Talk:Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Archiving as of October 2007

Contents


chris crocker fansite

I think you should add Chris Crocker's myspace fansite. its www.myspace.com/itschriscrockerfans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmoothone (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You got proof that it's official and endorsed by Chris? If not, no. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Should his 9/11 Video be under Selected Videography?

I think it should. If Wikipedia's trying to be fully neutral, they should have some of his negative aspects displayed as well. This'll give people a bit of a better view of the "real" Chris, a Britney Spears addict, for lack of a better term. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksEj2p0q7qY

Who says it's a "negative aspect"? To my mind, it's not better or worse than anything else he's posted. It's his shtick. If the media hasn't made a fuss over this, there's nothing we can cite. Ichormosquito 06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, we've already dealt with this as simply Crocker pushing buttons/doing outlandish things to get attention. Unless it's picked up as important by the mainstream press it's not on the radar. Benjiboi 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider that it has become an issue and the media is about to pick up on it, no doubt about it. This is the link to the petition and the video on youtube where thousands are signing on to boycott the station if they put his reality show on the air.[1] (CandelLife) (CandelLife 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Well feel free to repost if it actually does get mainstream media coverage, it could but the link is to another YouTuber attempting a petition and they even cite him being incestuous which has previously been shown to be false so I have doubt as to how far it will go. We'll see though, no one really saw him getting all the views he did get so anyting could happen. Benjiboi 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Now he's on TMZ and that's a good one to add here without a doubt. It is being added to other media outlets and you'll see it many places soon. Copied: Chris Crocker -- Same Shtick, Same Outfit (66 Comments) The crazed "Leave Britney alone!" fan, Chris Crocker, was seen Saturday night at super trendy Mr.Chow -- they actually let him in -- wearing the same shiny and ri-damn-diculous jacket he had on...[2] (CandelLife) (CandelLife 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Lol. "Tune everyone out but me" What a trooper. Benjiboi 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Why is the neutrality template there? Problems along those lines already seem to have been fixed by the editor who added the template. Ichormosquito 08:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Not from the South

Apparently he's from Southern California, not the South. PatrickJ83 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be true but has to be referenced. Benjiboi 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nose pickin'

Benji: Why is it irrelevant? Doesn't seem any more than "kids cussin"... ? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Cussin' video was (ahem) picked by Wired for its story and has nearly 500,000 views while Pickin has under 200,000 and no coverage that I know of. There's a point where we can list all the videos (which I don't recommend) or we set some standard which I would propose as coverage by reliable source and/or over a million views. Benjiboi 01:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. /NPOV: It's funny as hell though! My favorite of his vids. :P I'm putting a link to it here just so I can have quick access to watch it everyday! Nose Pickin' -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't your personal bookmarking system. Use del.icio.us for that. Posting all of Chris Crocker's videos would be advertising, right?
I think what was meant was they were simply adding the link for future ref not using this as a bookmark. And I don't agree that Posting all of Chris Crocker's videos would be advertising as many have complete discographies, videographies, etc., however, I don't see this article needing that for some time and the videos themselves are presented, generally, as stand-alones rather than a continuous developed series of some sort. Benjiboi 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Time filter

