Talk:Steven Crowder
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steven Crowder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Change My Mind (meme) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 July 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Steven Crowder. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Sexual harassment of male employees
editWhy are the allegations, widely covered in political and tech media, not acknowledged in this entry? Why does it seem that American far-right media people have the most whitewashed pages on Wikipedia? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, nobody has tried to add anything to the article regarding any such allegations. Nobody seems to have discussed them on this talk page. Hard to see where any 'whitewashing' could have taken place.
- Read WP:BLP and WP:RS carefully, and if you think the sources justify content, propose it here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The article is not particularly whitewashed. It just has to maintain a neutral point of view. We do have a fairly regular problem with Crowder's fans coming along any trying to whitewash the article but that normally gets reverted pretty quickly. Anyway, I wasn't aware of these particular allegations. I've done a bit of Google News searching and it seems to be pretty new. In fact, it seems that there are two news items about him at the moment which might merit inclusion if we can find sufficient RS sources for them. The trouble is that, at a first glance, I'm mostly seeing sources that we can't use:
- He is alleged to have flashed at, and sent unsolicited dick pics to, male colleagues. I see mostly non-RS coverage but maybe this is usable?
- His divorce seems to be getting nasty, with him apparently requesting sole custody of the one year old twins. This is in the Daily Mail and the NY Post, which we can't use. I did find this, which might be something. It does mention there being a "gag order" so I'm not sure what affect this has on us being able to include it.
- Does anybody have any more/better sources? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- The problem with the NY Mag source is that it is simply reporting on what the NY Post is reporting. Miner Editor (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- We should monitor RS developments of this issue. I imagine if former employees are beginning to allege abuse then it will be covered in various RS. At that point it would be due weight. We are not there quite yet. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nice to see an accusation that we are biased on behalf of the right, that makes a refreshing change. Girth Summit (blether) 14:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I created a new "Controversies" subsection. If you have reliable sources, feel free to add on to it. B3251 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Without weighing in on the merits in this specific case, we should generally be cautious about "controversy" sections. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Any “controversies” should be introduced naturally into the prose. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll move it to the prose in that case. Thanks, and noted. 👍 B3251 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Any “controversies” should be introduced naturally into the prose. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Without weighing in on the merits in this specific case, we should generally be cautious about "controversy" sections. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Greta Thunberg poll incident
editI'm not sure why this is being referred to as a "claim" as I have already provided an archived link to the tweet, but the lack of significant coverage surrounding Steven Crowder creating a poll in 2019 that included "slutty Greta Thunberg" when she was 16 years old, with the only reporting outlet being The Daily Dot, can easily be explained due to Crowder deleting the tweet shortly after. The archived tweet shows replies criticizing Crowder right after he tweeted the poll. I feel like the archived link to the tweet should provide enough to treat this as more than just a "claim". Pinging iamreallygoodatcheckers. B3251 (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @B3251: You added this sentence to the end of the second paragraph of the lead:
In late 2019, Crowder faced backlash for creating a Twitter poll suggesting different Halloween costumes, with one of the options being "slutty Greta Thunberg," who was 16 years old at the time.
You sourced it to The Daily Dot.
- There are several issues with the content. Firstly, it's poorly sourced. The Daily Dot has questionable reliability (see WP:RSP) and should not be used for contentious claims like this unless attributed. The Daily Dot is not sufficiently establish weight for inclusion. I did a Google search for this topic and I was able to find no other secondary reliable source coverage for this situation. For these reasons, I believe the claim lacks weight in general in this article, especially not due in the lead where it was placed. Furthermore, it's possible that the whole situation could fall under WP:NOTNEWS.
