from now? An encyclopedia is not for temporary fads. Please delete this. 24.22.210.14 21:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These concerns are valid but please know that this is not the best place, right now at least, to share these thoughts as there is an active articles for deletion discussion going on. Read the boxes at the top of the article and follow the link "this article's entry" to see the rather lengthy points being made both for and against this article's inclusion. Benjiboi 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this 

message: I think it is quite clear for the most of us that this is purely an act. In YouTube he listed himself as a "comedian" in addition of having a business inquiry email address . Also, his MySpace profile  looks pretty well done, it has a flash introduction on the top and some professional-looking pictures of himself too, something I heavily doubt a person like the one he promotes is actually something more than a fictional character. So I really bet it is all a set-up and soon this article will have a (sad) episode list and cast listed. greekalien 13:55, 13 September 2007 (GMT +2)
He does have over half a million friends.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.40.51 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's just a new lonelygirl15 

message: have you seen this already benjiboy? 
part of these sketches on video  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for that, I was able to use two great quotes from there which is nice.Benjiboi 15:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future plans comic strip in Seattle's Stranger 

message: So far, pretty much every single argument for deleting this article is that the person does not deserve to be notable. This whole discussion reeks of elitism, that only certain types of people deserves to be notable. It's similar to saying that what the UFC does isn't a sport because it's too violent and hence does not deserve to be a sport. And yes, those were some very real arguments made against UFC, especially in the beginning. Now, if you don't think this person is notable and the article should be deleted because of that, that's a perfectly acceptable opinion; He might not be notable. But saying this article should be deleted because he doesn't deserve to be notable is just b***s***, and is unfortunately what the majority here seems to think. Debolaz 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should say this at the AfD.  Ichormosquito 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Even if he's not someone's cup-o-tea WP should respect its own guidelines. I think this will survive the AfD but even if not we can save a copy and restart the article in a snap. Benjiboi 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, Just copy and pasting the article will get it Speedy Deleted. A Deletion Review is the correct way to get the article undeleted. Fosnez 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, thank you for pointing that out. Benjiboi 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So far.. 

message: Hello!
If Chris Crocker's productions on YouTube suffice to make him a "video director" and "actor", then anyone could pretend being an actor or video director. "Acting" doesn't make you an actor and recording videos with your webcam doesn't make you a director. Shouldn't we remove these two terms from the article? --CutterX 14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Or at least qualify them somehow.--Proper tea is theft 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, I think I've addressed the concerns. He certainly is acting in some if not most or all and he directs certainly whenever others are involved but it is more accurate that he is not known for these. Benjiboi 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the new version well written and satisfying. Thanks. --CutterX 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Chris Crocker a video director and actor? 

message: Not sure which part of This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. people don't understand here..... --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's assume good faith and be thankful that they are talking even if the content doesn't always send us into deep contemplation rather than editing stuff that would just be deleted. Although I agree somewhat that editors should register I've seen many great edits by anon editors and their are perfectly valid reasons for not registering. But we digress! I've gotten several notes from folks interested in helping edit and one of our deadlines was to wait until the AfD was completed and that has happened and obviously the article is still here for now. Let's conspire to build a better, stronger, faster article! I suggest we embark on a process to add significant other videos of his focusing on any that already have WP:RS coverage and any that have over a million views on either YouTube or MySpace (not combined totals for now). Since the Leave Britney Alone section seems stand alone I think a new Videography section possibly with a table is appropriate and we should include date posted (ref either YouTube or MySpace), views(ref this to actual video), and a short description. Since there are so many (and others that were posted and deleted) I'm not that all warrant inclusion so maybe upfront we have disclaimer that all of them have over a million views? Benjiboi 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was referring to the bashing and such on this talk page. See incestuous above. That has nothing to do with improving the article. As it says, This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realized that afterwards. Given the immense fan base he has I'm actually surprised that the comments have mostly been constructive and even the ones that weren't necessarily so we at least short! I'll put on the denial hat and say that's because all the work put into the article to make it come close to a fair accounting so the complaints have had to rely on personal like or dislike. Frankly I think we're doing pretty good on this one and it did survive AfD which many doubted would happen. Benjiboi 11:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and the incestuous video I think should be discussed and possibly added as it speaks to his outrageousness for portraying gay brothers having an intimate relationship thus causing controversy, much like Madonna used to, and Britney still does do.Benjiboi 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why his claims of incest shouldn't be discussed (and falsified), it definitely seems less like a general discussion forum than, say... this. It was a worthy question to ask; should this interesting tidbit of information be added or should it be ignored. Earfetish1 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious, no? 

