I feel it is inappropriate and whitewashing not to mention the Kevin Clash at all on the wiki when we have such esteem in the Muppet community and should be unbiased. The notability is there and other scandals such as Calloway's unfortunate mental breakdown were mentioned even though his problems were more carefully guarded and did not appear in nearly as many newspapers or internet sources than Clash did.
Even if you do not believe the accusations are true; it already has had an effect on the potrayal history of certain characters. And if you don't publish an unbiased version of the events, you may be thought as censoring opinions and whitewashing Clash which I do not the wiki deserves. Therefourgh, I believe an unbiased version of the events should be published; one which does not skew in favor of Clash or the accuser and gives an authoritiave history of the events which the casual reader can understand.
Collaboration like this is very possible in a place where thousands of people are active every month and no conflict could happen if everything is done correct. So I extend an open arm for the moderators and casual users to edit my contribution to the homepage and add to the Elmo and Kevin Clash page rather than delete it like what you've been currently been doing. As a member of Wikipedia, I can state that this philosophy has worked well and have been one of the chief reasons for it's sucess over eleven years. Please comment on this as a type of collaboration forum instead of shouting at me with so-called "policy" or "rules" preventing this. Thank you.
No offense, but Muppet Wiki is not Wikipedia, nor is it there to deal with "opinions." Personally, since we've tried to stay away from personal lives and scandals anyway (and it's had no effect on "portrayal history" yet, since season 43 is already done, we'll see what happens), I was against dealing with Northern Calloway too when someone fairly recently added it but they cited Street Gang so it worked, but in contrast, any other personal stuff, from any affairs actors have had to accidents and so on, we don't deal with. It should not be on the Elmo page at all, since it's about the character, anymore than we note any personal facts about Richard Hunt on Beaker. The fact that the events are covered elsewhere if anything is less reason to deal with it. We are not a tabloid.
Also, we're very careful about main page updates, *and* we don't even know your name. So for all those reasons, I am going to revert your main page edit. As to how to handle this if at all on the Kevin Clash page, now, that is a different matter and you may have a point, and it certainly is open to discussion, either in this thread or at Talk:Kevin Clash, so please feel free to do so. But also, as I said, Muppet Wiki isn't Wikipedia, so we've never felt constrained to do things *just* because they were done there, only if it works with *our* overall goals and approach.
Also, you said this: "So I extend an open arm for the moderators and casual users to edit my contribution to the homepage and add to the Elmo and Kevin Clash page rather than delete it like what you've been currently been doing." I checked and you've had no such edits deleted, at least under this username, and I can't find any such edits made by anyone to the Kevin Clash page or to Elmo. So nothing has actually happened outside of the main page edit, which really shouldn't be there without at least getting a consensus first, for all the reasons mentioned, and these are the first edits you've made since May, so we hadn't reverted you before.
That said, discussing the issue on forums or talk pages before editing is indeed the best way to do so, but please don't suddenly claim things that haven't happened yet, unless you're copying and pasting from Wikipedia or somewhere else.
Therefourgh, I believe an unbiased version of the events should be published; one which does not skew in favor of Clash or the accuser and gives an authoritiave history of the events which the casual reader can understand.
It's difficult to understand how we could publish anything resembling an authoritative history of events that are still unfolding.
I think that we should cover the circumstances around Clash's resignation more fully than we do right now. At the moment, the article says, "Clash resigned from Sesame Street in November 2012 in response to circumstances in his personal life."
Today's news sources, including this Huffington Post article, make it clear that Clash is resigning because of these allegations. It's a well-documented fact at this point.
Obviously, we all hope that the allegations prove to be unfounded, and that Clash's name will be cleared. We shouldn't write anything that goes beyond what is currently known about the events. That being said -- I don't think we need to skirt around it either. People will hear about it, and come to Muppet Wiki looking for the current information. I think we should be factual and clear.
Yeah, I just didn't think we needed to put it on front page before the resignation (which makes it more relevant as news), especially the way it was written, and the user claimed that edits had been reverted which nobody had made at that point.
I locked the article for now as someone edited it to say that Clash was dead (I'll downgrade this to registered users rather than just admins). I also added a brief note about his resignation without getting into details about sex with a minor. The way we don't go into details about how someone died, I didn't think it was necessary. The information is in the link I provided as a source.
But if we want to cover it, let's go ahead and do so in the way we always do. Just the reported facts, etc.
It was an accident on my part to say the edits were previously reverted; I meant to say "censored" but the time was late and my energy was too low to correct it. But really, I am glad that people listened to me. You may say it was Kevin's resignation or such but to me, the start of collaboration has just been achieved and it only took a few forum posts.
Believe me, Sesame Street and Elmo's World were one of the best parts of my day before I started going to school. Elmo was a beacon of joy in my life and Kevin made him so by his lively performance and interactivity (especially in interviews where Elmo could sneak in a comment or a witty one-liner that Sesame Workshop probably wouldn't want him to say on Sesame Street; His Rove appearances codified that). Do I want someone else to do what may not be a recognizable impersonation of Clash's Elmo voice? No. I also don't want Clash polarized by the media and the internet either where a lot of people are purists and think Elmo "wrecked" Sesame Street.
But being unbiased means being able to stray away from my nostalgia of Elmo's World and other people's hatred of Elmo and creating a well-organized article which explores every point. As I said, I know a lot about editing Wikipedia and can gladly help organize more collaboration if needed based on their policies.
Yeah, I'm really glad we're talking about it; thank you for bringing it up.
Scott, I think the concern about "censoring" details has some basis here. The reason for Clash's resignation is very well-publicized at this point -- I've got people at work skypeing me to ask about it. If we try to show too much delicacy and respect, we risk being seen as "covering up" for him. There's an extra sensitivity around child abuse allegations.
This is a really sad situation, and we're all hoping that the accusations are groundless. But we don't know right now, so I think we need to be up front with the facts as they're reported in the press.
We don't delete pages based on recent events. This Wiki preserves everything and everyone involved with the Muppets; whether deceased, retired, etc. Clash is a major Muppet performer with a long history of working on many Henson projects, hence notable by our policies. We acknowledge his resignation and the reasoning at the top of his page, and in my eyes, that's plenty.
Yeah, as everyone else said, we don't remove people's pages, or take out the fact that he worked on Sesame Street. We've stated that he isn't currently on the show, and touched in a general way on the circumstances without becoming a tabloid, and that's how we're handling it. But as an encyclopedia, we don't remove pages or sections because we don't like what happened in a person's life.
The fact Clash is no longer on Sesame Street does not count as a valid reason to delete his page nor remove the Sesame Street section from it. It would be like removing all Sesame Street info from the John Tartaglia page.
We don't know; the latter probably won't be the case. They filmed the remaining portion of season 43 and virtually all of season 44 while he was still there, so his new performer won't be a concern for a while.
How closely are we following this story? Last week, the court case was apparently dismissed (because the claimants waited too long to make the accusation). And a few days ago, we reverted this addition to the Clash article. We spoke earlier in this thread of not censoring. How much detail does that include?
Sorry I didn't weigh in sooner (awkward day). I agree with the concern, and the problem arises from two reasons, one of which is precisely that we never *did* really decide how much detail to include. Our consensus was that it should be covered and, to avoid the tabloid-style text which kept being added, we did so by tactfully mentioning the fact that the accusations existed and that Kevin Clash had resigned as a result, and included a relevant quote or two. That was it.
The second problem was that some of us as admins have become especially wary of changes to that page, which is understandable since it was becoming a target for awhile, but the latest change was a good faith edit by an established user, not someone who signed up just to paste every single claim and rumor or to engage in speculation. And the dismissal of three of the four cases does count as new facts (that particular link is a little more slanted, in a "Kevin Clash wins" sense, than another I read, which pointed out that the case arising from the first accusation, the one which was briefly retracted, is still pending; I'll try to dig that up).
So basically, I think it's reached the point where we as a community need to decide how much detail to cover and where and how to integrate it into the article. How much should be fronted, how much goes at the bottom, how do we avoid this essentially coming off as equivalent to the paragraphs we have about a puppeteer's death if it comes at the end (like the conclusion of the narrative), or do we even care about that? I think we need to work out a draft, either here or on the talk page or even if we have to do a sandbox and encourage everyone to work on it, *but* unlike many of our sandboxes, make sure we keep an eye on and finish it. When enough people have weighed in or made changes, and agree to it, we'll amend the article. We'll also need to decide how to handle new developments such as this one (would we just mention that three of the cases were dismissed without going into why, but with an appropriate link?) Did we want to go into any specifics at all as to the claims or who was claiming. We have and should acknowledge that they were sexual, but should we bother with the bits about when it supposedly happened or where they met? That was a problem with many of the early changes, plus that was also a point when it was still news and we weren't really sure ourselves what was going on. I think one reason for the reversion of that edition was the fact that it mentioned names, ages, and so on, and so at first glance might strike (and evidently did) another editor as too much detail. But since we never really settled that issue, we need to get together as a community on that.
Finally, whatever is written and agreed on, I propose that all significant changes to that section of this article (pretty much anything other than grammar, punctuation, or other cosmetic alterations) be brought up on this talk page first. This would include both new additions as well as amending or removing anything which had previously been agreed upon. Of course we know not everyone, especially new users, will do this or know to do this. But by reaching a consensus, or as close as we can to one, and setting guidelines, we'll be better able to say "Hi, we decided to handle it in such and such way, but if you disagree or have a new source to cite, please mention it here." I also think that, unless it's obvious vandalism, that should be how we as admins handle any good faith edits from that point.
I know I typed a lot of text, so does that make sense? This is a sensitive issue, but we can avoid a lot of confusion and edit conflicts if we figure out exactly how much info we feel we as a Wiki need to provide within our text (and by now, many of the questions and speculation brought up earlier in this thread have been answered; of course we cannot and should not at any time make any judgement or opinion as to the claims themselves, but by now there's enough on record for us to see exactly what claims were made, how many, and how three of them have been concluded to date). I personally think in many cases, we could just say "See cited article for fuller details" but right now it's all based on how each user thinks it should be handled, and most of us, I know myself anyway, are probably afraid or reluctant to get into it at all and have left it alone. So it's definitely something we need to tackle as a community project.