Fan Creation talk:Clach

Clach

• This page will need a bit of work. Needs to become more factual and more like the Paire article. (Admin 13:06, 1 January 2007 (EST))
  • Yup. But it's nice to have the other side of the equation represented, no?--Hardvice (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, it is and once it's cleaned up like the Praire article I think it's going to look pretty slick, too. (Admin 14:15, 1 January 2007 (EST))

Looks good now.....

I don't think it should look and feel exactly like Paire's article......because I think our's should stand out a little bit!!

For a fan site I'd definitely agree, you'd want to set yourself apart. Here, on the other hand, it's beneficial to standardize when possible and give pages the same feel. :) (Admin 16:54, 1 January 2007 (EST))

And by the way, you've done a great job cleaning the article up, Gargyloveswolfy. :) (Admin 16:59, 1 January 2007 (EST))

The "de-gaying" issue

I will NOT tolerate people adding for their own personal agenda. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:34, 24 January 2007

Like you are doing? Man, this is a car wreck. I stumbled here via the random page option. Clach? no one calls them that? And the gayness issue...It should read "rumor had it that Zach was intended to be a gay character, but that never materalized and was nothing more than a rumor or a fleeting thought of the director" I'm seriously detecting a militant gay agenda here...why would that be? Am I to expect the Nater (Nathan/Peter) page next?--ASEO 16:13, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• LMAO!! I invented the term Clach........and this article's page was made and waiting for me to write the original article, by Hardvice who came to me at another forum I was a regular at, that I am no longer even visiting. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:36, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• Actually, Gargy is pro-Clach, so it would be kind of counter-productive for her edits to reflect a "militant gay agenda" on this issue. As for the "rumor" aspect, both Tim Kring and Bryan Fuller stated as much in interviews. While interviews aren't canon, they're certainly enough to merit mention in a Fan Creations article.--Hardvice (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2007 (EST)

The anger that I detect over the percieved de-gaying of a character is that the militant gay agenda seems to be pressing. As fot the "TomKat...Bennifering"...someone must be really bored That's all I'm saying.--ASEO 16:24, 6 February 2007 (EST)

What do you believe was inappropriate about the material you removed? I checked it out and it seems like legitimate material concerning the change they made to the character. (Admin 16:00, 24 January 2007 (EST))

• I detracted from the point of the article. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:09, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I think everyone needs to be careful to remember that this is a Wiki; by its nature, it's a collaboration. Nobody "owns" an article. Nobody should police an article for content they disagree with. Only information that is clearly and conclusively wrong should be removed; if it comes from a less reputable source, then that should be noted, but sanitizing an article to reflect only one viewpoint is unacceptable. Removing information shows as much of an agenda as adding it. In general, articles should reflect all of the available information and opinions, with clear notations of sources when possible.--Hardvice (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• But, it should stick to the subject of the article's title..........and I believe the "edits" to reflect such extreme emotions.........even with the retupable sources cited........that it showed an extreme prejudice about the relationship that this article is about. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:10, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Since the article itself does discuss the "de-gaying" of the character information about the reason it occured does seem pertinent. I also didn't detect any extremity in the links. They seemed to be a fairly objective explanation that it occurred because Tom Dekker's management complained for one reason or another. (Admin 16:15, 24 January 2007 (EST))
    • The de-gaying is only relevant in the fact that it factors in all so minutely into the whole should Claire/Zach be a couple, that it's just not approriate to have to go into extreme detail. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:26, 24 January 2007 (EST)
• I'm not going to get into a debate about wiki rules, but, despite any statements that have been made, the show is by no means locked into Zach being either gay or straight. As far as the content of the show up to this point goes, Zach could very easily still turn out to be gay. I'll even go out on a limb and say I think he will. But it's still yet to be determined, and until something actually happens on the show to clear it up, then nothing else is going to be definitive to me. Maybe the most accurate and honest thing to say about Zach is that there is currently ambiguity about his orientation.--E rowe 16:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Maybe the most accurate and honest thing to say about Zach is that there is currently ambiguity about his orientation. That is my whole point and feel I made that clear. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:35, 24 January 2007 (EST)
    • If that's the case, then the article shouldn't say he has "been made straight", since that hasn't been confirmed on-screen either -- just in news reports, just like the de-gaying info.--Hardvice (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2007 (EST)
      • On-Screen true Zach has not been made straight. But, firstly we all know the straight people do not have to declare their orientation; thus that assesment is un-fair. Secondly, NBC made it explictly clear in article after article that Zach was without a doubt that straight. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:44, 24 January 2007 (EST)
        • Episodes are canon sources. NBC (and articles) are not. The same rules need to apply consistently.--Hardvice (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2007 (EST)
          • And that's why I am not re-changing your re-changes. I am leaving it as is.....alone. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:52, 24 January 2007 (EST)
            • Just to clarify: they were never my changes. They were made by Doop. All I did was remove the spoiler image.--Hardvice (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2007 (EST)
          • That's a distinction we need to make in the article, though. --Ted C 16:49, 24 January 2007 (EST)
            • Then, by all means make that change. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:52, 24 January 2007 (EST)