message: The nerd losers without a life at 420chan have proposed a raid of this article. May want to consider protecting this page against newbie edits, etc. read here 420chan 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the page is semi-protected already but thank you for the heads up. also wikipedia is well used to vandalism and if worse come to worse all the edits are simply reverted back to the last good version. Benjiboi 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loser alert 

message: (Please note: some comments have been removed (not by me) which have left the below comments which simply were replies. Anyone is welcome to contribute I am simply a major contributor to the article at the moment.) Benjiboi 11:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to matter at this point loads of editors have greatly vetted and changed whatever the original page was. Benjiboi 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I sincerely doubt Fosnez is Chris Crocker.  Ichormosquito 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is certainly notable even if this is his only 15 minutes of fame (which doesn't seem likely). There is an extensive discussion on the value of the article on it's deletion page but it seems likely despite many people's personal distaste that the article will stay. Wikipedia is still a valuable source of information and actually is better for covering this information with the usual standards of neutral and verifiable information. He's an internet celebrity and that is well documented and referenced. Benjiboi 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'll check it out. Benjiboi 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Deleted. Based in Tennessee seems fine for now. Benjiboi 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks, Benjiboy! :) I've been looking around everywhere about Chris, I am one of his fans for some time now and since then I have never heard of any real sign of where he actually lives. The more I learned about him apart from his own videos on youtube and myspace was on that seattle newspaper. Some time ago thou, I used to visit his profile at myspace and he used to message a lot of other young guys like they knew each other from the same neighborhood and I could see in a lot of these guys (on their profiles) they were from Louisiana. What do you think? Where these informations about Tennessee came from, do you know exactly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Legions of Fans reference (4th one down I think) Benjiboi 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it is YouTube (which isn't considered the best source) and it doesn't prove that he lives there as much as proves he was there at least once (assuming the video wasn't faked in any way. Once the Access Hollywood story airs that might be useful itself though. Benjiboi 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it's presently under the do no harm talk section but until his name and exact location are widely known and published by several reliable sources we really can't touch it and, in fact, we have a duty to delete identifiers off these pages as well. This goes to what is true and what are verifiable are two different things. There's the added bonus that if the wrong person is identified we don't screw up by jumping the gun. Benjiboi 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: I don't think this has been picked up by media yet, but what the hell is this about? Can someone put this in the article? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is likely to be seen for what it is - an outrageous statement to upset and feed media hype. I'm not opposed to adding it but I suggest waiting a few days to see if it gets any mainstream media traction. Benjiboi 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Who cares about 9/11?" 

message: I don't think our coverage of the Britney video should be divided in this way.  We shouldn't give undue weight to the first part, when the second part is what has received attention.  Ichormosquito 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. I have every expectation that several of Crocker's video's including the incest one, Bitch, please!  and This & that will get at least brief write-ups and I believe all should be placed in chronological order. Benjiboi 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I think undue weight speaks to placement in the article but also the volume of the total article spent on each subject. It's pretty clear that the main focus is the 2nd part of the video and I would expect that unless that was eclipsed by an even bigger event that that section would hold as the largest section. Benjiboi 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll agree to disagree, then.  As things stand, it's not a huge problem, so I'm not going to change it.  Ichormosquito 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth...it is the main focus of the lede, I changed the section title so it's a little more prominent and I don't foresee part 1 section growing anytime soon. Benjiboi 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the division is a little confusing/perhaps unnecessary, but I didn't change it.  I did change the "Part 2" title back to just "Part 2" because it seemed redundant the other way (Leave Britney Alone --> Leave Britney Alone (Part 2) v Leave Britney Alone --> Part 1)... if that makes sense Surfeited 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I have time I'll add some blurbs about other notable videos which, I think, will help clarify. Benjiboi 12:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do this, try to avoid WP:OR. After this matter, I've scanned over a number of net celebs and related articles and they all seem erroneously fraught with original research, almost unashamedly. --lincalinca 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. No one is served well by bad information being perpetuated by wp. Benjiboi 11:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part 1" and "Part 2" 