I'm shocked at the length of this article. In a year, who will care? Does the subject justify the length and depth of this entry? How will it look through the lens of time in a month... a year... five years?? --72.202.150.92 05:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to 21st century celebrity junk culture. — Walloon 07:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I've been bold and edited the article down to the notable content. Devilyouknow 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You will need consensus for an edit like that. Ichormosquito 20:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but I don't need to ask anyone's permission to be bold, or to edit Wikipedia. Let's please not get into a revert war, and please do not add the content back in without discussion. Crocker is (as of right now) a one-trick pony, with his one trick being the "Leave Britney Alone" video. His biography is not notable, nor are the other videos on youtube that the media hasn't incessantly blabbed about. This article was very quickly deleted as non-notable before the Britney video. It was a "no consensus" vote after the Britney video, with (in my opinion) the general vibe of the AFD being (1) Keep because we love him; (2) weak keep as an internet meme; or (3) delete because we hate him. Two extremes, and the middle position is probably the right resolution. The fact that his youtube Britney tirade made the news cycle may qualify that video as notable, but that does not mean his life story and other videos belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe that will change, maybe he'll get a bunch of TV and movie deals, become a cultural icon and this is only the beginning, but as of right now the whole world only thinks of him as the Britney fan who had a tirade on the internet. And that's what this Wikipedia article should be limited to. Some editors may worship him (and judging from the inordinate amount of attention a few editors give this article, that seems to be the case), and there's nothing wrong with that and that's their right. They can put all of his bio and videos on a "Chris Crocker Rocks" web site; most of this information does not belong in an encyclopedia. Devilyouknow 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, what do you know? A few editors suddenly spring up out of nowhere and refuse to debate the edits, instead just blindly reverting things back to their non-notable self. Sockpuppets perhaps? Someone with a vested interest or attempting to push a certain POV, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines? I don't know. Maybe a RFC or Mediation is in order. Devilyouknow 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Just as you were offended at my insinuation that your edits could be seen as bad faith I see your suggestion that those who reverted your edits are sockpuppets as serious breach of civility. Please remain civil regardless your opinion on the article or its editors. Benjiboi 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as one of the editors who's given the article an inordinate amount of attention I will first say that gutting entire well-referenced sections that have been vetted by quite a few folks (as well as numerous suggestions from anons on these talk pages) seems to be a bit beyond just bold. Your opinion that the subject of the article is a one trick pony might, on the surface, be true except that his notability was established before the famous video was ever produced and was also noted in the AfD discussion which obviously the article survived. The fact that an article was once deleted (speedy or otherwise) is not an excuse to pass judgment again based solely on that - many articles are deleted as they don't sufficiently pass whatever notability tests at that time for various reasons. The notability of the selected videography section is established for each video included in that section and as the section title suggests it's not a list of the 60-70+ videos he's done simply a handful of the more notable ones. That the bio and background information is not encyclopedic is quite interesting thing to assert, I would guess that contradicts what most people would be looking for in any bio of any artist - what were their motivations, inspirations and influences. This is not a life story but neither is our collective heads stuck in the ground with no context for why he would produce the work he did and why would millions of people from around the world watch it. Why would he get death threats and more attention than the vast majority of all videos posted on YouTube which is tremendously popular and has thousands upon thousands of videos on offer. Why this one? Wikipedia is the sum of knowledge not a filter for our disdain for or against a person, obnoxious, internet meme or otherwise not to our liking. If you have such strong feelings against the subject this might not be the best article for you to work on. Benjiboi 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Someone took the time to make an well-thought-out argument, instead of reverting without discussion. Kudos, Benjiboi. Now, taking your points one at a time...
  • "his notability was established before the famous video was ever produced" The speedy AFD "pre-Britney video" for this article refutes that. The only thing that changed about Crocker between the two votes was said Britney video. The first AFD was fast because of lack of notability. No one was claiming (or could seriously claim) that his "pre-Britney" biography was notable. The consensus seems to be Crocker's pre-Britney video library was not notable.
This was addressed in the last AfD which the article passed so I doubt spending time on this issue makes a lot of sense. He's notable enough now to merit an article.Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "many articles are deleted as they don't sufficiently pass whatever notability tests at that time" Yes, this one was one of those articles per-Britney video. I'm not saying this page needs to be deleted, it just needs to be culled down into relevant, readable content.
I think it should be expanded as details of his early career as a gay activist and online ezine editor are confirmed. So we apparently disagree on this point as well.Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "he's done simply a handful of the more notable ones [videos]" I quote Benjiboi: "Unless it's picked up as important by the mainstream press it's not on the radar." According to whom? Youtube numbers don't count, especially when it's well know that folks can manipulate those counts. How many views or comments does it take for something on youtube to get a Wikipedia article? Numbers by themselves are not really a great way to establish notability. In addition, the section reads like the Gospel According to Chris Crocker. Maybe he really is Jesus Christ . . . to a select few.
