Jump to content

Talk:Cara Cunningham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RenamedUser jaskldjslak904 (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 19 September 2007 (→Result of Deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. 2007 - present

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Delete this article

Not notable, nobody cares about this sexually confused moron. By keeping this article up, you are only feeding its attention whore disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.77.59 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chris Crocker

FYI: Chris Crocker is a real guy from Tennessee. There are probably at least a thousand people who remember him on AOL when he was about 13, running an e-zine; I am one of those people. He's always been extremely flamboyant, he's always pushed the envelope, and he has always had a distinct crowd of people either loving him or hating him. If there's one thing I wish I could yell out about this kid, it's that he DEFINITELY isn't another "lonelygirl15." He'd been stirring up controversy on the Internet for several YEARS before he became well known on YouTube. -- laura.kathleen@gmail.com adding sig to unsigned commentUser:71.68.41.120

Please provide references and add information about his early career to the article or add a link here for interested editors who would like to research the information. Benjiboi 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please give us sources on this. Otherwise, claiming that he is not a phony in the manner that you have is essentially original research. Many people have claimed familiarity with the legitimacy of "Chris Crocker", but I haven't seen one who's cited tangible, credible sources. Zebraic 04:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is hard to provide sources of an e-zine that existed several years ago. That'd take some serious digging on my oldest PC, if in fact my Personal Filing Cabinet on AOL still exists. But the article by TheStranger does reference the same zine and same topics. Short of resurrecting a computer that's 5+ years old, I don't see how I can prove his previous online identity. The most I could tell you is that the most recent version of that zine was "Mizundastood," sometime around the last time P!NK released a CD. -- laura.kathleen@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.41.120 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a good start. The article doesn't have to go into excessive details on something that is likely to be considered a piece of his early history. How long was the zine(s) around, what were the subjects/issues, was it all his work, a collective effort? Did it come out quarterly, monthly, weekly, etc? Pretend you're just trying to bring a friend up to speed on what it was might help. Benjiboi 10:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing -- it was mostly just a journal of sorts. The problems with his grandmother have been going on for YEARS. There was a lot of controversy regarding his online relationship with Angel, and a lot of people thought he was making a stupid choice in getting involved in an online, long-distance relationship. Chris actually wrote pretty decently for his age, but he was a very "in your face" sort of guy. A lot of people criticized him because of the racy photos he would post from time to time; even more so when he went through a "pop punk" sort of phase. People called him a "poser." Around the time that he sent out his e-zine, there was a huge presence on AOL of "the zine world." It was mostly pre-teens and teens. Chris was the last of an era of the "good editors" that put forth an effort to make a semi-professional impact on the ZW. Around the time he "left" the "zine world," the popularity of the e-zine had dwindled and now it has a tiny presence in AOL's community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.41.120 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

incestuous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2gID5bpXAU Since there's debate as to whether or not he's even worth talking about or if he's authentic I thought I'd leave the question of his supposed incest for the wikipedia editors, or whether you even think it's wiki-worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.248.195 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's on record saying that many of his videos are acts and categorizes his YouTube channel under "Art". There's no telling what's real and what's not with him. We should probably wait on the incest stuff until the news media mentions it. Ichormosquito 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the Stranger article: "We talk about his boyfriends ("At least I got to use him as a prop for a while," he says of a recent one, who pretended to be Chris's brother in a video spoof on gay-brother incest)."--Proper tea is theft 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There we have it, then. Ichormosquito 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really wouldn't take his word at face value for anything, but that's me being cautious. I'm not saying I 100% believe it was his brother, but I also am not quick to believe everything he says either. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. Or at least qualify them somehow.--Proper tea is theft 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I find the new version well written and satisfying. Thanks. --CutterX 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is bullsh*t

I went to school with the kid since elementary school (I have the anual pictures to prove it). I was even friends with him for a while. Chris was always just a wannabe type who thought being gay gave him the right to start drama with everyone in sight. It's funny how guys can become internet celebrities simply by acting bitchier than most girls and making videos of it. Seriously, people..wtf? I love a sassy gay guy as much as the next girl but why can people become celebritites simply by having no other talent than being a sassy gay guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteBeautiful1 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per your comment before mine here, and per the guideline at the top which states This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject., this entry should be deleted and CoyoteBeautiful1 banned from posting here. Blatant shots (calling someone bullshit, especially the subject of the article) shouldn't be acceptable. Does he have verifiable sources that Chris is bullshit? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol! I doubt they do have a source for that and, no, wikipedia doesn't ban someone for single incident of poor expression and actually we don't delete the comment either. As a possible solution we can vector it off to the archives if the thread remains dormant and the issue otherwise resolved. Benjiboi 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cara_Cunningham&oldid=158875159"