message: Hi all, so an editor countered that I was censoring information and citing a policy that didn't support what I was stating. So I'm sharing the information and links here for anyone who cares to read up or simply go to the main pages about the concerns.
Do No Harm, which is an essay and not a policy or guideline, is broader than just libel issues. Amongst other things it states there is a presumption in favor of privacy and unsourced, poorly sourced, or dubious content, especially if potentially libelous, should simply be removed on sight from biographies of living persons. It explains that nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.
This, I believe, is in line with WP:LIVING Presumption in favor of privacy - 
An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. To me this is clear enough on both fronts that information is to be kept private and the issue can be revisited once it is both widely known and in reliable sources. Benjiboi 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've explained on your talk page, The information there doesn't refer to a person's date of birth. In contrast, what it's referring to is general details such as a person's unknown, uncommonly known or similar actions. A date of birth is not cause for liable issues and it's not ever mentioned in the article, however as I pointed out, removing the date of birth continually is a form of censorship, I don't care what you say. Censorship is not appropriate, unless it's censoring on the basis of notability. --lincalinca 11:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, WP:Bio is pretty clear that private information gained through WP:OR should never be used and that private information like someone's date of birth is still private and private information needs to be respected regardless of notability issues. And, even as you agreed, the point is moot until it is published in reliable sources. I think we need to err on the side of caution even past that threshold per BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. The test that would seem to be most appropriate is "widely known" in WP:RS so just one RS might not be enough, but if the subject is, in fact, notable enough, multiple WP:RSs should cover the information. In Crocker's case I imagine that would come quickly once the first source publishes it's likely others will follow. Benjiboi 11:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Crocker is an adult, and he is a public figure, who became a public figure because he actively sought attention to himself over the past year. One's real name and date of birth are facts and not scandalous tabloid material. No serious biography would be written without this information included. His real name is available from published sources (e.g., high school yearbook). His date of birth is publicly available from official sources (e.g., birth certificate). That the subject of a biography does not want this information published should not be binding on Wikipedia editors. Maybe a lot of Hollywood actors don't want their real dates of birth published either. Are Wikipedia editors obligated to follow their wishes, too? — Walloon 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can agree to disagree, luckily wikipedia guidelines are clear that going through someone's yearbook, public records etc. is original research and is forbiddenWP:OR. Once the information is both widely known and reported in several reliable sources we will certainly add it in and explain how the information came about and/or simply discuss how his real name was kept confidential but now is known. Benjiboi 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, nothing in that link says a published yearbook is "original research". By what tortured definition is a published yearbook "original research"? — Walloon 01:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's refrain from calling anyone's definition as tortured and focus on the question of using the yearbook. So to be clear, your stating that the yearbook is a reliable source and can't be considered original research? If so I'll have to defer to admins either way as it seems like something a reporter would do but we would not. I'll see if I can get a definitive answer and follow-up with any information that arises.Benjiboi 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. Ok it looks like yearbooks can be used - I've never seen it but they apparently are used on GA articles. However this still falls under WP:Bio and "Do No Harm" where wikipedia is not a newspaper so even if we know, or believe we know, we don't include it until is is widely known and published in numerous reliable sources. As a reminder, Crocker regularly gets death threats so we need to err on the side of caution regardless. Another aspect of this same issue is what if we are mistaken and put the wrong information and some other kid - thought to be Crocker is attacked or killed? So have the resource in the wings but until it passes the other thresholds we don't touch it. Benjiboi 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second update. OK, we can't use the yearbook until other reliable sources clearly identify the same person as the subject of the article - it would be considered original research and apparently synthesis per WP:SYN. Yearbooks are used to establish age and schooling etc and perhaps who someone was in school with but unless the yearbook states person X is Crocker we can't touch it. Benjiboi 01:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do No Harm and reasons to leave out Crocker's private info (for now at least) 