---

• My only caveat on this issue would be the phrase "Zach has been made straight mid-season". Is that actually confirmed from a legitimate source, or just rumor? If it's just a rumor, it should be identified as such, since his orientation has not actually been clarified in the show. --Ted C 16:41, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • And I see Hardvice beat me to that point. --Ted C 16:42, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• Since quite a bit of the Clach article is information about what the supposed opinions of the fans are, and since those sentences in the Clach article all express the opinions of only those fans who think Zach's being openly gay is a good thing, is it ok if I add another sentence indicating that there are other fans who think Zach would be a better role model if he's not gay?--E rowe 17:01, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • There's arguably already a paragraph about that, but if you have something to add... --Ted C 17:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • sure.--Gargyloveswolfy 17:03, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Out-N-Proud for Zach's gayness

Admin change that back to how it was originally..........as Zach did make ambigourous statements about he knew who he was and he was not ashamed and was actually proud of it. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:52, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• You are more than welcome to change it yourself. We don't patrol the articles for subjective content, just formatting, sources, layout, spelling, grammar, punctuation, vandalism, and the like. However, it would be nice to have a better phrase than "out-n-proud", since that sounds ... amateurish. At the very least, "and" instead of "-n-" would be better.--Hardvice (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • It is vandalism to change something to take away from the whole point just to have your point reflected. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:02, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • Blanking a page is vandalism. Posting nonsense text or profanity is vandalism. Posting something which you personally disagree with is just a disagreement. I patrolled User:Doop's change, and while I personally didn't agree with it, I didn't consider it vandalism.--Hardvice (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2007 (EST)
      • So, User:Doop "blanking out" the parts that they didn't agree with to reflect their "opinion" without regard to all the facts is not vandalism? --Gargyloveswolfy 16:24, 6 February 2007 (EST)
        • I didn't see the edit as vandalism. For one thing, it clarified an almost unintelligible section of the article. For another, it's in no way clear in the show that Zach, even if gay, was intended to be out. Not denying something is not the same as affirming something. It seemed a pretty subjective call to me whether Zach, even if intended to be gay, was intended to be out, so I figured it was better to let the wiki do what the wiki does, rather than treating the edit as vandalism. I prefer to assume that most edits that aren't blatant vandalism are in good faith, and Doop provided an edit summary that made the edit seem reasonable, even if I disagreed with it.--Hardvice (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2007 (EST)
• Also, I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean: "Some argue that Zach's comment about denying his initial flirting with Claire with "trust me" as being a sign of him admitting to his gayness and then they will use the letting Claire down for not going as her date to the homecoming dance". Who is "they"? What the heck does "the letting Claire down for not going as her date" mean? This could be much clearer.--Hardvice (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • They refer to the ones' online (as that's the only place I've seen the argument at) that continually made excuse. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:02, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • Again, this is very unclear. The sentence goes from talking about Zach and Claire to talking about fans. This is ungrammatical. --Hardvice (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2007 (EST)

This is what the discussion page is for.

I agree that only the facts, and no agendas should be pushed on the main article page. Disucssion of thise facts is what these wonderful discussion pages are for.--ASEO 16:27, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• • I appreciacte your ASEO candor, but I am a lesbian (as to respond to your assesment of my reaction to the "de-gayness" issue) and as such I am supporting a hetro-couple with Clach. That kinda' defeats this whole gay-agenda thing, which I think is just like reverse-descrimination-which there's no such thing(s). --Gargyloveswolfy 16:34, 6 February 2007 (EST)
• I'm right there with you. I couldn't care if they are gay or not. The fact is that in reading your page and the discussion page the tone is one of sour grapes. "Fine, They are a couple, only because they took away the gay character" Not saying that is what was intended, but just the way it comes across. As for the "Clach" thing...really? is that needed?--ASEO 16:40, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • Hmmmmm, a statement of fact, needed? Yep!! And as far as having a personal tone to my discussion page and this one!? Yes, I am entitled. Thus, the term discussion. Discussion vs. Article. Discussion implies that emotional involvement is allowed. Whereas Article implies facts and has both sides issued without emotional involvement. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:48, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Right, just wanted to make sure that was what you intended.--ASEO 16:52, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• Ok peeps, I went through the article and consolidated all of the external issues with gay/not-gay into a single Character development section. It doesn't even matter in the long run, since the only canon thing we have is how the character is presented on the show week-to-week. Any "what if" stuff can be noted in its own area aside from what is going on with respect to the show. Also, please return your flamethrowers to their locked upright positions; there's no need for adding incendiary content. Thanks, --Orne 17:23, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • I just reviewed your changes Orne and I feel that you are probably one of the few here that are extremely objective, fair, honest, and patient enough to provide adequate and non-biased changes where you see needed!! --Gargyloveswolfy 17:26, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • Thanks! I must be doing something right ;) But in all seriousness, Wiki is a collaborative environment, and system really only works when the users are civil to one another (though not in the pedantic way that the Wikipedians do it). But, if there's ever a case that you see something that you feel needs to be corrected, just go do it... I think it's best to remember that Fan (in Fan Creations) is short for Fanatic, and things can seem to get a little firery at times. Don't feel bad if somebody's messing with "your" page, it's an open document, so just mess it right back! --Orne 17:39, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Props go out to:

Orne for your objectivity and fairness in the edits. Hardvice for your honesty and fairness in running the site. And for inviting me to write the original article. Admin for your honesty, objectivity, and fairness in running this site. E rowe for understanding syntax and not making changes for personal reasons.

--Gargyloveswolfy 17:23, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Do something about Doop

As this person seems to think that editing out one side of the Clach story is redundant, when it's not it's a sure sign of biasiness. --Gargyloveswolfy 12:19, 7 February 2007 (EST)

However, Zach never actually explicitly states that he is gay and if he's supposedly so out-and-proud (with such statements as "I know who I am and I like who I am..."(Homecoming)), then he probably would have told Claire more explicitly or at the very least Claire would've never had to ask if Zach was flirting with her, because she'd have known he was gay.

It's been confirmed he was meant to have been gay up until Godsend (as the last link confirms); trying to rationalize otherwise is redundant. Also, the article I posted (that you tried removing) said, "Cheerleader Claire's best buddy, Zach (Thomas Dekker), was created as a gay character, an outsider going through the 'coming out' process in parallel with Claire coming out as a person with super powers." So he was still in the closet; he wasn't "out-n-proud."

In any case, Zach's sexual orientation has not yet been clarified on the show itself. However, many cheered when Claire laid out Jackie with one solid punch to the face.

The paragraph was about Zach's sexuality; how is Claire punching Jackie important there? Also, the whole "Examples" thing is stupid; all those examples only prove that they're friends, not that they're a couple. --Doop 18:37, 9 February 2007 (EST)

• • 1. Confirmed in interviews but NOT in the show, therefore it's NOT canon.

2. I know who I am and I like who I am is an actual statement in the show, it's canon, therefore it's a canon statement of Out-N-Proud. 3. People cheered because of why she punched Jackie out. What Jackie said was homophobic and Claire was standing up for all GLBT's out there. 4. Your opinion of the Examples being stupid is not shared by all. And the don't proof friendship they proof romantic relationship to those that support the Clach relationship. And for you to say otherwise is proof of your biasness. --Gargyloveswolfy 20:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)

• It's clear there's going to be no consensus on what speculation to include in the article. Therefore, I've implemented Admin's suggestion from here to remove all speculation as to Zach's orientation. Instead, the section merely notes the controversy itself, as noted in the media, and fan's reaction to it (although if that causes problems, too, it can go as well.)--Hardvice (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2007 (EST)

• • I added a .pdf file for download onto the external links for those who wish to have the opinions entact. --Gargyloveswolfy 13:22, 10 February 2007 (EST)
  • You, also, only left the fan reaction that supports him being homosexual. The other stuff also points out the fact that Clach fans reaction that they could never see Zach as gay and they saw him as having a crush on Zach........it's one sided now and it takes away the Clach supporters reactions. It's not fair as it is now. --Gargyloveswolfy 13:26, 10 February 2007 (EST)
    • On second thought I am just removing the Controvesy part altogether, as it only supports those who want Zach gay. and totally defeats the purpose of a pro-Clach article. --Gargyloveswolfy 13:26, 10 February 2007 (EST)
      • I'm fine with the solution of removing the section altogether (although I won't be surprised if someone adds it back ... it's as relevant to the article as a discussion of Peter's and Claire's ages is to Paire, in that it discusses one reason some people object to the pairing.) However, I take great offense at your contention that the edits made last night show a bias one way or the other on the issue of Zach's sexuality. They do not. What was kept was all real-world information about the controversy, and as such presented information supporting either side (Tim's assertion that Zach was intended to be gay, and NBC's assertion that he was no longer intended to be gay.) What was removed was all in-world speculation as to whether Zach was gay or not, and was thus inappropriate. Yes, the section about the fan's reaction only addressed fans who were upset, but that's how the article was written. The proper counterpart to that is real-world information about fans who were pleased by the announcement, not in-world speculation about Zach's actual sexuality. In other words, the edit made was a clear, unbiased bright-line rule: all speculation as to Zach's actual sexuality was removed and all real-world reporting of the controversy itself was kept. For you to assert that such an edit was biased is at best poorly reasoned, and at worst (and particularly when coupled with you assertion that this is a "pro-Clach" article ... it isn't—it's an article about Clach and should be neither pro- nor anti-) indicates to me that you yourself are incapable of objectivity where this issue is concerned.--Hardvice (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Peter's age vs. Claire's age is relevant in pointing out why Paire is not going to work until she's at least of consenting age (notice I didn't mention my stance on her being 18, as nationally that is the apporiate age-despite TX and NY laws, as this show is international but produced in the USA thus national television has to do what is apporiate for all their views not just some) but is no longer relevant as Nathan is her bio-dad thus making Peter her bio-uncle, thus the pairing will never happen; kinda' making your point moot. And if the controversy is in the actual controversy of a singular character within a "relationship" than it's moot also, because it wouldn't reflect the other characters' thoughts/actions/or supposed opinions. Given this article is dubbed Clach and is therefore described as a relationship between Claire and Zach, I'd think that would be on the pro-side of things. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:22, 10 February 2007 (EST)

• It's an article. Our articles are neither pro- nor anti- anything—they report. We do not endorse or disparage any of the theories; why would we endorse or disparage any of the potential relationships? We don't have a formal NPOV policy like Wikipedia does, but there is no way we are going to have one-sided articles that endorse only one view of anything. This article is about Clach. It's not an endorsement of Clach, and if it is, it should be deleted as biased.--Hardvice (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2007 (EST)