- I would like to add here that the lack of coverage because the tweet was deleted quickly is not an argument that holds water. Wikipedia is not supposed to right great wrongs. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- What's the opposite of damning with faint praise? Praising with faint controversies? Considering all the many heinous and well-documented controversies Crowder has been involved with, including this in the lead seems a bit silly. The Daily Dot could potentially be reliable in this instance, since I don't think this qualifies as a contentious claim. Is anyone doubting for a second that Crowder would try a stunt like this? It just doesn't seem even remotely implausible or extraordinary. The problem is that it doesn't appear to matter. The source, such as it is, doesn't indicate why this one incident among many is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- A close reading of The Daily Dot article doesn't even unequivocally establish that the Tweet existed. It uses words such as "allegedly suggested" and "Crowder reportedly posted". This question the verifiability of the tweet and makes me think that little actual investigation was done by The Daily Dot to confirm the tweets existence. Even if it did exist, it's unknown the specific phrasing. The lack of any other sourcing is not helping the verifiability concerns. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 17:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- What's the opposite of damning with faint praise? Praising with faint controversies? Considering all the many heinous and well-documented controversies Crowder has been involved with, including this in the lead seems a bit silly. The Daily Dot could potentially be reliable in this instance, since I don't think this qualifies as a contentious claim. Is anyone doubting for a second that Crowder would try a stunt like this? It just doesn't seem even remotely implausible or extraordinary. The problem is that it doesn't appear to matter. The source, such as it is, doesn't indicate why this one incident among many is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The text you wanted to add: In late 2019, Crowder faced backlash for creating a Twitter poll suggesting different Halloween costumes, with one of the options being "slutty Greta Thunberg," who was 16 years old at the time.. But the only "backlash" the source documents is from a number of Twitter users who saw the original Tweet. When I think of a "backlash" I think of activity outside the Twitterverse, and that is not documented in this case. The lead section of articles is for the most important aspects about the subject, and even if the nature of this "backlash" was clarified, this does not qualify for inclusion due to a lack of WP:WEIGHT. This is why we require reliable sources, not because we don't trust lesser sources with matters of fact, but we can't trust sources like the Daily Dot with how those matters of fact are described and contextualized. Miner Editor (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly this is poorly sourced, and there's no indication of notability of incident. I strongly suggest that you do not re-add the content again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 changes
editThe reason for the revert was explained and all the rest is just time-wasting. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If you look at edit history, people reverted my edits for no reason, can someday fix this? 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
|
Video of "f*cking watch it"
editIn the video, Crowder yelled at Hilary for failing to perform her "wifely duties" and told her to "fucking watch it" when Hilary accused Crowder of "abuse".
Can we get a link to the video with him telling her to "fucking watch it"? If not, that part of the sentence should be rephrased. Maybe something like:
In the video, Crowder scolded Hilary for failing to perform her "wifely duties". According to Ali, but not seen in the video, Crowder became angry and told her to "fucking watch it" when Hilary accused Crowder of "abuse". 2607:FB91:F09:CAF8:B579:EF31:33C9:488A (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- The news publication is a valid source and should already be and is already enough, but if that still doesn't convince you for some reason, here's a video regarding the incident. B3251 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the reply. I saw the video. There's no audio of him telling her to "fucking watch it" in that video. That is text written on top of the video, and that text is sourced to Ali. Thus my suggested rephrase:
- In the video, Crowder scolded Hilary for failing to perform her "wifely duties". According to Ali, but not seen in the video, Crowder became angry and told her to "fucking watch it" when Hilary accused Crowder of "abuse".
- Ali's text is the source of the quote. It isn't in the video. As currently written in Wikipedia, it is misleading. Lots of people think that part is in the video, but as far as I can tell, audio of Crowder's voice saying "fucking watch it" hasn't been released publicly. 2607:FB91:F09:CAF8:FDB9:13D4:3CDA:1D2B (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's... literally... in the video...
- Just because the part where he said "fucking" in "fucking watch it" is censored doesn't mean it didn't happen, given the fact that there's reliable sources that note him saying "fucking watch it". B3251 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- He says "fucking watch it" at 1:55[1], you can easily hear his voice, there's no interpretation needed.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Whistleblowing
editWP:NOTFORUM. We do not base content on contributors personal analysis, and accordingly, this has no place here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I added details regarding Crowder's new activities as a leaker of withheld government documents, known as whistleblowing. I added because of the major breaking news that releasing the documents was, at the time, and because Crowder has continued attempting to collect insider documents from other whistleblowers, sine this first event. It took about 18 hours before somebody reverted, with an explanation: "Ungrammatical, improperly sourced and not obviously noteworthy anyway" This strikes me as the description that I might write, if I simply didn't like the information that was written. (lol) Moreover, the incident apparently is noteworthy enough to have its own section on the incident's page, titled "leaks." So if it IS significant enough to include Crowder's name on that page, is it not correct to be documented on his actual page? It strikes me that it might be more appropriate to consolidate this information here, and not there. This is almost as silly as documenting Crowder's activity on the victim's wiki page. Does that seem correct? Crowder is now a whistleblower, who leaked sensitive government documents, and got away with it. An activity which he now engages in actively, via what he calls "mug club under cover." His supporters/donors have now reportedly (according to him) donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to him, to support these activities. This on its face is obviously noteworthy, and honestly, deserves much more expansion than the tidbit I started. The source I selected for this particular paragraph is Crowder's words, from his own show. Where he showed the photos of the manifesto that he leaked. If that's not enough/correct sourcing, so be it - but "not obviously noteworthy anyway" ? ArmandTreshi (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Jared Monroe
editShould there be any mention of Crowder's dispute with his former employee Jared Monroe? Monroe recently published a video accusing Crowder of "legal abuse" and other allegations.
https://www.mediaite.com/media/ex-steven-crowder-staffer-claims-hes-being-legally-abused-after-quitting-toxic-and-abusive-show/ AstralNomad (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- No. None of these people are relevant and it's debatable whether this page should exist at all. AcademicPerfection (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)