Talk:Mark Weigle

message: :Image:Markweigle5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Markweigle5.jpg

message: ===Equable labels v. Labeling which minimizes===
"Mark Weigle is a gay singer/songwriter..." - This eponymous article began with this phrase before I got my byte on. I argue this endemic use of Identity politics tends to minimize the accomplishment of the artist as well as perhaps any human struggle. We should all be alarmed by America's willingness to marginalize- everyone! Not only the minority view, but the individual per se is suspect under the gentrified, "post-racist" exploitation of the Obama Generation₢.
Identity politics aside, Weigle is first a voice, a strong one- just a human, with a career. That career includes a persona as a singer/songwriter who gives voice to personal experience. So- Does this make him a professional "singer" or a professional "gay" who regardless of objective content inherently sings and writes about gayness?
And if the latter does this means he's a corporate pet- a queer man who serves or "passes" as artist for cliques? 
Or maybe he's nobody's pet, but gay-separatist, an artist who ignores, refuses or attacks any straight audience...?
All that is possible; but is it even allowable in the post-deconstructed market that the artist's life is like everyone else's?
That Weigle is simply another of out era's artists; and despite the topicality of his songs, that his personal life is actually background? 
Or is that now impossible? 
Are Marketing and Positioning and Demographics paramount and political-alignment essential in our appreciation of artists- because we perceive they, like Weigle, are just so aggro out- the paragon of our own projections of political correctness?
Some argue that everything a gay artist does is peculiarly oriented 
due to inherently politicized sexuality; 
a necessary reaction against straight dominance and oppression.
In a large way, this seems vital.
And in a way this minimizes gay creativity everywhere as "mere reaction"- as distinguished from "reflection", or even some "seminal" "originality" within genres.
Does this reactive 'gay' describe the artists behind the canons of Michaelangelo and da Vinci? 
Perhaps. Or-
Instead of trying to contain a life- career, creativity and sexuality- with labels,
could the 'gay' label rather better describe a demographic market sector of every audience-
Even Rush Limbaugh's audience?
Another example:
There was not long ago another music-marketing label called "Race music". Also at the same time America enjoyed the singer Paul Robeson, the multi-talented artist sometimes called a statesman... a fellow with a "Negro" heritage.
And Robeson worked to make us aware he was primarily, significantly & merely Human above all other classifications.
Baggage such as belief or position came along later in his promulgated view.
So what had color to do with Robeson's artistic acceptance? 
In the USA- maybe just everything.
But in the more civilized countries of Europe? Likely nothing.
Robeson was as generally respected in Russia as he was in the USA.
What was often noted though in the world press was how Robeson survived and succeeded despite being an American Negro. 
Robeson was a survivor of not only the general & vicious persecution of his class.
Later as he appreciated our planet's politics- he became the focus of personal attacks.
Robeson was a victim of our governments most extreme forms of fraud and violence at a time when these were utterly unchecked,
notoriously & relentlessly persecuted by those in power as a class  enemy- for his radical-populist presentations and Communist associations.
He didn't live to receive any apology. Yet typically, few contemporaries- and no-one today- would label Robeson as the "Persecuted FBI Victim-Artist", a "Communist Singer", a "Famed Negro Bass"- no more than diva Aretha can be limited to race as the "Negro Diva"!
That anachronism could be insulting today; and only the kind of extremist who'd want to minimize the success of these greats would consider this.
Today Robeson can be recalled by many members of society as greatness incarnate- a beloved artist, a winner at many levels- a man of wide and embracing principles.
His art transcends the problems of societies.
At the same time, he is known as a humanitarian who was visited with frightening personal suffering for his profound convictions.
Humanity is a continuum of sexuality, race, class- any human qualification you can name has it's spectrum of qualities- within other spectra...
In any encyclopedic appreciation of personal notability, the most general notable characteristics (including career) should appear earlier;
Careerist and Marketing classifications should appear later.
I argue Weigle's success is not dependent on one demographic or any particular orientation but that these are incidental.
Weigle is a writer and performer- & unless we're categorizing his audience demographics, he is not necessarily a "gay performer/writer". 
I feel we shouldnt minimize our arts or our artists. 
We will be known for ourselves. 
We are strong. 
We are people.
Hilarleo (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity politics & the 'Gay' Artist-

message: "Mark Weigle is a gay singer/songwriter..." - This eponymous article began with this phrase before I got my byte on. I argue this endemic use of Identity politics tends to minimize the accomplishment of the artist as well as perhaps any human struggle. We should all be alarmed by America's willingness to marginalize- everyone! Not only the minority view, but the individual per se is suspect under the gentrified, "post-racist" exploitation of the Obama Generation₢.
Identity politics aside, Weigle is first a voice, a strong one- just a human, with a career. That career includes a persona as a singer/songwriter who gives voice to personal experience. So- Does this make him a professional "singer" or a professional "gay" who regardless of objective content inherently sings and writes about gayness?
And if the latter does this means he's a corporate pet- a queer man who serves or "passes" as artist for cliques? 
Or maybe he's nobody's pet, but gay-separatist, an artist who ignores, refuses or attacks any straight audience...?
All that is possible; but is it even allowable in the post-deconstructed market that the artist's life is like everyone else's?
That Weigle is simply another of out era's artists; and despite the topicality of his songs, that his personal life is actually background? 
Or is that now impossible? 
Are Marketing and Positioning and Demographics paramount and political-alignment essential in our appreciation of artists- because we perceive they, like Weigle, are just so aggro out- the paragon of our own projections of political correctness?
Some argue that everything a gay artist does is peculiarly oriented 
due to inherently politicized sexuality; 
a necessary reaction against straight dominance and oppression.
In a large way, this seems vital.
And in a way this minimizes gay creativity everywhere as "mere reaction"- as distinguished from "reflection", or even some "seminal" "originality" within genres.
Does this reactive 'gay' describe the artists behind the canons of Michaelangelo and da Vinci? 
Perhaps. Or-
Instead of trying to contain a life- career, creativity and sexuality- with labels,
could the 'gay' label rather better describe a demographic market sector of every audience-
Even Rush Limbaugh's audience?
Another example:
There was not long ago another music-marketing label called "Race music". Also at the same time America enjoyed the singer Paul Robeson, the multi-talented artist sometimes called a statesman... a fellow with a "Negro" heritage.
And Robeson worked to make us aware he was primarily, significantly & merely Human above all other classifications.
Baggage such as belief or position came along later in his promulgated view.
So what had color to do with Robeson's artistic acceptance? 
In the USA- maybe just everything.
But in the more civilized countries of Europe? Likely nothing.
Robeson was as generally respected in Russia as he was in the USA.
What was often noted though in the world press was how Robeson survived and succeeded despite being an American Negro. 
Robeson was a survivor of not only the general & vicious persecution of his class.
Later as he appreciated our planet's politics- he became the focus of personal attacks.
Robeson was a victim of our governments most extreme forms of fraud and violence at a time when these were utterly unchecked,
notoriously & relentlessly persecuted by those in power as a class  enemy- for his radical-populist presentations and Communist associations.
He didn't live to receive any apology. Yet typically, few contemporaries- and no-one today- would label Robeson as the "Persecuted FBI Victim-Artist", a "Communist Singer", a "Famed Negro Bass"- no more than diva Aretha can be limited to race as the "Negro Diva"!
That anachronism could be insulting today; and only the kind of extremist who'd want to minimize the success of these greats would consider this.
Today Robeson can be recalled by many members of society as greatness incarnate- a beloved artist, a winner at many levels- a man of wide and embracing principles.
His art transcends the problems of societies.
At the same time, he is known as a humanitarian who was visited with frightening personal suffering for his profound convictions.
Humanity is a continuum of sexuality, race, class- any human qualification you can name has it's spectrum of qualities- within other spectra...
In any encyclopedic appreciation of personal notability, the most general notable characteristics (including career) should appear earlier;
Careerist and Marketing classifications should appear later.
I argue Weigle's success is not dependent on one demographic or any particular orientation but that these are incidental.
Weigle is a writer and performer- & unless we're categorizing his audience demographics, he is not necessarily a "gay performer/writer". 
I feel we shouldnt minimize our arts or our artists. 
We will be known for ourselves. 
We are strong. 
We are people.
Hilarleo (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Equable labels v. Labeling which minimizes