Talk:Channel Awesome/Archive 1

Re:Controversy

It's best to remove the section on the Channel Awesome page called "Controversy" as the section has little to nothing to do with the company itself and more to do with inside drama within the company. The section also clearly lies about Rizzo's involvement with Transmission Awesome. He did not create the podcast. The company article isn't the place for Internet drama and does not need to be on the page. Furthermore, stating that he was "blanket banned" and is an "unperson" is slander. The article should stick to the facts and not hearsay. 24.218.95.146 (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

After due consideration I've removed the text as it is copied from another website without proper consent. As it was it was possibly a valid text, if it was properly sourced. Jarkeld (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How much longer are you going to keep helping Channel Awesome cover up their mess? This whole thing stinks, and you seem very keen on removing any mention of a very real controversy affecting Channel Awesome. Care to comment on why you are so quick to squash this whole thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.19.154 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

He already explained (copy from another website without their consent - one would think you'd campaign against that), you're just unwilling to listen. How about you sit back and let veteran contributors actually clean up their website? This isn't Tumblr here and the line is clear between proven facts about a controversy and an internet drama infodump. Also, your "side" that you seem so eager to crusade for is equally biased and there are a lot of easily disproven lies and unprovable allegations flying around, which Wikipedia strives to avoid in its articles. This is not a place to vent anger, and I must echo CA, I'm truly sorry you feel like crusading based on allegations, but being upset doesn't make you right. More secondary sources and honest, factual information and less activism please.

Ok, then I'll just come right out and ask the important question. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.19.154 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You do all realize you are asking about a 7-year-old comment in this section, right? The current controversy section discussion is below, so please take it there. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request: Re-add Far From Subtle

Fraser and the Video Games Awesome crew are still a part of the site and their content is still posted to Blistered Thumbs regularly. Not sure how they got lost in the shuffle, but it was probably just an accidental omission by whoever condensed the content. Here's the needed entry for the Blistered Thumbs table:

|| FarFromSubtle (Fraser Agar) || Awesome Video Games, Video Games Awesome || Video games |-

98.250.7.156 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Done — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 23:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. Just realized that you forgot to italicize the show names, though, so someone will have to take care of that. -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Rachel Tietz has left Channel Awesome as of Nostalgia Critic's Face/Off review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.212.68 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: List of Channel Awesome producers

The first sentence of the subsection lists the main website as That Guy with Glasses on the first occurance. Should be changed into That Guy with the Glasses. –91.39.50.225 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Jarkeld (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Blip.

The line about all of CA's content being hosted on Blip isn't true anymore. After Blip axed the channel of one of the content providers & significantly reduced payout after Maker took over, NC & a few others switched to Youtube.

Merger proposal

I can't see any reason for That Guy with the Glasses and this page to be separate. They really aren't notable in the absence of one another. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please merge whatever notable content there is. That Guy with the Glasses is a non-stop magnet for fans coming in and adding lengthy fluff about non-notable segments of the show, exclusively self-referenced. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable Smaller Series

How important is this? I could be wrong, but I don't think either of those reviewers are particularly well known or "notable." If I'm wrong, inform me, but the Blockbuster Buster in specific just is not that famous or important as far as I know. 71.178.237.163 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

AFD for That Guy with the Glasses

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Guy with the Glasses (3rd nomination) and chime in. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Channel Awesome. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321061452/http://www.rifftrax.com:80/iriffs-contest-winner to http://www.rifftrax.com/iriffs-contest-winner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516014501/http://blip.tv/nostalgia-chick to http://blip.tv/nostalgia-chick#!page=15
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bthroughz.com/2011/feb/brad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816060256/http://blip.tv/the-blockbuster-buster/percy-jackson-review-by-the-blockbuster-buster-6056134 to http://blip.tv/the-blockbuster-buster/percy-jackson-review-by-the-blockbuster-buster-6056134
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516124420/http://blip.tv:80/the-blockbuster-buster/top-10-voice-over-actors-by-the-blockbuster-buster-6339852 to http://blip.tv/the-blockbuster-buster/top-10-voice-over-actors-by-the-blockbuster-buster-6339852

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) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Tony Goldmark

Would it be ok if we make a separate page for Some Jerk with a Camera? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteHicks (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If he is notable.★Trekker (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bring Back Controversy?

