Talk:Cara Cunningham

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in: David Sarno (30 September 2007). "Wikipedia wars erupt". Los Angeles Times. Michael Silence (20 September 2007). "No Silence Here:Tennessean's Britney video an Internet sensation". KNOX News.

Archives
September 2007 October 2007 - present

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 comment}User: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Benjiboy, I just found the information about Chris' real home town and I have a way to prove it, but I am afraid of posting this here and discussin it openly and putting his life and his grandparents and friends in danger so I want to hear what you've got to say about it, since you've been organising his article here. my email is xavierdenis@gmail.com and I would like to tell you how i found out. notice that we could be the ones who tell the world first wherehe actually comes from with this info i've got so i wantyou tothink about it and drop me a line. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, actually I have no interest in revealing his identity or hometown and neither does wikipedia until it is widely known and covered in reliable sources up to wikipedia standards. Although it's exciting to break news that not what we do here and that information can bring real harm to a real person behind the persona, and if the information is wrong, could bring harm to someone else which is even worse. Benjiboi 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason that this page needs to show this much detail? I'd argue that the only notable output of this individual is an internet meme, and therefore much of the rest of the information here is mere filler. I'd move for a massive cull of this pageBlaqkmage 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, too much detail. To me that seems to fly in the face of wikipedia being a source of knowledge but I'm sure it could be true. I can't speak for other editors but i know I have tried to restrain from including endless amounts of bio and his current media activities and even limited the number of videos out of the 60-70 known to under ten. Benjiboi 00:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Chris warrants an article at all. But I also wonder why he can refer to himself as the "Queen of Complaint" on the basis that complaining is his "religion". Should complaint be his realm or dominion? Or should he be the acolyte/bishop/pope/etc. of complaint? What is his appropriate institutional relationship with complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.6.180 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is important or not, but at about 10:20 PM on Oct. 16, 2007, someone uploaded a video of Chris Crocker on Youtube, and it had him talking to a small audience in Las Vegas, talking about the lawsuit for a very short time, then he performs a striptease to Britney Spears' Gimme More song, or whatever it is. I didn't watch the whole thing, but he showed his bare bottom at least twice, one on camera, one off. When I refeshed it so I could know exactly how long it had been up, it had been taken off due to its terms of use violation (in under 1 hour). Just thought I should put the info up, since I can't edit the page yet. October 16, 2007, 22:56 (Jeefy69 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Interesting but no, we can't really use it. If the video is reposted ... maybe. BTW, he's been touring around lately doing club appearances so articles are starting to hit and soon enough they'll discuss all sorts of stuff including lawsuits et al. Benjiboi 03:17, 17 October 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)

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)

"America will never, ever forget you."

I don't know if "featured on Maury (TV series)", is worth adding, considering everything else he's popped up in, but here's a link, regardless: [1] Maury's quote is priceless. Ichormosquito 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I definitely think it's worth adding. It's not just a news report. It's him, on the show, talking about it all. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the ref in the lede but not the quote as of yet. It seems terribly POV and the article is already has issues along promotional lines (or at least has been accused of such). After a little while we should have an update on if his show(s) materializes and then maybe use it to speak to his crossover to mainstream media. Along with whatever critics say about his shows. Benjiboi 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• America obviously will forget Chris Crocker. The entire world will. Things like this, come and go, he's already losing his popularity (finally). Quotes like this shouldn't need to be published. Bryceadams 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New article in gay press with interview

It looks like gay press articles are starting to hit, this one covers etymology of Crocker's name and some extra bio material. Benjiboi 09:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article

I just nominated this for good article status. I feel it's thoroughly researched, well organized and reasonably well written. One possible knock against it is its apparent instability, but I feel most of that is the result of vandals and not edit-warring, per se. I'd love to know what the rest of you think.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the stability issue and lack of photos (which makes sense) take away from the GA status. I think the instability has more to do with recentism than vandalism. Benjiboi 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a Good Article necessarily has to have more than 2 pictures. I think the 2 pictures already included are perfect.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A Good Article doesn't have to have any pictures, unless free images are easily/obviously available. From skimming just the lead, even a cursory copy edit wouldn't have hurt this article though. Cheers, CP 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. How much time do we need to give before archiving this thread then? Benjiboi 00:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, but more than a few hours. I usually go with a few months, unless we're talking about a very active talk page that's becoming very long, in which case I tend archive the oldest discussions first. The only time I would archive anything out chronological order is if there was a particularly long, nonconstructive thread that was taking a up a lot of space and serving no useful purpose. But everyone has their own archiving preferences.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about this being archived so soon but I always have faith in Benjiboi's judgement so either/or is fine with me. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I archived it as something that had come up and was dealt with but it can stay here certainly for a few days. This is a very active article and talk page with both Crocker supporters and detractors popping in with recent stuff (lots of it useful!) My concern is to keep this page short enough so those with slower connections are not impeded from accessing the material. Regardless it can sit for a bit unless space becomes a major concern. Benjiboi 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Crocker image still (crying or ?) from Leave brit alone vid

Would someone like to hunt down a replacement image that can be loaded into the commons? The current front newspage image has been tagged for speedy deletion so it would be nice to have a still photo from his Leave Britney Alone video showing him crying or otherwise upset as many have come to know him. Benjiboi 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted out the crap about it being a deleteable image. No free image can represent his appeararance on a major news site other than... A PICTURE OF THE ARTICLE ON A MAJOR NEWS SITE. Damn copyright naz... "experts". Fosnez 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no - the image violates the fair use guidelines for website screenshots. These are appropriate in articles about the website in question, but this article is about an individual. --Strothra 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked, but I can't find a policy or guideline that specifically discourages placing screenshots of websites in articles about individuals. Ichormosquito 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be deleted, unfortunately. Ichormosquito 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I ripped one from his "Leave Britney Alone" vid

It qualifies for fair use, no question; but we need to be sure this is the state of Chris's agony we prefer. There are many other facial expressions to choose from... Ichormosquito 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I added clarity to the caption, I think it's fine to use and is quite close to what the world knows of the video. Benjiboi 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Incest?

He has new videos on Youtube kissing someone he claims is his brother. True or not, that seems notable --Gargletheape 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually he doesn't. It's an old vid of his that he pulled and others have reposted. In it he spoofs the idea of gay incest with his "brother" who was actually his boyfriend at the time. Benjiboi 17:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't The Stranger (newspaper) mention this? We could probably list his "incest" video with the others, explaining that the depicted relationship isn't actually incestuous. Ichormosquito 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Stranger article mentioned that his boyfriend was in a video, I believe, beyond that both this and the 9/11 video could go in a controversial videos section but it just didn't seem right to give them undue weight as they haven't gotten any press attention and both have been removed by Crocker so only exist with other's posting various versions of them. I'm open to the concept but at best I think they could be woven into text as comments on how he likes to push boundaries. Benjiboi 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. We should include the information somewhere. Ichormosquito 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would start a new third paragraph under "Building a following" section and speak to possible reasons his channels/personality combined with his videos attracted so much attention and include the two controversial ones as a mention. Benjiboi 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NEEDS A SERIOUS UPDATE

this deal / project with 44 blue has been cancelled - he no longer works with them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ_63SZUNyg Apelike 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So make the changes with source/reference. What's the problem? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

he also kissed his brother!

This refers to him kissing his boyfriend at the time who was posing as his brother. Benjiboi 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of updates, the video has had over 11,000,000 views as of today. 216.182.30.59 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Benjiboi 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

I removed the comment: "Psychologist Kevin Leman noted that voyeuristic fascination with celebrity "says that we live in a morally corrupt society", and that Crocker is a good example of the narcissistic look-at-me generation of attention-seeking mongers." because it appears to violate neutral point of view rules. This article was 1) written by a non-notable psychologist, in 2) the opinion section of 3) a small-city newspaper. The article wasn't even about Crocker, but happened to mention him as an example of what one single individual feels is the moral corruption of our society. To use such an article as a source to bash subtley bash Crocker certianly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Aegiswings 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits were reverted so I'm updating this page to add that this article was even written by a psychologist. It was written by a sport's writer who turned to Leman, a psychologist for his opinions. The content in question wasn't even said by Leman; it was writted by Steve Rivera, the author of the article! Leman never used Crocker as an example, and so attributing the comment to Leman this is just plain wrong. I'm removing it again. Aegiswings 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Although some of your points are valid and the text in question has been modified please consider that the article referenced was well-written and the content was being used to add some credible and needed criticism of this article's subject. It helps place the actions of Crocker in a larger perspective for the average reader. It's one thing for various people to ridicule Crocker but for our purposes it's more helpful to offer insight as to why he is so popular or so reviled or if his actions speak to a larger social movement. Although the comments seem a bit harsh I feel they were accurate and portrayed Crocker as many view him and his recent famous video. Expect to see more, and possibly more scathing criticism as more is written about the subject. As this point I think he will have the most talked about video on YouTube within a month which will only heighten his popularity and detractor's disdain. Benjiboi 03:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears' Reaction

I don't know if this was already brought up, but shouldn't there be a mention in the article that Britney Spears finds Chris Crocker "creepy" and his video "insulting"? There was a story about this about 2 weeks ago. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was brought up somewhere but quickly dismissed as we have no verification that Spears herself stated this, it was supposedly a friend of hers. If her feelings are that strong I'm sure they will soon surface. Also, we need to hedge against being a part of a potential publicity plan - celebrities will often work the media with alleged issues to get another round of attention and both Spears and Crocker have either been known to do this or at least suspected of same. Benjiboi 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)