Talk:Donnie Davies

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

Keep. Serenity Now 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What possible justification can there be for deleting this article? Donnie Davies has been discussed in numerous news articles, and Wikipedia should have an entry on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

A Google News search for "Donnie Davies" returns eleven unique hits that originate from about four separate sources, all blogs and zine-blogs, and none of these sources has any real information on the guy. In the same fashion, the Wikipedia article was long on wild-ass speculation and short on solid information. In the unlikely event that he continues his "career", gets some real media coverage, and we come closer to figuring out whether or not he's a joke, the article should come back. Until then, though... Thunderbunny 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, just because you haven't realised this is a joke yet, doesn't mean we all have to wait for you to (if you need help, check out the list of 'gay' and 'safe' bands on his website - "Morrisey (?questionable?)". This might well turn out to be one of the best "I can't believe they didn't get it" instances in recent times, and the controversy it has created is certainly worth noting. There's plenty of solid information. He has a website, he is parodying the Christian anti-gay and reformed-gay movement. Whatever. I'm not saying it's an essential article by means, and he will probably be forgotten forever in a matter of days. But it wouldn't be the most trivial thing on Wikipedia. Conor 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, have you read the article before it was deleted, or any of the Dan Savage article or blogs about this guy? It ain't just me that's having a little trouble figuring out whether or not he's a joke. I'm about 85% sure that it's a joke, but fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. have this tendency to REALLY test the bounds of credibility sometimes. Thunderbunny 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's uncertainty over whether this is a hoax, but does this factor into decisions on page deletion? If the article specifically described this as a hoax or as entirely genuine, then that wouldn't be fully objective (and wouldn't mesh with various sources). The article certainly could (should) address this, as it's mostly why much interest developed in this topic the first place. Other considerations (quality and quantity of sources) may still prevent an article at this point, but I don't see how the uncertainty inherently voids the entry. I'm assuming there's an entry on UFO's?Gerta 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Why not report the controversy?
Absolutely... when the controversy is covered by nontrivial media, and not just a handful of bloggers. Anyone who is weighing in on this discussion and hasn't read the notability guidelines should read them and make their arguments to show how Davies meets the guidelines at this time. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would read them but then I'd have to go through the rest of Wikipedia and try and have the rest of the hundreds of articles that don't meet those criteria deleted, after the finer points of those ridiculously pompous guidlines had been discussed on every single page. I'm not in the mood for Wikipedia elitism right now though, so I'll take my leave, thank you. Conor 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure -- I posted a Donnie Davies entry prior to its most recent deletion and ultimate protection. I didn't protest wildly, as I can see the perspective that this whole phenomenon lacked solid referencing. However, I disagree that the references were all circular and confined to the Donnie Davies-created sites -- plenty of effort has gone into identifying Davies and clarifying the nature of his videos, but of course this has largely been in the blogosphere. I'm not entirely clear on where wikipedia draws the line between blogs and "proper" journalism, and I get the feeling the line is intentionally (and frustratingly) vague in order to remain flexible. If blogs are completely off-limits, then so be it. If not, I think there's good (or at least decent), objective journalism in a couple of "blog" articles on Davies. In particular, here, and, for the kids, here. Other articles about Davies' identity (in particular identifying him with a particular comedian or musician) offer more speculative content, but at least that extends beyond original research. Hopefully this doesn't come off as too bitter, but how on earth is Donnie Davies a no-go when Lonelygirl15 and Bonsai Kitten made it onto the wiki? Perhaps it's just a matter of time until acceptable sources crop up. I'd also point out that highly polarizing comments don't help this discussion. I certainly hope my entry wasn't considered "long on wild-ass speculation," as I stuck to describing claims made elsewhere and kept the article reasonably objective without weighing in on whether Davies is a hoax. Regardless of whether that comment was aimed at my version or a previous one, it certainly doesn't help the wiki's supposed noob-friendly atmosphere; nor does it help authors of deleted articles to avoid taking it personally, as the wiki's documentation emphasizes.Gerta 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I also wrote a Donnie Davies entry that was deleted. Gerta, maybe we should start a support group. Anyway, I agree that the blog-versus-paper-media criteria are a little vague. In addition to the Washington Blade and Current.tv, it's been covered repeatedly by Dan Savage at The Stranger, which seems like a non-trivial source to me. Also, I don't think this topic should be disqualified simply because it's unknown whether or not he's real (as Gerta pointed out, see Lonelygirl15); the deleted article specifically said that nobody knows whether or not it's a hoax. And that's a moot point anyway, since now the guy's been identified as Joel Ogelsby. Since my article was deleted, I will defer to the community on un-deletion or un-protecting the topic. But it seems to me like a notable topic, since it's getting attention from some relatively significant sources. It seems like a strange omission from Wikipedia for the facts not to appear here. Mattymatt 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there should be an article here[edit]