message: Admin Jaranda closed this AfD and I believe it was with wrong consensus. Jaranda even admits after tossing out all of the un-applicable votes, that "With the few that are still valid, it's sad to say it's mainly in the keep side...". This should be changed to:
How do we go about changing that seeing as how the Admin himself admitted it was keep? --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *For what it's worth I don't think it matters that much. I've been told previous that even if the closing admin's characterization isn't what we might want to see what counts is whether the AfD keeps the article or deletes it. In this case the article is here so energy is probably better served by making the article better. If you still want to pursue the matter then i would start with the admin personally and state your case. They might agree or at least should be kind enough to point you where you can take the case for appeal. To me their insight was that - yes keep but this can easily be renominated in a few months if his internet fame seems to evaporate as so many comments suggested would happen. Benjiboi 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *So, to clarify, AfDs are generally either keep, delete or no consensus? Any big variations and any real differences if it's a weak keep vs keep vs strong keep? Benjiboi 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Seems like apples and oranges to me. Plus, I'm curious to know why it is sad to say it's mainly in the keep side? Opinion? Editorializing? Further saying True, there is more in the keep side, but the debate wasn't all keep agruements. seems all the more reason the AfD should have been closed as Keep. If all debates relied on every single vote being Keep, as you suggest, none would survive AfD or all would be No Consensus. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of Deletion 

message: These are all claimed by Crocker and need to be attributed as such.  If there's some verifiable fact showing he was harassed or has had death threats then by all means it should be included, the only substance to this are Crocker's own claims.
:I guess that's true but those claims have been widely reported and accepted at face value by all media outlets who are then reporting them. I have no information that leads me to doubt them and, in fact, the nature of his life and work supports that as does statistical information showing GLBT people being regularly killed in the US. Benjiboi 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we should word it "Crocker has claimed to receive death threats", etc, like that, I agree. While (based on the comments on some of his videos) I don't doubt any of the claims, we should word it like this just to be professional.  --  Zanimum 15:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden location, identity, death threats, etc.

message: I reworked that paragraph because it wasn't being attributed properly.  Most of it was again, Crocker's own claims and another part was by the person who wrote the article so the wording has been changed from the established fact as it was written as to observations attributed to sources.
:Thanks, it seems better. Benjiboi 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isolation In Bible Belt, etc

message: Editorializing, changed to "emotional", although even toning it down to that is debateable.  I'll leave it at "emotional" for now.
One editor has clearly put a lot of work into this, I hope that editor is receptive to constructive re-writing and criticism, I still think the overall tone of this article needs to change but I would like some other folks to chime in before I go at it with the editor's pen.--Wgfinley 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this is simply word choice rather than POV so please go for it I tend to use quotations more to avoid using loaded word like heartfelt but in that case i thought it was accurate - emotional seems to convey it accurately enough. Benjiboi 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Heartfelt"

message: I noted the page was protected but wasn't labeled as such, I added the pp-vandalism.  I see that Clown protected it and looking at just the last 500 edits alone I agree this article merits protection.  This should be reviewed at some point later on though.
--Wgfinley 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: So much for this article's getting deleted: .  Ichormosquito 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Requesting edit for this sourced information brought to our attention by Ichormosquito to be added to the article, as well article subject's current resident state of Tennessee per the same source. Nevermind. Apparently it's already been done. Didn't know you were an Admin Ichormosquito, don't see it on your userpage. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the semi-protection on the page applies only to anonymous editors who have yet to register so you can edit yourself and don't need to request it. Full protection requires admin's assistance. Benjiboi 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yes, but when I made that comment, it had a protection tag that said submit requests for edit to admin on the talk page yet Ichormosquito was still able to edit and include the Variety info. I didn't realize he had done so until after my comment. Sorry for the confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I saw in the edit comments he wrote "crap" which i think reffered to the wrong template being inserted.Benjiboi 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And to Ichormosquito, I guarantee the print stories are going to start piling up followed by magazine articles led by the gay press and, can't say I didn't warn you, this will be discussed and eventually written about in the "halls of academia" so textbooks refs should start popping within a year or two. Benjiboi 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reliable source from Variety confirming TV deal 

message: There are about five Earl Annie Edna videos which I started to edit but I have to take a break for now. Leaving a note to follow up on it utilizing quotes from stranger article. Benjiboi 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl Annie Edna videos 