I think the decision to delete the original "Controversy" section was made in good judgment, but it seems like more issues are surfacing regarding management and how creators and employees have been treated. With #ChangeTheChannel on Twitter and the issues brought up by multiple creators, I think the problem has evolved beyond "drama" and the section is due for a comeback. 75.72.231.186 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

More than there just being more noise being made, there is external reporting on some of these issues now that we can cite, which makes a difference. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:C955:C999:3CD4:2EA (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Dot just did an article on the controversy; could be used as a source. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that virtually all the controversy centers around quasi-notable living people, and we can't use 99.9% of the sources discussing this controversy for BLP because they are self-published. This is why topics like this should not have Wikipedia articles -- we can't write the stuff while complying with both NPOV and BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I put in a Current Event tag which should cover some of the citation issues. Either way, I don't foresee any new developments until daybreak, so maybe we could shift the focus for now to making the section more concise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.154.73 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The controversy section as it stands is a joke, a heavily redacted joke. There is at least one editor involved with this article who does not have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, their loyalty seems to be to Channel Awesome, and at best they are showing absolute bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.19.154 (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is not Wikileaks, but Wikipedia. I do think there should be some amount of controversy being talked here, but there are still too few secondary sources, a single google docs and a bunch of Twitter accounts do not constitute valid primary sources as they are self-published (and we could debate all day about how dangerous and powerful certain activists are to launch a crusade based on this single unreliable source), and a lot of the section is far too obtuse and goes in far too much detail. You complain about it being removed by someone who disagrees with you, have you considered that you might be self-righteous and biased yourself and that someone isn't trying to "cover" for the company, but instead cleaning up a mess unbecoming of being on an encyclopedia? If you're gonna report on this, please keep factual and objective, perhaps SJW planet runs on hearsay and self-published first-person accounts but the real world requires facts and objective secondary evidence to back up anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.132.13 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Your journalistic integrity is for sale and we both know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.19.154 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to "debate all day" about anything. Virtually all of this content is covered under WP:BLP, and so citation of self-published sources is explicitly forbidden. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this an article about a company and not a person? Also if your saying that you can't say that Channel awesome did what they were accused of that makes sense. But I don't see why you can't put what they were accused of by whom, their response, and the current outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.105.203 (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Spike was right about the excessive focus, but reducing the section to fifty words is overkill. I agree; I think it deserves a longer paragraph with specific, but not excessive detail. 75.72.231.186 (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of what I removed is he-said she-said all sourced to primary sources like forum posts and tweets. We can't have that here, nor is it notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a pop culture blog. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not even remotely accurate Channel Awesome responded to some of the Google Doc accusation some of them fairly specifically. Right now the section reads like a few former contributors complained and the fans and those contributors didn't like the response so a few contributors left. When in reality all but a few of their contributors left. I understand that they're accusations that can't be confirmed as having happened but the effect of their occurrence had a major impact on the Subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.105.203 (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable secondary source that recaps the events as you described them and establishes how the events are notable outside of the company. We don't cover internal company events unless they are covered as such in secondary sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay let me see Google News Channel Awesome: So there's the Daily Dot, Ball State Daily News, and Game Revolution. Was that all no wait I'm missing one, oh right Channel Awesome's response to the accusations is also a secondary source...wonder if they're reliable on their being accusations about themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.105.203 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Telling me to go Google isn't answering my question. Please provide citations to reliable, published, secondary sources that recap these events and explain how they're notable. Channel Awesome is a primary source, not a secondary source. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to use Google-Fu. He gave you the names of the sources, and if you search the name of the source and Channel Awesome, you get it in the first few results. I did that myself, and here they are: http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/378287-channel-awesome-criticized-former-contributors-alleged-mistreatment http://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2018/04/channel-awesome-outs-former-content-producer-as-sexual-predator-prompting-subscribers-and-content-producers-to-leave https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/channel-awesome-sexual-misconduct-allegations/ Paul F Villerius (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Salon