There's a procedure for having an article undeleted. It's explained at WP:DRV. You'll be expected to provide evidence of notability- that's multiple examples of things written about Davies in nontrivial sources. WP:BIO gives more specifics about the kinds of evidence that can demonstrate notability. No amount of conversation on the talk page of a deleted article is likely to result in the article's undeletion, but anyone is welcome to appeal the deletion if they have evidence that it should be undeleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this is a perfect example of a chilling effect and will only lead to more curiousity about the subject being blanketed and censored on Wikipedia. Considering that a vast majority of Wikipedia more or less come from "trivial" sources, this type of action nullifies a great deal of it's worth. Popular culture is created by and defined by "trivial sources". While academia is perhaps the litmus of stoic discussion, the vast majority of culture is defined by so called trivial mediums and it is a constantly transforming and evolving beast that can only survive via so-called trivial sources and the non-mainstream. In any case, at least this talk page is still here so the discussion can keep going. Personally, I'm convinced that it is a hoax as there are a great deal of religious-parody material out there. Some more insidiously deceptive than one might expect.Jdng 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to work wikipedia (don't really care), but it's bullshit that Donnie's article is being deleted. There's an article about him on Spin.com for fuck's sake.(http://www.spin.com/features/everybodystalkingabout/2007/01/070124_eveningservice/) Does the New York fuckin Times gotta do a cover story about him before wiki-readers can obtain info about him on this site?


it would be nice to have wiki as an information source by not having an article it becomes less useful 67.123.6.234 03:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)fcking2000@yahoo.com[reply]

I wouldn't sweat it too terribly hard, friends. In a meta-meta sense the article already exists in the form of this discussion. That is what makes Wikipedia uniquely different from an ordinary encyclopedia. Ean 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion reversal[edit]

If anyone is interested, I nominated the article for a reversed deletion. Please visit WP:DRV to discuss. Thanks! --SquatGoblin 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin is reading this discussion, would it be possible to add the {{Delrev}} template to the main Donnie Davies article page now that there's a deletion review thread? Thanks. Gerta 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should do that automatically, I thought... Thunderbunny 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems not -- it just had the protected template. Anyway, there's an AfD template now that it moved over there, so it's all good. Gerta 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please correct this entry to show that it was JoeMyGod (me) who first exposed Joey (not Joel)Oglesby? The Dan Savage article linked is in response to my post. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/01/davies-exposed-as-actor-joel-oglesby.html. Thanks very much.

I made those changes because it is a valid correction, but I have to say it's really obnoxious and rude to request changes when you say, "I don't know how to work wikipedia (don't really care)". If you don't care, then don't participate or care if the article exists or not. Since you are participating, at least have the courtesy of leaving a signature of some sort to identify yourself. A number of people have worked to make sure this article wasn't deleted, and as someone who thinks "it's bullshit that Donnie's article is being deleted", the least you could've done is politely learn to work the some of the system rather than be completely uninvolved and rudely negative. Of course, it's also a disappointment that you should feel this way about contributing to Wikipedia and maintain a blog like yours. --SquatGoblin 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Try going to WP:HELP. It's not all that difficult. If petty vandals can pull it off, I think you can, too. --SquatGoblin 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From JoeMyGod: I'm trying to find where i said "I don't know how to work wikipedia (don't really care)". That second part doesn't sound like something I would have said, as I do value Wikipedia and reference it in my blog daily. I requested somebody else make the change because I thought it might be improper Wiki behavior to edit a post that mentions yourself. And I thought I *did* identify myself? I thought I was being completely aboveboard, so I am very confused. All I wanted was the timeline of events to read correctly.

Are there references for the "Circumstantial evidence" subsection? It either needs specific referencing, or it should be eliminated as original research. I think I've read at least the first two points (circular network of Davies' websites and lack of biblical reference) somewhere, but I can't recall where and it may have been nothing more than comments posted to blogs. Gerta 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are references we could add. The Washington Blade refers to the WhoIsIt? information and knows that it's the same purchaser through GoDaddy, but of course that information is public so we could link to the information directly. --SquatGoblin 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus Myspace account[edit]

A new Myspace account for Donnie Davies has cropped up (recall that the original was deleted by Myspace). The new account is an obvious fraud, with inappropriate language and honestly not particularly clever. An unregistered user added a link to this account in the article, quite possibly the same person who created the new Myspace account. I've eliminated that link, but please keep an eye out and delete this link if it crops up again. Thanks. Gerta 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the newer Myspace account (pastordavies), now linked in the article, appears genuine. Gerta 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, until Rupert Murdoch (or duly designated crony) deletes us again. Ean Schuessler 06:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloginess[edit]