Agreed that numbers alone don't establish notability but they certainly do help demonstrate cult following and other aspects of notability. Youtube numbers don't count - I simply don't agree with you there and the many internet celebrities and articles based on MySpace and YouTube memes also disagree. As for it's well know that folks can manipulate those counts I'm still awaiting any proof of this and it should be balanced with whatever YouTube/MySpace have to say in defense. The stats from these sites was used to round out the article to show that yes, even his other (odd) videos got thousands if not millions of people to watch. Not many people can make a video of themselves swearing or simply dancing around their living room and get thousands upon thousands of people to watch them or post their own copycat versions.Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "I would guess that contradicts what most people would be looking for in any bio of any artist - what were their motivations, inspirations and influences" Some bio is okay, the "who what when where" info. But c'mon, is there really a need to know his motivations and influences? Did we need to know that for the Star Wars Kid, or Leeroy Jenkins? There is a brief bio at the top, which seems fine. The bio which went on and on and on and on below the cut just went wayyyy overboard. Some editors here appear to be aggrandizing an internet meme. Like I said, maybe he launches into the celebrity straosphere by Christmas time, and I'll see him on the cover of the Enquirer the next time I'm in the checkout line at the supermarket. But as of right now he is only known for the Britney video.
That is your opinion, his influences and life story have been written about and is generally agreed to fuel his video work as a reaction of a gay teenager seething in anger against his homophobic small town. Is there really some grand injustice or harm in having his bio be more complete and rounded than someone else's? Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "why would millions of people from around the world watch it" Why do people always slow down to watch a car wreck on the freeway? The news media reported this in the same manner as the "cat playing the piano" video on youtube, i.e., "now here's something you don't see everyday. . . . some guy (or girl, as incorrectly reported by some) completely wigging out ovet that bad Britney Spears performance at the VMAs!" The media did not report it as "Noted Youtube Celebrity Chris Crocker posted a tirade today..." I don't think anyone's youtube tirades would make the news, unless they're Tom Cruise. (Boy, wouldn't that be entertaining if he did???) On the other hand, if his other videos start showing up on Good Morning America, I'll be the first to agree with you that they deserve to be mentioned here.
Again, your opinion, that Crocker is like a car wreck on the freeway and should only get passing mention. His story started as just that but he has done dozens of interviews as his story is being treated as a new media phenomena that has started to crossover to mainstream old media exposure as well. He got instant worldwide coverage and has continued to get attention. Every mention of his celebutante activities has not been mentioned as we have been showing restraint. Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Why would he get death threats" Assuming this is true, do death threats make one notable? You or I could post a video making fun of Islam and bam, instant fatwah. Doesn't make me notable, nor does it make you notable.
I never suggested his death threats made him notable, and although they are categorized here as alleged they have been widely reported by mainstream press so they believed they were real enough. My point was that the article would be better to address why he got those death threats than to simply ignore the question.Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Why do you hate Chris Crocker so much?" (paraphrasing) BECAUSE I'M FROM FOX NEWS, OKAY?????? Just kidding. Taking a page out of the GOP playbook, I see. Dirty pool, Benjiboi, I like it. (Just kidding again.) I don't hate Crocker, I found his rant pretty funny, like most people did. But that's all he is currently known for in the mainstream world.
I think if you look beyond the surface, and hopefully read the article, you'll get a sense that he represents a new form of activism utilizing new media to empower himself and find a voice in a world that would silence him and even kill him. A Chris crocker couldn't have existed more than a few years ago and I think he challenges many fellow teens to look beyond labels and slurs and see someone who makes mistakes, is dorky, is sexy, is afraid and self-assured all at the same time. He is a product of our culture wars and his battle is being waged and won on a video blog that he is helping re-write the rules for. Expect to see much more from him and others who follow in his footsteps. Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If we limited Wikipedia to what is already obvious to the "mainstream world", what would be the point? Crocker is a notable topic, and any information that contributes to his notability can be added. Although the information must be verifiable, it need not be notable in and of itself. Ichormosquito 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Another comment to make is that editors seem to be POVing the article by removing anything they deem negative about Crocker, such as the "Who cares about 9/11 video" he made, or don't want his name or DOB to come out, out of privacy concerns. Privacy concerns? Everything about Crocker screams "look at me!" Public figures and limited purpose public figures (Crocker may qualify as the latter) don't get to pick and choose what facts they want the public to know about them.
There are several videos that have been suggested, even partially researched, but not included as they didn't get coverage or over a million hits. His 9/11 video, as far as we can tell, was removed by him and exists only from other YouTubers posting with their own POV edits which is problematic and they haven't gotten much attention. If that changes we can certainly reconsider. His identity and DOB are to be left off per the "Do No Harm" discussion on this page and I will get admin support if needed to keep us from violating wikipedia's policies. Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The main point of my edit was that the article is way too long. A lot of this stuff just isn't notable. Perhaps that's where we really disagree, and maybe a RFC is in order to get some (hopefully) objective feedback. Even Wikipedia has a "note: this article is 41k long" when you attempt to edit the article. Isn't that Jimbo-code for "this article is too long?" Devilyouknow 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree there as well. I think you'll find many (most?) GA and FA articles are at least that long and sections that can exist on their own are created to help address those issues. This article was created less than three weeks ago so both it and the subject are writing their next sections as we speak and maybe, just maybe, the print world's responses as well as his TV deal updates will help round out some of the core concerns about both. Benjiboi 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I see here is one of undue weight. More prominence could be given to the Britney video. Ichormosquito 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm open to ideas. I'm also waiting for Mad TV and/or Saturday Night Live, mainstream pop spoofs of it as it's short and iconic enough to be referenced, i just haven't personally seen anything. (I confess I haven't really been searching for anything much either). In the article we quote 750 video responses but there's certainly plenty more although, arguably, that's the nature of youtube for anyone who's lokking for attention to post a vid response regardless of relevance. (I know a lot more about YouTube now.) All suggestions and ideas worth checking out though. Benjiboi 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We're all in the the LA Times!