Salon did an article on the controversy. We could use that as a non-primary source. 98.207.211.99 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It could be used as a secondary source to confirm some of the grievances and accusations by the former contributors. However, after reading it, there are several errors in the reporting such as calling the former contributors "employees" not being paid (which would imply they had a contract to be paid and they never did, they were never actually employees, nor did they ever claim to be in the Google doc) and combining the sexual harassment allegations against Ellis as well as accusing him with the grooming allegations against the then-unnamed producer (later revealed to be to Carmical by the authors of the Google doc and is not mentioned at all in the Salon article, therefore still has no secondary sources for allegations against him for inclusion on WP). Yosemiter (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Did doug leave?

There have been rumors that Doug Walker has left the company. Though it's not officially confirmed, there has been some interesting correlations such as his LinkedIn profile being deleted, the official IMDb page on NC stating it as ended, and Doug's personal Facebook lists him as worked (past tense) for Channel Awesome. Reddit user u/Temporary_Question also noted that if the rumors are true, there could be some legal battles between the Walkers and CEO Mike Michaud over the Nostalgia Critic IP. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@DatGuyonYouTube: Read WP:NOTCRYSTAL. We don't know and we don't speculate here. Leave that in Reddit. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: This is why I didn't put it in the mainspace. I just brought it up for us to look out for when any more information comes out. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic videos are still being released, so probably not. Raymond1922 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

This section contains excessive undue detail for basically what amounts to in-fighting and internal business politics. It should be trimmed down to maybe a paragraph. We are not Wikileaks, or a company drama blog. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it could be trimmed down but many of the sources are perfectly fine and it does not warrant a massive deletion --D33DeeD33Guy —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@D33DeeD33Guy: I'll work on trimming it down, then. I don't feel like the excessive back-and-forth citing just Tweets as a source is acceptable. Lots of editors building this section appeared to be insiders trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to air their grievances. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I resolved the last remaining citation issues and went ahead with removing the improvement templates. I hope this was alright. ~SlyCooperFan1 05:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Justin Carmical Allegations

I noticed that there isn't anything in this article about the allegations against the late Justin Carmical including instances of sexual assault and sexually grooming a fan of his. Out of everything revealed in the Google Doc, I think this was probably the biggest scandal. Granted he isn't mentioned by name in the document as the individual leveling the allegations of the grooming did not give his name, but when a response revealed when this individual was fired, his identity was able to be deduced from when he left the website. I'd think this should at least warrant a mention or two. –Nahald (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just editing the talk page to bring this up again, as it probably bears mentioning with enough secondary sources having written articles about it. Since a page under Justin's name redirects here, and since the allegations came out because of, and part of, the management controversy it definitely bears a mention in that section. ~SlyCooperFan1 05:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Master Bate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Master Bate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Spelling correction

I realize this is a minor issue for a discussion page, but since I can't edit the article I guess I have no choice.

The spelling of FilmBrain's real name should be "Mathew" and not "Matthew". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.248.107 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Thank you for identifying this error. LifeofTau 03:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request: 2018 Controvery

It's worth stating that the two last remaining non-core members of Channel Awesome were present on April 12th, but by April 13th only Larry remained. He only stayed that long so he could brag about being the last to leave, playing off of the joke that no one believed he was a part of the network in the first place. He tweeted "WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER" in response to being the last remaining member, before promptly leaving as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbill3 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Brad and Larry are both still with Channel Awesome. They're both listed on the website's "Shows" section, and both of them have uploaded videos there as recently as last month. ~SlyCooperFan1 22:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

"Benjamin Daniel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Benjamin Daniel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Benjamin Daniel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)