message: In kindergarten, Chris brought Barbie dolls to school for show and tell. At home, when he was allowed, he wore dresses made for him by an indulgent relative. In fourth grade, a fascination with Aaron Carter, the little brother of one of the Backstreet Boys, led him to get his first blond highlights. A later fascination with Avril Lavigne led him to start dressing like her—"You know, jelly bracelets stacked up my arms, kinda faux punk." He always loved to dance and perform. He entered talent shows at the local YMCA and took clogging classes. In seventh grade, he tried, without success, to start a gay-straight alliance at his middle school. Around the same time he started an e-zine that encouraged young gay kids to come out. It quickly drew 3,000 subscriptions.
"I've always been very active in the gay community online," he tells me.Benjiboi 11:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more content from stranger article 

message: Just wanted to say I think this article has improved a lot and while I think it still has a way to go it's a good example of editors working cooperatively on a "hot topic".  My faith in Wikipedia has been restored, momentarily ;).
--Wgfinley 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the faith! Benjiboi 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Work 

message: I have a photo request in to Chris Crocker's business people, whoever they may be, to ask for a free license publicity shot.  --  Zanimum 14:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Got one, CC-BY-3.0  --  Zanimum 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It was the best I could do at the time. Thanks for taking care of it. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you all! Benjiboi 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request 

message: I don't know what would count as "encyclopedic references" for this, but a growing number of YouTubers are stating that Chris Crocker is a "cheater", meaning that he uses automatic page refreshing software to artificially increase the views that his videos get. 70.20.219.41 08:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's one such video.  Unfortunately, we can't source conjecture.  Ichormosquito 09:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Considering the sourpuss in that video cites no sources about the page refreshing, and considering he still thinks that was really Chris' brother in the "incest" video even though Chris told the world it was his ex-boyfriend.. well, consider the source. The guy says it's "well known that Chris cheats". Proof please. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 09:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the first I've heard of it (not with Crocker specifically) with any video count on YouTube. What would help is to have a valid source that shows it's possible and a balancing statement, if any, with a response from YouTube whether they've addressed the concern(s) or responding to the validity of the claim. This would be a great way to start to add a "Crock's detractors" statement to the lede and building a criticism section. Benjiboi 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cheating" 