For three sentences, anyway. Nifty. Ichormosquito 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Love it. It also speaks to how the nature of immediacy with a new generation of editors compared to the "old guard" who've learned that making decisions slowly and deliberately is not a bad idea and sometimes articles are deleted in error. Benjiboi 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Selected videography removal

We should consider removing the video Chris Crocker - Britney, this is for you from "Selected videography" as it does not meet notability criteria for web content; for, it hasn't been cited to have received independent media attention (like the rest of the article). It is popular, but a popular video, by itself, is sadly not sufficient enough to warrant inclusion-- unless it demonstrated wide name recognition; otherwise it could be viewed as spam. --slakr\ talk / 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Prior discussion have noted that the only videos included are ones that have over a million views and/or coverage by reliable sources. Removing this (referenced) content sems to suggest an interest in positioning Crocker as only notable for his "Leave Britney Alone" video which is false, this video does not exist in a vacumn, it is his most popular one out of dozens and should be shown in that light. Benjiboi 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney's Reaction

There is a response (of sorts) from Britney Spears regarding 'Chris Crocker's video at http://www.usmagazine.com/britney_and_chris.

Worth including here? --Wee Charlie 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Not worth including. It's a "pal" of Britney that supposedly said it. Without proof Britney said it, it's got no home on this article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

September 11 controversy?

Hello, I just thought I'd suggest that they should be some controversy about September 11, 2001 on this article about Chris Crocker and that someone is trying to boycott his Youtube videos and his TV show once he gets it. You can find more information on it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvwdgBu0xUE&mode=related&search=

DemonicSailormoon 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

should be some controversy? If there's not any, why should there be some in the article? 100,000 views of that video isn't anything compared to the millions of views of the NOTABLE videos. I think we've discussed this before anyway and the consensus was not to include it until it becomes NOTABLE, as in cited, referenced sourced by news media. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's calmed down enough to delete this hulking piece of junk

Hopefully by now, all the pro-gay media sent to this site to write a senseless article and lend hot air to a notableless lunatic has moved on. So should Wikipedia. The opening paragraph of notable articles mention that notability is distinct from fame or popularity. The subject of the article fails even the test of "fame" or "popularity" guidelines since there are more than 50 youtube videos with more views. It is even less notable than popular. Even more damning is the declaration on the same page containing the aforementioned wikipedia guidelines that notability is not temporary. Media attention has died down already. Before adding a tag for delete, hopefully, we can all add some input. Gold Nitrate 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

By any objective standard, he passes WP:BIO with flying colors. Happy, fluttering colors. Ichormosquito 07:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Bitter much? Your user page says, "I am a Wikipedia user and editor who is committed to bringing a neutral point of view to articles on this site." I guess that doesn't apply to discussion pages, huh? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm still waiting for any pro-gay media to be sent here. Do we have a service like that? I fuly expect the national gay press to write something about him but I haven't seen a lot - however, in fairness, they almost never pull up in Google news search. I think your assertions are flawed on almost every count except that there are videos that have been viewed more. But even a quick look a those top videos will show this his most notable one rose to the top much faster than all the rest. Also, in looking at his collected works that one video accounts for nearly a quarter of the millions of views he's gotten thus far. I do agree with you about notability issues and if any of those other video creators gets as much mainstream attention as Crocker has combined with a contract for a reality show I would be happy to support them as well. Benjiboi 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Removed BLP vio (yes, it applies to talk pages too) by 24.247.148.187. Someguy1221 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Who is Brian Peppers? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, he's one of the bigger can of worms on Wikipedia. If you have an interest in Wiki-history, you might want to check out these: His article's activity log: [3] His article's last hearing at AfD: [4] His article's hearing at DRV, after the page protection Jimbo placed on it wore off: [5]. After going through these, I think it's safe to say the article would never be able to meet WP:BIO. Even if it were a borderline case, it would be a sure WP:BLP violation. Ichormosquito 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I was asking sarcasticly. ;) -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Well, I didn't know who he was. What a richer person I am, now!  :D Ichormosquito 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya, the potty mouth comment I was being sarcastic to was removed by an admin, so if you missed it, it should be in the history. I really had actually never heard of Brian Pepper but asked who he was as in, compared to Chris Crocker.. or as they say in the UK, oo's he when he's having tea? In other words, no more special. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
There we have it, then. Ichormosquito 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

The linked video as gone private, so here's another copy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xoy6G0USyWE Herorev 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the link has gone private as much as it seems like Crocker removed the video so it's now only available from others reposting it which is a little problematic but I think it's workable. This, I think, would be a nice addition for a criticism or detractor's section which the article could use. I was hoping for more print stories that are critical of him/his work so we could quote criticism and avoid WP:OR but I think there's enough out there to start something. Benjiboi 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Crocker sued?

According to TMZ.com [6] Chris Crocker got sued for 1 million $. Can anyone confirm that? Gawanti 08:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be true. Onch is a jewelry designer who apparently paid for plane ticket and in return contracted him for 2+ days of work for free. It doesn't quite add up right so I'm hoping some more sources dig through it all. Could it (gasp) actually be a publicity stunt for all involved? Benjiboi 09:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Jewelry Company Sues Chris Crocker for Fraud; "Leave Britney Alone" Heads West has photo of who I believe is Onch and deets on the deal. Background press release re: Celebrity Models for Onch Movement Jewelry Line Exclusive Onch Movement Presents Chris Crocker at Rage in LA (YouTube vid from Onch); Mystery vid of Crocker posted by Onch called "Chris Crocker wearing Onch Movement Pink Razor - Gay Army" posted Sept 19 with 9,506 views. After looking at it all seems Onch needed Crocker more but that's for others to write up (they might note that the closest celeb Onch has seems to be a Paris Hilton (kinda-)look-alike. Benjiboi 09:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone went ahead and started it so I used the above refs to fill in the details. Benjiboi 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubt about whether he was really 17 at the time of nude's capture

The article states that Chris was 17 at the time the nude pictures were taken. I have introduced evidence to the contrary: [7]. I know this is original research, but I propose that the claim of Chris being 17 be portrayed less as a fact. 82.46.6.251 13:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Embedded metainfo within a picture is not reliable proof as the date and time set on the camera could be set wrong by the owner of the camera, battery failure, etc. I say leave it like it is until infallible evidence proves otherwise. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
We'd need a solid source for this, if on existed I bet those photos reappear. Benjiboi 04:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fox News

I just can't seem to win. The article has a POV bias against Fox News because it presents only Cris Crocker's biased opinions against Fox news. I have tried to address this in an edit but have been shot down twice now. The point that the article should make is that Fox News was not the only network to ridicule this guy, but it's the only one that he has publically responded to. To exclude that piece of information is to give creedence to the idea that Fox News is actually homophobic, etc for being the only network to ridicule him, as if the other networks took his video seriously as a matter of informed public debate. --Chemguy2 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was more about your wording that made it POV. Check it now. It includes your info and source. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about winning although it can certainly be interpreted that way - our mutual goal is to produce a great article. I've tried editing that section so it correctly references CNN, also this doesn't support that anyone but Fox ridiculed him in the same manner (gender, Osama reference, etc) The CNN guy simply alluded that he was off-balance. It still needs work but to me it's pretty close to explaining Crocker's response to Fox. Benjiboi 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of being "fair and balanced", do you want us to pretend he also criticized PBS? I don't get your point. Ichormosquito 05:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

14:56, 14:57, 14:58....

Someone called the studio. They said he was dropped. If you ask me, the reason he was dropped probably has something to do with his 9/11 videoKsfl 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No other proof than a video on youtube of a guy saying it happened without providing proof himself? Next.. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating and dramatic (actually it wasn't even that) but not usable. If and when reliable sources cover it then we can explore it's inclusion. Benjiboi 04:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a phone number and addresses on the site page. You could investigate for us...Ksfl 10:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
That would constitute original research, which Wikipedia prohibits. We'll have the story up as soon as the news media does. Ichormosquito 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Utterly disgusting. "Think of the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?" Ichormosquito 05:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
lol! That heathen is making my eyes burn with holy regret and homosexual overkill, must smite. Benjiboi 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Question, before I edit

Has there been a concensus anywhere that the title of Crocker's video "Leave Britney Alone" should be written in capital letters? It seems a bit unconventional as it stands in the article. Orane (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's how that title is presented so it was left that way but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) encourages title case so go for it. Benjiboi 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been fixed. See history for explanation. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

'American film directors' to 'American amateur film directors'

I noticed that this page is protected. Can admins change that? Mattman13 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also category "[[Category:Viral videos]] <!-- Live Britney Alone -->". Mattman13 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Also "<!-- [[Category:Internet personalities]] upper category of [[Category:YouTube video producers]] -->". Mattman13 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Update. Done. Benjiboi 22:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Benjiboi. Here is the latest suggestion:
[[Category:Internet personalities]]
[[Category:Viral videos]]
to:
[[Category:American Internet personalities]]
[[Category:Viral videos]] <!-- Live Britney Alone -->

Mattman13 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.Benjiboi 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)