Talk:Cara Cunningham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Howard Stern

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.[1] Ichormosquito 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Benjiboi 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate this guy

God I hate this guy. orangekubrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangekubrick (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 88.107.105.224 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

It is being used for more important things. It is also being used for this. --Tyrfing 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Class Action?

I've been wondering: has Britney ever cared about gay people that much?

Or, has Britney become such that, only gay people care about her that much?

I think he (it) is looking for an idol to become very emotionally attached to, and it so happens to be Britany Spears. With the power of this world wide telephone called the internet, it is very easy for it to make a scene. One day it will find that dominant male companion to obsess over, and forget about Brit.

He is Pretty

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)

additional leads from AfD discussion

• • 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)

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)

Wow.

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)

Zeitgeist

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)

As far as I can tell, Crocker has better sources. Zeitgeist will get an article in time. Ichormosquito 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A message to this article's editors

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)

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)

...not if he keeps getting coverage. Look what happened to Tay Zonday. Ichormosquito 03:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete this

This is not worthy of being on wikipedia, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michfan2123 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm unsigned and all, but this "person" reeks of e-celebrity and is undeserving of notability. It's all a sham for attention. Delete this, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.162.140 (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please delete as soon as possible. This sullies WP's reputation. We can't go and give every YouTube crackpot their own page. His internet "episodes" consist of nothing more than a locked off shot of a talking head. There's no production value, really no effort put into it. He is not notable for anything besides these clips. I believe that the standard of notability should be set higher for internet phenomena. Just because he's mentioned once or twice somewhere in the massive world of media is insufficient.Armandtanzarian 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to discuss your reasons for deletion here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Crocker_%28Britney_Spears_Fan%29 Keithbrooks 09:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, This Chris Cockup character is about as notable as what I had for lunch last week. Comradeash 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The result for this article was no consensus. The administrator said the page was getting too long and that many of the arguments weren't valid: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Crocker_%28internet_celebrity%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbrooks (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just a new lonelygirl15

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 [2]. Also, his MySpace profile [3] 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)

Future plans comic strip in Seattle's Stranger

have you seen this already benjiboy? [4] part of these sketches on video [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC) it's a follow up to that article about Chris on the stranger. tell me what u think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that, I was able to use two great quotes from there which is nice.Benjiboi 15:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So far..

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)

You should say this at the AfD. Ichormosquito 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cheers, thank you for pointing that out. Benjiboi 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Viral video?

I get the impression (and so I suppose this OPINION is just that, an opinion, something POV) that this guy's video is notable, but HE himself is not. Why not focus the article more on the video and less on the kid that made it? Because I couldn't find an article on the video; instead, this guy's article pops up. The point of that last statement is that I know the name of the video which is ALL OVER, but I don't know the kid's name. Why no article on "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE"? I also believe that more people know the name of his videos than HIS name. Does this warrant a longer look? I say delete his article and put up one regarding his viral videos. Zebraic 05:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think, however, that the same information would be in each just like an newer music artist has information about their bio, career and first albums in the same article. If the article grows substantially to justify making a spinoff article then it's split with each referencing each other. Benjiboi 22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that spin-off articles for his videos should be created, I'm saying that the notability and phenomenon of his "work" (distraught videos over Britney Spears) certainly supersedes the notability of the person himself. Thus the article should be primarily about the videos, and not the person. I think that it should be deleted and rebuilt. Otherwise we have a double standard here on Wikipedia, as displayed in the example of goatse.cx. With the Goatse article, the person's work (ie, horrifying pictures of a overly-stretched sphincter and their subsequent website) is the entire focus of the article, while the person himself is not mentioned by name. And yet, there is verifiable evidence that his name is known and that he is certainly notable, internet-wise, for his photograph(s). Witness a piece of discussion from the Goatse article:

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [6]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source:

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
<P>The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you! </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><HR><P ALIGN="CENTER">
<a title="download picture" target="_blank" href="goatse.htm"><IMG SRC="http://www.goatse.cz/hello.jpg" WIDTH="480" HEIGHT="360" ALT="stinger" BORDER="0"></a> 
<BR></P><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+3"><I><P>IMPORTANT NOTE: There are many merchandising attempts for goatse.cx 
around the web-- none of them are real, none of them are official. Do not buy this gimmick merchandise. 
The official goatse.cx merchandise is coming soon! </P></I></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><A HREF="giver.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ the giver ]</font></A> 
<A HREF="mail.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ feedback ]</font></A> 
<A HREF="contrib.html" style="text-decoration: none"><font color="#000000">[ contrib ]</font></A> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><br>*<a style="text-decoration: none" title="leaving this site..." href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><font color="#000000">urinalpoop</font></a>* <br>*<a style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><font color="#000000">dolphinsex</font></a>* </P><HR></FONT><script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
 </BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [7] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo ^Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Kirk Johnson" and "goatse" and you'll see evidence that the "Goatse photograph" is of Kirk Johnson, and yet, despite the research done by AAA!' (AAAA), as well as Goatse's identity being "known" (as much as anyone's identity can be know on the internet), the Goatse Wikipedia article does not mention him by name. How is Kirk Johnson any less notable than Chris Crocker? I'd say he's not. But it doesn't matter: Goatse guy (and many others) is known by his "work" on the internet, as is Chris Crocker. Delete Crocker's name and make the article about his viral videos. The videos, not the person, are what's significant culturally. Zebraic 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly disagree and have no huge interest in wading through the above example. What you have demonstrated though is that the article is in need of regular editing to explain that his work is not confined to the one video for which he is presently most notable. That is already in process even over the past few days so I don't see a big issue there. Also a point of information, his videos don't center on Britney Spears as much as gay culture of which Spears is one subject. He's made over 60 videos and I haven't (nor do I plan) to watch them all but even a quick review shows that they cover a range of topics well beyond the Spears one. Benjiboi 05:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a personal investment in this article? It'd only be fair to be honest about whether you do or not. I do not, so it doesn't matter to me. I'm arguing purely for academic reasons, so do not take it personally. I write that only to clarify. I think you are missing my point. Another question I think that should be asked about your above example: Is Chris Crocker notable for those other videos you've mentioned? What gets the most press? Is he notable for his videos themed around gay and lesbian culture? I'm just asking. But we both know the answer. Let me ask you another question: Who is Martian Manhunter? Zebraic 08:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no more investment in this article than any others I find compelling to work on although I certainly can empathize to his story. I think I did catch your point - you think the article should be on the one video instead of the person who created - I strongly disagree but understand why you feel that way.

Crocker is notable for his body of work but the development of that material has yet to materialize although I think it won't be too long before several of his more notable videos (many having over a million views each) will soon be worked into the article. I think we'll see a combination of two factors over the next year or two; internet celebs like Tila Tequila and Jeffree Star will find some measure of success that echoes that of what Paris Hilton achieved and Crocker himself will work to capitalize on the fame he has to escape his hometown and struggle to reinvent himself as his creativity was fed by the oppressive surroundings. I think that gay and lesbian subjects are taboo and get more attention from the public, when Tatu were found not to be lesbian lovers their career pretty much ended. Martian Manhunter? Don't know but hopefully the article will spell it out. Benjiboi 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Martian Manhunter="LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!"; Joe Certa="Chris Crocker". That is to say, notability of a creation > its creator in many cases. This article is a case of that. Rename it "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" or something along those lines, and rewrite it with a focus on what is more notable; ie, the videos. And I really don't care about Tilla Tiquilla or other 'internet celebrities' either way.Edit: It's not so much a judgment as it is a fact that this society values vanity on a level that would, on an individual level, be considered irrational. I know that people will get famous off of flash with no substance; it's the way it works. But I've put in my two cents' worth on this particle discussion and I'm done. I'm not talking about this kid anymore. I have other things I need to be doing. Zebraic 10:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flamboyant links

there's about 100 articles with a link to 'flamboyant'. 50 were about the architectural style, 10 for the tree species, and 40 about the human characteristic. the first 2 are legitimate cuz they have their own articles. but the last one doesnt. i've spent all night removing 'flamboyant' links where the context is about the human characteristic. but this article and elton john's are locked. yall can argue/fuss/fight about whether to delete this article or not. but im an architecture afficionado, and i dont want this, or elton's, article to be listed in the "Flamboyant" article's "What Links Here" page. whoever's in charge of the lock/unlock, admin or syops, remove these two 'flamboyant' links. 4.230.162.92 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, actually flamboyant is certainly a characteristic that is and should be used to describe people and your edits, I think, were well-intentioned but mistaken. Instead the flamboyant article should have been amended to include a link to a disambiguous page where it would explain that flamboyant "can also refer to a person who" etc. Benjiboi 11:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've wikilinked flamboyant to flaming and referenced on that page the adjective use of flamboyant, flamer and flaming. The subject should get it's own article but I don't have time at the moment. Benjiboi 12:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"well-intentioned but mistaken"? go thru all my 200 wiki edits (english, spanish, french, german, dutch, and many others), you'll find no mistaken edits. including this one. why are there so many links to 'flamboyant' floating around in the first place? that makes as much sense as linking 'round' as a characteristic of a ball. type 'round', and you get articles about music, geometry, sports, and none about the adjective. in fact the entry about the adjective for a ball only lists 'sphere' and other nouns as articles. flamboyant (the characteristic) is just a simple adjective, it doesnt need its own encyclopedia article. you might as well have created 100,000 new articles for all the adjectives in the english language. but if you're bent on putting a link to 'flamboyant' and having a note up top telling people of 'flaming', at least do it the correct way.

first: you should have directed Crocker's article to point directly to 'flaming' with the 'flaming|flamboyant' code. this will remove it off the Flamboyant's "What Links Here" page, cuz Crocker doesnt need to be listed there. im sure years from now some other newbies will re-add more of these incorrect 'flamboyant' links, so eliminating the ones we have right now is the best decision.

second: you didnt take care of Crocker, and you absolutely didnt take care of Jeffree Star or Hector Camacho. Crocker, Elton and Star are 3 people in the "GLBT" department. Camacho isnt, but he's also listed in the "What Links Here" page. i edited his article, but seconds afterwards someone got the idea to re-link the incorrect link. and you didnt even touch Star's article. which means to me you didnt take a look at that "WLH" page to see what else needs fixing. a simple run-down will show you Star, Crocker and Camacho.

third: the comment you posted on ZFGokuSSJ1's dicussion page didnt help much. you told him the 'flamboyant' link directs to 'flaming' which isnt 100% accurate. the 'flamboyant' article only provides an extra link someone has to search for to get to their intended destination. Elton's page should point directly to 'flaming' using the code i mentioned earlier.

fourth: Elton's page still has a link to 'flamboyant'. but he's not listed in the "WLH" page. instead, ZFGokuSSJ1 (or someone else) must have just somehow blanked his name from showing up on the list. if i do a "find" using Windows i can find Star, Camacho and Crocker. but my Windows crashes if i search 'elton' or 'john'. which means he/someone only blanked Elton's article from showing up on the list. that's the same as sweeping dust under the rug and saying you just vacuumed. its not a 100% clean up, and its not even a correct clean up.

do me a favor, look at 'flamboyant's "WLH" page, and elminate all articles that dont need to be there. use direct links to 'flaming', point A to point B. not giving them a middle-man, point A to B to C. or else i'll just bring this item up on the WikiProject:GLBT and WikiProject:Biographies as i told the user who re-linked Hector Camacho's article. 4.230.153.169 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your impassioned view on this but I do feel you're going a bit overboard. Camacho perhaps does and or is perceived to be flamboyant as certainly is Elton, Star and Crocker. The use of the word as an adjective in this way goes back years and has been a code-word for gay for a long time but certainly does not definitively mean that. Before we postulate too many conspiracy theories I'll take a look and see if something else (besides creating a new article) needs to be done. Benjiboi 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, quick update. My prior work actually seems fine. If anyone does go to the flamboyant the "other uses" tag at the top refers to flaming which is correct. Both Elton John and Crocker article say flamboyant but wikilink to flaming which is also correct. I've wikilinked Camacho and Star articles as well. Benjiboi 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Update part 2. OK, I've re=read your comments and I want to clarify a few things. I'm a volunteer here and not in charge of all things LGBT. I think all my work on this flaming concern was correct and will hold up ... as "flamboyant" is widely use to describe people and their behaviors[8]. In fact, It seems like flamboyant should be an index article pointing to Flamboyant (architecture) and Flamboyant (gay slang) so all the architecture articles correctly point to one and the gay slang ones point to the other. Benjiboi 16:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Chris Crocker a video director and actor?

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)

Yes. Or at least qualify them somehow.--Proper tea is theft 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I find the new version well written and satisfying. Thanks. --CutterX 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious, no?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Videography videos to be included

Per my statement above I suggest we embark on a process to add other notable 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 inclusion now as I think soon he'll have many over the million mark). Benjiboi 23:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This & that. posted December 28, 2006 to Myspace; runtime: 0:47; Views: 2,428,749

• and February 25, 2007 to YouTube; Views: 1,305,422

• Bitch, please! posted December 29, 2006 to Myspace; runtime: 0:45; Views: 1,289,803

• and February 25, 2007 to YouTube; Views: 1,502,002

• Watch it. posted January 24, 2007 to Myspace; runtime: 1:25; Views: 1,225,380

• Chris Crocker - Britney, this is for you. posted September 03, 2007; Views: 1,180,481

Loser alert

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)

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)

leads for article content

If there's to be an article about this guy, it should probably start to cover all the information he's made available about himself on YouTube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.85.112 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Although that information is useful it's also autobiographical which is problematic. Feel free to add or suggest items you feel are appropriate.Benjiboi 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I swore that i would never write a Britney related article.. but seeing this on the frontpage of www.news.com.au - I just couldn't resist. Please note, I have sourced the article appropriately and notability has been asserted by the coverage by multiple reliable sources. Fosnez 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's notable, as it's been on Fox News, CNN, The Age, TMZ, and God knows what else. The man has made a tear-stained legend out of himself. I do think it may be worth cleaning up the article a bit/expanding some. dethtoll 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to add stuff from here, as well: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=232684 Ichormosquito 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And here: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3592492&page=1 Ichormosquito 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE Raw parodied the Chris Crocker Video on this week's addition. Santino Marella mocked Brittany Spears recent comeback concert and Jillian Hall responded to that by speaking in similar words to Crocker: "Leave Brittany Alone!" ANd Marella couldn't believe he masturbated to her. The next day, Crocker criticized wrestling probably because of this parody. source: http://www.wwe.com

Hilarious and interesting but maybe not quite encyclopedic - yet. If other mainstream media sources report on this it potentially could be used or if for some reason the article greatly expands because the parodies and tribute videos become their own stories then this definitely speaks to that. Benjiboi 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts

(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)

• Comments on talk pages should be limited to discussion of the article and the contents of the article, not our personal opinions thereof. If you have a verifiable source for what you're asserting please add it to the article with reference. Benjiboi 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• You need to register to edit (the article) and if you do edit, ensure it's verifiable information as anything questionable is likely to be deleted even if it's true.Benjiboi 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Did he make this page himself?75.138.169.137GenEriK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.169.137 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Nowhere in the reference given (i think it's number 3) it says that Chris Crocker was actually born in Atlanta. I think this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll check it out. Benjiboi 22:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Based in Tennessee seems fine for now. Benjiboi 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Legions of Fans reference (4th one down I think) Benjiboi 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboy, I just found out Chris Crocker has been on the Tricities studio of FOX to record a via satelitte interview for Access Hollywood. You can watch the local news showing him in the studio here - http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=D_RRJo7aal0 hope this may help. tell me what u think. ah, this is also another evidence that he really lives in the tricities area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Who cares about 9/11?"

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)

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)

"Part 1" and "Part 2"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --linca^linca 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No one is served well by bad information being perpetuated by wp. Benjiboi 11:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset, OK, other videos have been added. I left pt 1 and 2 where they are but added some buffering text to help make they point that they related but separate videos. Pt 2 is going up the charts like gang busters BTW. Benjiboi 10:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do No Harm and reasons to leave out Crocker's private info (for now at least)

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 -

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

— Jimmy Wales

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)

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. --linca^linca 11:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Result of Deletion

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)

• 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)

It doesn't matter, AFDs aren't closed weak keep or weak delete, it's a no consensus because there was good argruements in both sides, and that cancels out thus no consensus is formed. True, there is more in the keep side, but the debate wasn't all keep agruements. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

POV Edits

I tried to tone this article down from the promotion piece it currently is. Personally I think half of this article should be removed as it is just promotion. I think this article belongs as currently notable but just doesn't merit this kind of detail. For instance, I really don't think a summary on all these videos is really necessary.