message: May I propose that all views/comments video statistics be removed from this article? A couple of reasons for this. First, it makes the article unstable, requiring constant update. Second, video statistics do not contribute to the notability of Chris Crocker, nor of his videos. Only being noted by reliable sources does this. Third, Wikipedia is not a directory of YouTube/MySpace viewing statistics. At least, it shouldn't be :) If you disagree, please discuss. GracenotesT § 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; they should at least be marginalized.  Certain stats might be worth keeping if they can be found in reliable sources.  Ichormosquito 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly; a good of example of this is "Within the first 24 hours of its posting, the video had accumulated over 2 million views." GracenotesT § 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree. Let's actually have the discussion before you throw out all that work. If for no other reason than other editors are likely to re-add information that is less encyclopedic and none of the other experienced editors have found it to need removal up to this point although they may have only been focusing on one aspect or another and didn't concern themselves with this issue. I researched all those stats myself and they are all qualified "as of September 2007" to address the static issue. They indeed speak to his notability being the 4th most viewed, the top 20 subscribed channel of all times and over a million for views for ___ video, etc. all speak to notability issue and the many views are widely seen as the most notable point of his story - the millions who have watched his videos including the eight million for watching his most notable one. No one's suggesting Wikipedia is not a directory of YouTube/MySpace viewing statistics but notability questions need to be addressed and his popularity on YouTube and Myspace are certainly relevant to the article. Benjiboi 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with your arguments. If his stats don't exactly contribute to his notability, they are strong indicators of his notability, comparable to a broadcast television role. They are also verifiable, albeit from primary sources. My biggest concern is the practical one: they're just too much of a hassle to update.  Ichormosquito 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disgree there as well. Per WP:DATED - Unless you are writing on pages that are regularly refactored, such as Current events, you should avoid statements that will date quickly. Phrases to avoid include "recently", "in modern times", "now considered", "is soon to become", and "the sixties"; instead use phrases such as "as of October 2001" or "the 1960s." In many cases, such statements are also more precise. In this case it is a current event but we have followed the style guidelines regardless so even if the article is never updated the stats are qualified. Benjiboi 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You caught me.  For some reason, I thought WP:DATED would have supported my argument; you must have read my post before I deleted the link.  You're fast!  But fast enough to keep up with Crocker's racing YouTube stats?  I guess that's your call.  Ichormosquito 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had used that as a guideline as to how best convey the material and deal with resentism issues. Benjiboi 01:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict'd] Yep; if the statistics are included, as-of terminology should be used. But that's a style issue, not a content issue, and the existence of the terminology does not justify the inclusion of the data, by itself anyway. 4th most viewed of all time is a useful number: in fact, if you look, I did not take that statistic out with my edit. Although it is a primary source, it is sufficiently unbudging, and a unique statistic. I disagree that numbers as volatile as the ones in "Selected videography" contribute to notability. Numbers do not generally measure notability: that is conflating notability with importance. Notability is more closely related to notedness by reliable sources (rarely primary sources). In addition, some numbers are the result of unreliable synthesis between two primary sources, MySpace and YouTube. GracenotesT § 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be mistaken here but...The stats in "Selected videography" were supporting the ones that had been viewed over a million times and as a reference on the other videos that were listed because reliable sources had talked about them but to show that they also had an impressive number of views. Some numbers are the result of unreliable synthesis between two primary sources, MySpace and YouTube. - please explain how adding the number of views where the same video is posted is synthesis, is it simple math or am I missing something? Benjiboi 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, in fact, synthesis: combining two sources to create one datum. Simple math may not be sufficient: YouTube and MySpace could use a different algorithm for views, and I'll bet that a fair amount of individuals viewed both the MySpace video and the YouTube video, myself among them. While some other sources measure transient importance with primary data (and taking a look at some news articles, not too many do), Wikipedia uses something different entirely (notability), which is permanent. If reliable sources talk about views, that's a good start, but it's no reason to include views for nearly every single video mentioned in the article. GracenotesT § 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound right. If you want to find information that supports that the number of times the video has been viewed is faulty or, for some reason, the could use a different algorithm for views has any significant impact then please present them as this would help build a criticism section. The stats were added to the select videography section as those handful of videos (out of at least 60) were referenced by WP:RS and/or had over a million views supporting the Crocker had a cult following and was well onto his way of being a internet celebrity. WP should be giving a fair overview of the subject, not reducing him to the one item that most people know him for. Benjiboi 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree that they should be removed. That section is the main reason I added the  tag- it reads like a bragging list and does little to contribute to the article in a meaninful and third-party verifiable way. David Fuchs (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the original section (some may have since be deleted) was all completely referenced and was giving a depth of understanding of the history of his work. If he had only produced the Leave Britney Alone video it would be hard to defend him having an article and the article should focus only on that video instead. But he didn't do just that one, he's an artist who was developing a body of work and got major attention for one work in particular. WP should strive to show his life and work in context so the average reader can understand the subject and the reasoning for their inclusion here. Benjiboi 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also want to mention that I also see much of my work as preventative form the legions of Crocker's fans and detractors. I feel it's in our best interest as editors to have the article be as well-written as possible and showing a good faith effort to showing the subject of the article fairly and with due respect and criticism as appropriate. I feel if we do a good article the vandalism will be kept to a minimum as 1. people will actually read it and maybe learn something and 2. Feel their take on the subject is given due consideration so they won't need to add "he rocks" or "he sucks." If all goes well they'll simply learn something and move onto other articles. Benjiboi 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video statistics 

message: OK, it's past due for a criticism/detractors section. There must be a few print stories by now so if anyone sees something I would like to get a section in there asap. Also elsewhere in the talk discussions it's been suggested that view counts on YouTube and/or Myspace 1.Can be "cheated," 2. Aren't accurate, 3. Can't be seen as the same (A view of the same video on one does not equal one view on the other) so view totals can't be added together. The incest video would work well here and brings up that Crocker does delete videos although why can't be addressed completely without WP:RS. General criticisms about internet celebrity might also be appropriate. Also, the many parody/response videos of several of Crocker's - some were definitely complimentary while others definitely were not. Benjiboi 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using the stats directly from the videos is still the best option and where exactly would anyone else pull that info to report anyhow? And no one seems to dispute that the stats are only counting each time it's viewed rather than "unique views" but it's the same mechanism that counts every other video on the same site in the same manner. I still want to see criticism added but it does need to be referenced and added appropriately to not give undue weight, etc. The detractors probably wouldn't include the various comments although I bet those comments are quoted in WP:RS soon if not already. Benjiboi 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article might be useful (and not just for this instance): http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igKZgc8vMI5pqMemYBWYavdCmrbQ. It doesn't really have criticism of Chris Crocker per se, but in the first paragraph the writer does mention the obscene YouTube comments in the first paragraph. This may be a starting point. Keithbrooks 08:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! Done. Benjiboi 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think criticism related to his alleged use of a refresher will pop up in reliable sources for a long time, if ever.  YouTubers are always accusing each other of boosting stats; they can be a jealous, petty bunch.  If we are going to include a criticism section, it should probably contain references to things like the Richard Roeper piece.  Ichormosquito 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Benjiboi 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Update. I've added a criticism paragraph to the lede with basic responses and ref'd all of the statements. In looking at other bios it seems like "criticisms" and "controversies" sections are not recommended and that material is to be worked into a balanced article so I think this might be a good solution for the time being and certainly allows for improving and expansion as needed. Benjiboi 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I found a good ref that stated most of the parodies ridiculed Crocker which I added to that section. Benjiboi 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Criticism/detractors section 