In the AfD thread, one participant in the discussion noted the article seems to focus too heavily on the blogs that have covered Davies rather than the Davies phenomenon itself. I agree, and it's my fault. It's the first article I've created, and when I did so, I wasn't particularly familiar with the referencing guidelines. I crammed too much detail regarding the (at that point somewhat flimsy) sources into the text rather than footnoting for better flow. I'll work on this when I get a chance, but I'd encourage others to do the same. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes can make all the difference. Gerta 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof lovegodsway.org is fake[edit]

go to the site and on the homepage (www.lovegodsway.org), roll your mouse over the red menu bar...to the left of the words "gay" "christian" "help" "contact". A dialogue box will pop-up saying "chewbaca". Please explain how any serious "religious" (term used loosely here) entity would have this as part of their site. - NormG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think you'll find too many people arguing this is the real deal any more. But for the article, we're concerned with verifiable information researched by reputable sources. If you have a source providing evidence of a hoax, it can be added to the appropriate section of the article. Otherwise, it won't meet wikipedia standards. Gerta 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the alt text for that particular image -- it only pops up the way that it does for some users who are using a particular browser which is configured to reveal alt text. It doesn't seem particularly telling, as religious people are capable of enjoying Star Wars and planting easter eggs. If you can find documentation in a reputable source of why it is significant, then mention of it might belong in this article. Mattymatt 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the discussion page, since this in itself is not actually proof, just an opinion. I think it is somewhat of a joke as to what Davies looks like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Original research[edit]

Recent additions to this article consist entirely of original research (WP:OR). Mostly, I'm referring to the "Videos" section, but also to claims of a hoax that reference Davies' blog directly. I'm too lazy to revert all those edits (since there are now quite a few), so I am deleting them. If you feel these contributions can be properly referenced, please feel free to include the information with proper sources. Thanks, Gerta 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV aired an online segment about Davies that included footage of Oglesby from the Davies video production crew. The Davies website also posted a link to extended footage that MTV supposedly excluded (though it mostly consists of an Oglesby+Davies "interview" that appears distinct from the MTV footage).
Details about these videos have been posted several times, and initially I just deleted these edits (see above) since they were unsourced and only referred to the video posted by "Davies", for which I haven't seen any reporting at all. Nonetheless, the info has been reposted, so I made an effort to improve the addition to the best of my ability rather than simply reverting. Personally, I remain of the opinion that the changes should go -- i.e. the whole third paragraph under "Identity" ("Footage of Oglesby...") doesn't really shed any light, and the info referencing the "extended" Davies video directly isn't supported by reputable sources. If someone agrees and wishes to make the changes, please go ahead; I'd prefer to steer clear of an edit war since I already deleted this stuff. Thanks, Gerta 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If someone can contribute referenced information regarding the apparent hoax, please do so. It seems quite obvious from the most recent videos that Davies/Oglesby has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, but he's steered clear of a direct admission. Since the media storm has basically died down, I haven't seen any reputable sources addressing this newer evidence of a hoax. Nonetheless, repeated recent edits mention the more recent evidence, but these contributions seem quite obviously to fall under the umbrella of original research. If someone can find decent references, hopefully we can put all that to rest. Thanks, Gerta 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Davies" Exposed As Actor Joey Oglesby[edit]

"Thanks to the sleuthing of Dallas JMG reader Bob Stoller, "Pastor Donnie Davies" has been exposed as Dallas-area actor Joey Oglesby" [1]

Sensodyne 04:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better content[edit]

The article currently contains several references to actors or directors who were falsely identified as the source. While entertaining, I'm not sure if this kind of archival speculation is noteworthy. There are other third party comments that seem far more noteworthy that are not currently addressed. For instance, Andrew Sullivan commented:

At the risk of spoiling the illusion, the God Hates Fags video is, when you examine the site more closely, and watch the video more attentively, a brilliant piece of performance art. So brilliant it illuminates what it satirizes more deeply than any argument could". [2]

Sullivan was being carried by TIME Magazine's blog section at that time so his comments reached a very large audience. In contrast, Dan Savage in Seattle's The Stranger, wrote:

This is not a hoax. Donnie Davis is engaged in a deadly serious effort—a seriously successful effort—to spread the fundy message about homosexuality (it’s a choice, god hates it) through the intentional use of humor. [3]

These quotes seem far more noteworthy and, in my opinion, do a far better job of highlighting the mystery of the intent of the authors of the Donnie Davies phenomena.

Ean Schuessler (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Donnie Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donnie Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donnie Davies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-fictionalization[edit]

This article was recently edited to claim that Davies was not a parody character, without further citation, by an account with the name Donniedavies. I've reverted the article to before the changes. Zipzipzip (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donnie_Davies&oldid=1201614126"