To me it was simply to give context of his work, and some information on what millions of people are watching, instead of listing the 60+ videos I focused on the few mentioned in reliable sources and those that had over a million views. Benjiboi 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That aside I made the following changes:

Hidden location, identity, death threats, etc.

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)

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)

"Shot to the top of YouTube", "chart-topping"

That's commentary, I changed it to "was among the most popular". Same thing with "chart-topping", there is no "chart" at YouTube, they keep lists of popular videos and those lists vary by however you search it. I could have the "chart-topping" rabid squirrel video if I wanted to narrow my search like that. It's been one of their most popular videos as late, my change reflects that.

Agree with more neutral language. Strong disagree regarding there is no "chart" at YouTube. He, in fact is rapidly climbing to be one of the most viewed and most subscribed channels of all time in all categories and is referenced as such. The refs providing for each assertion go directly to the search and show that no special search mechanism was used to put him at the top. Benjiboi

Isolation In Bible Belt, etc

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)

"Heartfelt"

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)

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)

Protection

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)

New reliable source from Variety confirming TV deal

So much for this article's getting deleted: [9]. Ichormosquito 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Earl Annie Edna videos

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)

more content from stranger article

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)

Good Work

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)

Keep the faith! Benjiboi 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

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)

• Got one, CC-BY-3.0 -- Zanimum 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• It was the best I could do at the time. Thanks for taking care of it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all! Benjiboi 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cheating"

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)

• Here's one such video. Unfortunately, we can't source conjecture. Ichormosquito 09:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Video statistics

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. Gracenotes^T § 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Certainly; a good of example of this is "Within the first 24 hours of its posting, the video had accumulated over 2 million views." Gracenotes^T § 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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. Gracenotes^T § 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Gracenotes^T § 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Agree that they should be removed. That section is the main reason I added the {{ad}} 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)

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)

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)

Need Criticism/detractors section

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)

• I think the concern over the stats is a non-issue. Firstly, whether or not he "cheats" the hits has not been proven. Secondly, the media reported all kinds of stats so if the stats were on the news, I don't see why they can't be included, at least to the degree that they were reported. Example: Maury Show, Maury said it was viewed over 4 million times. That is definitely worth including. However, the stats directly from the video page is questionable. I use FireFox and an add-on called CookieSafe. I delete cookies all the time. So when I go back there and watch a video, it counts as a new hit. As for detractors, I would be against including any of the idiots that have posted videos promoting Chris' harm/death. Amazing how sick people have been on the comments on his YouTube and MySpace pages. Sad. Very sad. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Perfect! Done. Benjiboi 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Done. Benjiboi 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Have you guys put these up yet?

Associated Press article:[10] There are some good quotes in there. Background info, too. Anyway, it's another reliable source. Houston Chronicle:[11] 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:[12] 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)

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)

Chris Crocker

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)

Possible content and sources

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) 01. That weblink does not seem to connect to anyhing specific. 02. My machine is not really set to watch it anyhow, I do not have the audio, et-al. 03. Do you mean Lauren Caitlin Upton looking for "such that" "South Africa & Iraq" & Andrew William Meyer? < http://google.com/search?q=%22lauren+caitlin+upton%22+%22%22+%22andrew+meyer%22+%22chris+crocker%22++aol++ >. [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) 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) Here it is again. -- ALLSTARecho 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) This story can be bundled with it. Benjiboi 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Interview with Crocker Thank's to Allstarecho for spotting this! Possible source. Benjiboi 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 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) Access Hollywood interview Needs transcribing - [13] Benjiboi 12:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) YouTube as a vehicle for coming out 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) OMG! SpongeBob SquarePants parody! 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) GayWired.com article about gay icons 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) Leave Britney Alone played on VH1 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) Pop Culture Top 10 List of Milwaukee's Journal-Sentinel 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) Call it sobography. First there was Chris Crocker, the young man who became a YouTube sensation by videotaping himself tearfully pleading for everyone to "Leave Britney alone!" Then it was Ellen DeGeneres opening a show in October by breaking down and tearing up over the misadventures of finding a new home for her adopted dog, Iggy." Benjiboi 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Ellen_DeGeneres#Puppy_drama FYI. Benjiboi 04:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory 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". 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)