message: Associated Press article: 
There are some good quotes in there.  Background info, too.  Anyway, it's another reliable source.  Houston Chronicle: It draws a weird connection to independent filmmaker Jonathan Caouette.  Regular editors here should pat themselves on the back; for further reading on Crocker, this reporter refers his readers to Wikipedia:  You get the idea.  There are an ungodly number of reliable sources now, 211 according to Google News.  Ichormosquito 06:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. both those articles have already been added but the mention of our article for more info is pretty cool. Benjiboi 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have you guys put these up yet? 

message: Can you please remove this page, it doesn't really show the best side of me..
thanks!
xxxxx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.220.2 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Crocker 

message: ===AOL News===
Benji, did you see the AOL News spoof commercial of Crocker/Tase Me Bro/Miss Teen South Carolina? -- ALLSTARecho 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, if the tops and bottoms conflict above ever gets resolved that would probably be a decent parody to include and it adds some relevance to other recent  youtube memes by comparison. Benjiboi 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is no longer there, if it appears elsewhere or on YouTube I'd be willing to be someone will repost. Benjiboi 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just saw it, and if you ask me it perfectly demonstrates the kind of flash-in-the-pan internet memes that do not generally deserve articles on Wikipedia. OK, perhaps the taser incident has some long-term notability, but Chris Crocker's 15 minutes are long since up, and I don't think the Miss Teen South Carolina girl was ever notable in the first place. I look forward to the day when these articles are deleted, and Wikipedia gets a policy on Internetcruft to stop this sort of thing appearing over and over again. Terraxos (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is hereby noted. You may consider that many memes do, in fact, go onto other successes so we're to write about what is verifiable not our wishes or aspirations. If Crocker does nothing else he'll simply be that guy and wikipedia will have a decent reffed article for anyone who bothers to look him up. Same as all the rest. Benjiboi 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Although he is generating less interest ever since the Britney video, you can see here that this wikipedia page is still getting at least 2,000 visitors daily, indicating that there is a lasting interest in Chris that is more than simply a meme. I would say that even before the britney video, chris may have deserved a page in wikipedia... he was already getting media attention and a lot of buzz months before the britney video, and being on jimmy kimmel, etc. with articles like this one. There is also much institutional bias, and I believe that there will be some articles in the coming months about youtube.com as a vehicle for censorship, possibly using chris's case and others as examples. Flying Hamster (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This story can be bundled with it. Benjiboi 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And this one that rehashes the content of the one above but with a newer intro about how Time Magazine voted his Britney video best of 2007. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ellen_DeGeneres#Puppy_drama FYI. Benjiboi 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory derives from a panel from Penny Arcade written 19 March 2004. Commenting on gamers' unsociable tendencies while playing online games such as Unreal Tournament, it states basically that "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad".[John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory New York University adjunct professor Clay Shirky, who studies social and economic effects of Internet technologies explains "There’s a large crowd and you can act out in front of it without paying any personal price to your reputation,” which "creates conditions most likely to draw out the typical Internet user’s worst impulses". In an Advocate article about online homophobia, this theory was used to account for online forums where one can remain anonymous and do so in front of an audience, for instance, posting comments on popular YouTube videos.
Documenting for possible use. Banjeboi 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible content and sources 

message: Benji, did you see the AOL News spoof commercial of Crocker/Tase Me Bro/Miss Teen South Carolina? -- ALLSTARecho 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, if the tops and bottoms conflict above ever gets resolved that would probably be a decent parody to include and it adds some relevance to other recent  youtube memes by comparison. Benjiboi 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is no longer there, if it appears elsewhere or on YouTube I'd be willing to be someone will repost. Benjiboi 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just saw it, and if you ask me it perfectly demonstrates the kind of flash-in-the-pan internet memes that do not generally deserve articles on Wikipedia. OK, perhaps the taser incident has some long-term notability, but Chris Crocker's 15 minutes are long since up, and I don't think the Miss Teen South Carolina girl was ever notable in the first place. I look forward to the day when these articles are deleted, and Wikipedia gets a policy on Internetcruft to stop this sort of thing appearing over and over again. Terraxos (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is hereby noted. You may consider that many memes do, in fact, go onto other successes so we're to write about what is verifiable not our wishes or aspirations. If Crocker does nothing else he'll simply be that guy and wikipedia will have a decent reffed article for anyone who bothers to look him up. Same as all the rest. Benjiboi 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Although he is generating less interest ever since the Britney video, you can see here that this wikipedia page is still getting at least 2,000 visitors daily, indicating that there is a lasting interest in Chris that is more than simply a meme. I would say that even before the britney video, chris may have deserved a page in wikipedia... he was already getting media attention and a lot of buzz months before the britney video, and being on jimmy kimmel, etc. with articles like this one. There is also much institutional bias, and I believe that there will be some articles in the coming months about youtube.com as a vehicle for censorship, possibly using chris's case and others as examples. Flying Hamster (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This story can be bundled with it. Benjiboi 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AOL News

message: Thank's to Allstarecho for spotting this! Possible source. Benjiboi 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this one that rehashes the content of the one above but with a newer intro about how Time Magazine voted his Britney video best of 2007. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Crocker 

message: Needs transcribing -  Benjiboi 12:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access Hollywood interview 

message: *YouTube comes out by Neal Santos, The Temple News, Issue date: 1/22/08. 
Discusses Crocker and Sledd. Benjiboi 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube as a vehicle for [[coming out]] 

message: * The year in YouTube: The good, the bad and the hilarious By Ted Cox | Daily Herald 27 December 2007. References the SpongeBob SquarePants video here.
And now the circle is complete. Benjiboi 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG! SpongeBob SquarePants parody! 

message: Catch a Falling Diva: Britney Spears Learned from the Best Article Date: 01/10/2008, By Dylan Vox.
Might be something useful in here. Benjiboi 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GayWired.com article about gay icons 

message: *Tops of the past year, according to YouTube by Ellen Lee, San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, December 28, 2007.
"One of the top videos was the pathetic "Leave Britney Alone" wail, made by Chris Crocker, which has been played on television ad nauseam, including on VH1." Benjiboi 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Leave Britney Alone'' played on VH1 

message: * Pop culture spent '07 in rehab and jail: Fame came to some who wept or flaunted big hair By TOM MAURSTAD, Dec. 30, 2007.
"Without further ado, here's the Pop Culture Top 10 List:
1. Cry me a river
A new form of voyeuristic entertainment involving people engaged in a deeply personal physical act on camera - crying - is hot stuff, sort of like pornography, only with groans of despair rather than pleasure.
CHRIS CROCKER IS A GAYLORD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.170.118 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ellen_DeGeneres#Puppy_drama FYI. Benjiboi 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture Top 10 List of Milwaukee's Journal-Sentinel 

message: :John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory derives from a panel from Penny Arcade written 19 March 2004. Commenting on gamers' unsociable tendencies while playing online games such as Unreal Tournament, it states basically that "Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad".[John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory New York University adjunct professor Clay Shirky, who studies social and economic effects of Internet technologies explains "There’s a large crowd and you can act out in front of it without paying any personal price to your reputation,” which "creates conditions most likely to draw out the typical Internet user’s worst impulses". In an Advocate article about online homophobia, this theory was used to account for online forums where one can remain anonymous and do so in front of an audience, for instance, posting comments on popular YouTube videos.
Documenting for possible use. Banjeboi 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory