Talk:Steven Crowder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Change far-right commentator to right wing commentator. Steven Crowder does not fit the criteria for the far right which would include extreme nationalism, facism and authoritarianism. Along with this he does not have other aspects including homophobia, transphobia or being theocratic.

Various links to YouTube videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iQzpaIr5w -- A video that shows him taking the political compass test which is a bias test (aside from plotting political ideas on a 2d compass) but highlights his views against such horrific ideas that are linked to him which can be found throught the link that shall be changed. Any other links to this are at the very least misinterpretations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUM6glxCAY -- A video in which he talks to a homosexual conservative and allows them to get their voice heard while not in any way insulting the man or calling him a degenerate or use of clear homophobic language with vicous intent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vef_fjyBYOk -- A video in which he protects the right to firearms which is a liberal view point as it is against more government control of the soverign individual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJSEef4vFo -- A video in which he protects free speech which is an anti-authoritarian view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIoyyE9UPc -- A video in which Crowder protects the free speech of Dave Chapelle while stating he does not agree with issues on him but his jokes should not be censored and he should still be heard. On top of the fact that he is showing liberal values he is also showing his ability to want to listen to voices from BAME groups in his videos it shows this as he references his lawyer who is half chinese and other members of his team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNMC4mZi1ds -- A video in which he pokes fun at the idiotic nature of racism.

from these catalogs of videos on mostly social policies apart from the first it should give an idea that he does not adhear to the disgusting beliefs that are attributed to him through this and as this will be the first thing people see of him it is not a good first impression for people trying to find who he is. N8 WLD (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

So, for us to determine whether he is 'far right' or 'right wing' by looking at his videos would be original research. What we need to do is look at how reliable sources describe him. From a quick look at the sources in the article though, such as Washington Post and The Verge, right wing is indeed what they say about him. Are there sources I'm missing that support the 'far right' description - if not, I'd say this should probably be changed to 'right wing' as the OP suggests. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Actually, I see that the 'far right' descriptor was added recently without any talk page discussion or sourcing. I've changed it to right-wing, which from my quick check of the sources seems to be the descriptor used most commonly. Happy to discuss alternatives if anyone's uncomfortable with this. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

The t-shirt said socialism is for figs, not f*ags(the slur). A006Delta (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That is both nonsensical and contradicted by the sources that are clear that the shirt (which read "f*gs") was intended as an insult against Maza. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Crowder had been repeatedly using the shirts long before the Maza controversy and him and his team repeatedly stated "figs" rather than the homophobic slur. - historyman1812 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020

"Anti-abortion" vs. "pro-life".

Since there has been a lot of revert-warring over this... there was an extensive discussion in the past that broadly affirmed that "pro-life" / "pro-choice" violate WP:NPOV in the article voice, and an Arbcom case that affirmed the finality and generality of that outcome. Epithets meant for political grandstanding like that are generally not WP:NPOV and violate MOS:LABEL when (as in this case) clear, unambiguous alternatives without the same weight exist. Nor can we rely on someone's WP:ABOUTSELF self-description on Twitter in that context, since framing their beliefs that way is clearly self-serving. In the article voice, we use anti-abortion and abortion-rights as more neutral terms. --Aquillion (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Coronavirus misinformation

"At the time, experts said". One source provided from an op-ed website. MPs (in the UK) and officials in Congress have discussed the issues there have been with the accuracy of data. Crowder has not spread any disinformation as he has clearly and openly displayed his sources of reference. The chief medical advisor to the President Of United States (Dr. Fauci), doctors and elected officials have openly disputed and supplied evidence against lockdowns and the coronavirus religion. Plenty of sources can be looked up on YouTube for this. Labelling something as misinformation, based on a single biased source - does not make the information misinformed. --Jackromeo123 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't the accuracy of data, but that Crowder seeks to blame the COVID death toll on "leftists". FDW777 (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That does not directly equate to 'misinformation', as used in the subtitle. If a policy was enacted by what you describe as "leftists" and evidence was shown that this would have led to higher death figures (eg moving elderly people with COVID to nursing homes etc...). Why would this be described as misinformation? Admittedly, the same can be done for a range of policies enacted by centrists or people on the right of the spectrum. That fact is redundant in this case. A more suitable title could be "Coronavirus/Lockdown Scepticism" along with a range of scientific evidence that lockdown policies should not be used for Coronavirus (Source: World Health Organisation [WHO]) Jackromeo123 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Jackromeo123

Crowder's claim that "leftists at hospitals are inflating the death count" is false, as the fact-checking source makes clear. Wikipedia describes false things as false, per WP:YESPOV. There are no mainstream reliable sources supporting Crowder's claim. Using the weasel word "many" similarly weakens the reliable source's clear and unequivocal description of Crowder's claim as false. I have reverted this section to the last stable version, and request that J.Turner99 discuss their proposed changes and gain consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is clearly in the right here based on the sources, but my question is, is this section that contains one sentence actually WP:DUE at all? This is essentially just one of his views, of which, none of his other views (guns, LGBT, abortion, religion, etc) are even discussed, not to mention have their own sections. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add one word so the readers know that not every expert in the world agreed. The source does not say every expert agreed (because that's not possible), so we must be clear. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding one word

Hello everyone i'm going to add one word for clarity. It's important the readers know that not all experts in the entire world agreed. Please AGF if you disagree, and please no lengthy paragraphs. Thank you J.Turner99 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No. --JBL (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lucas Santo Bougé accusation

A trans individual has (Redacted). Whether it's true or not, the accusation has got a lot of traction on Twitter. Is it noteworthy? (Redacted) [Link] --78.18.102.143 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Twitter is not a reliable source, and WP:BLP is very clear that all potentially-defamatory material must be supported by a rock-solid reliable source. If and when reliable sources report on the allegation, then we can consider including it. Until then, it's not even a suitable topic for discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Racist mocking of Black farmers

Many news outlets are writing about his latest video getting pulled off of YouTube for Covid misinformation and for his racist jokes aimed at Black farmers. Should this be added? --Vember94 (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point, no. The only reliable source right now that I could find is Bloomberg which provides no context and states "some viewers criticizing Crowder for sharing views about Black farmers that they found racist" without stating it in the definitive. Also see WP:NOTNEWS if this is just a driveby case, unlike the extended case about Maza. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

New sources available

• https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/18/22339030/youtube-racist-steven-crowder-video-does-not-violate-hate-speech-policies
• https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/17/22336028/youtube-steven-crowder-racist-video-removed-covid-misinformation-policies
• https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/03/18/steven-crowder-youtube-homophobia-racism-black-farmers-covid-carlos-maza/
• https://www.mediamatters.org/steven-crowder/youtube-steven-crowder-uses-racist-stereotypes-attack-black-farmers

John Cummings (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Mediamatters not particularly reliable and PinkNews should also be used with caution for topics such as this (they also quote Mediamatters) per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The two or three reliable sources listed were all published on the day and so this does not seem to have widespread coverage and would fail the WP:10YEARTEST, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

And many more

• https://www.newsweek.com/steven-crowder-faces-racism-backlash-after-mocking-reparations-black-farmers-1576728
• https://www.newsweek.com/steven-crowder-black-farmers-punch-image-1576725
• https://www.mediaite.com/news/youtube-says-stephen-crowders-viciously-racist-segment-about-black-farmers-didnt-violate-its-hate-speech-rules/
• https://www.rawstory.com/louder-with-crowder/
• https://flipboard.com/@Newsweekdotcom/steven-crowder-faces-racism-backlash-after-mocking-reparations-or-black-farmer/a-S2mUHah0TzOsCXl8C0qX8g%3Aa%3A1778189168-1a95965bea%2Fnewsweek.com

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-17/youtube-removes-steven-crowder-video-for-violating-covid-policy-kmcz9wy6
• https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/anti-lgbt-youtuber-steven-crowder-104940208.html
• https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/17/youtube-takes-down-racist-video-but-not-because-of-the-racism/

John Cummings (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek post-2013 is a very weak source (RSP entry). Same deal with Mediaite (RSP entry). Raw Story is completely unreliable (RSP entry). "Flipboard" is a reprinting of the Newsweek article. And Yahoo Finance is a reprint of the Pink News article--so those two don't add anything to weight. So I guess the only decent source is the Bloomberg article. Probably better to wait to see if the story develops. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I've crossed those out, what abour mercury and yahoo? neither are on RSP... John Cummings (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings, No problem. Like I said above, Yahoo is simply a reprinting of the Pink News article. And as Vaselineeeeeeee said, probably not a great source to use for these kinds of articles. And, worse of all, it looks like Pink News relied on reporting from Media Matters. I'm not too familiar with Mercury News. It likes a regular local newspaper. It's probably isn't as reliable as say the Los Angeles Times, but they're probably good enough. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing is pretty weak here, but that is not even the whole issue here. Even if you can find an LA Times article on the day, it has not been widely covered beyond that and therefore would not pass the WP links I linked in my first and second comments. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"Racist and Homophobic slurs"

"his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs"

Crowder referred to Maza and "Mexican" and "Latino"

Neither of those are racist slurs.

The closest thing to homophobic slur that could be considered is him referring to Maza as "Queer" but even members of the gay community use that term so I would be hesitant to even call that homophobic.

History Man1812 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

I'm sorry that you feel that the reliable source cited describing the comments as "racist and homophobic slurs" is wrong, but that fact famously doesn't care about your feeling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am just pointing out facts. Neither Mexican, nor Latino is a racist slur. Crowder did not use racist slurs. The article that is cited is extremely biased, I would not call it a reliable source. History Man1812 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

The Washington Post is simply pointing out facts too. You are welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN if you think it is not reliable, but you'll be wasting your time. FDW777 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "FACT" that those words are homophobic or racist. It is an opinion being presented as fact. It is more evidence that The Washington Post is not a credible news source. Presenting an opinion as fact is not appropriate for a wikipedia page. You can state that some people believe the words to be intended in a homophobic or racist manner, since that IS fact. But stating that he made homophobic or racist slurs is NOT fact. jathtech (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion that The Washington Post is not a credible news source is irrelevant here. on Wikipedia, The Washington Post absolutely is a credible news source - there is longstanding consensus to that effect. If you wish to change that consensus, WP:RSN is over there - you'll need to open a discussion and create a new consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles about living people are not based on opinions of reliable sources about the character of living people. When talking about people, authoritative sources need to be used, as neutral language should be prefered. Francis1867 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a few more sources, but note that they list much more serious slurs than that, including “lispy sprite,” and anchor baby; most of the sources also seem to consider repeatedly calling Carlos (a Cuban-American) Mexican to be a racial slur in context - the Time source specifically notes this aspect. In cases like these, we go by what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to keep this completely false sentence in the opening paragraph, then the term "Alleged" or "Allegedly" should be used. I have seen absolutely no proof that what Crowder said was homophobic and/or racist. YouTube themselves conducted an investigation and decided that the language he used was "hurtful" but didn't violate their policies against racism and/or harassment. Carlos Maza, the person who actually made the complaints about Crowder, never claimed racism or homophobia. He claimed harassment. Obviously, the author of this article is imposing his personal biases on the content. The author does not get to state, unequivocally, that someone is a racist or homphobe, when that "fact" is clearly in debate. Doniboy71 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The slurs are either racist and/or homophobic or they aren't. The Washington Post says they are. Do any references disagree? FDW777 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Either racist or they aren't????? Really? There are no interpretations? Everyone agrees all the time on what is racist and what isn't? Sorry, but that is completely false. The Washington Post does not, in any way, say that they have examined the text and determined that it is racist and homophobic. The fact that some author neglected their journalistic duty to write "allegedly" doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. Youtube is a valuable source here, as they were the ones in control of the situation. Youtube conducted an actual investigation, and determined that the comments did not violate their policy against racism or homophobia. Therefore the FACT is that these were allegations and the one investigation into them showed that they did not violate the terms of use. Incompetent journalists incorrectly omitting the term allegedly does not prove your point nor does it justify this Wikipedia article being false in this manner. Why do you oppose accurately depicting the allegations as allegations? How does falsely making a blanket, black or white statement in an area that is obviously debatable make this article better? Finally, as i stated before, Maza never even claimed either racism or homophobia, he claimed harassment and bullying. The editorialized story added racism and homophobia without source... the "journalists" just made it up. By way of a citation I provide this article which never once calls the comments racist or homophobic, and directly quotes Youtube's finding that Crowders comments did not violate their policy. https://www.businessinsider.com/steven-crowder-youtube-speech-carlos-maza-explained-youtube-2019-6 Also, here is a New York Times article which again describes the controversy without ever stating, unequivocally, that the comments were racist and homophobic. Again they source YouTube as defending the comments as not a violation of their policies. Even as they celebrate and sing the praises of Maza's Socialist YouTube program, they do not imply that Crowder's comments are racist and homophobic. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/technology/carlos-maza-youtube-vox.html I believe that Racist and homophobic should be removed from this article all together, but if they remain, at very least they should include "alleged" Doniboy71 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading the linked articles in the Business Insider article you linked to, such as this one. I absolutely oppose the addition of "alleged", since it seeks to legitimise Crowder's comments. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Choose your battle. SJWs have limitless energy to fight their jihad. Yes its partial, yes it makes us look like hacks. This has been discussed endlessly, but the sane people always have the same selective reading of the rules, argue in circle, and stop engaging when they loose. Getting their points through attrition. Francis1867 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove text re. YouTube and Maza from lead?

The text in the lead concerning YouTube's response to the Carlos Maza saga seems not to be justified in being there. It belongs in the body as it does not fulfil the task of helping summarise who the article subject is and why they're relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. Or that's my opinion, anyway. Should this be removed, as it is already addressed at length in the body? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. The lead is a summary of what is in the body, so it only makes sense to mention it in the lead. If you're proposing something in the lead is too detailed for it to be a summary, then explain that, but you're not going to win any !votes by saying the whole thing should be removed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Per many reliable sources over the last two years, Crowder's harassment of Maza is a defining trait. Therefor it belongs in the lead in some form. Articles should take a long view of notability. If new incidents are also defining, we can evaluate how to include those in the lead based on reliable, independent sources. Any discussion of changes must start with reliable sources. Any individual editor's opinion will still need to be grounded in some policy to be persuasive.Grayfell (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell and Vaselineeeeeeee. I could be sympathetic to a slight reduction in the detail in the lead so that the coverage of this matter was less than half the lead. Any such reduction of detail would have to be a genuine act of summary, not an attempt to whitewash or minimise the matter. Rebalancing the lead could also be achieved by adding a little extra coverage of other matters. Maybe the number of subscribers he has on his various platforms could be added? Either way, there is absolutely no reason to remove it completely. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well said. There is plenty of room for improvement. As a general reminder, Crowder is affiliated with The Blaze, so that outlet is not WP:IS for describing his show, nor for indicating the significance of any particular detail about his show. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Crowder only 'violated' YouTube guidelines according to YouTube's ambiguous and subjective application of their rules. His videos contain no bullying, and this comment needs to be countered.Not-PCwoke (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with Maza is clearly personal, and has the appearance of politically motivated vandalism. It is in no way a descriptor of Crowder. If anything, Crowder's controversial issues are far broader than this single event. That Crowder is controversial could be included, no doubt, but the placement of the current information in the header appears personal and is not proper. The information needs to be moved to a section that is appropriate, preferably a section titled "Controversies". User: Ima Groinitch 7 August 2021

If you look in the archives for this page you will see that this has been discussed many times before. This is going nowhere.

To address the subject of your argument: This is not merely "personal". Clearly Crowder does have a beef with Maza, and lacks both the maturity and the decency to express his differences without resorting to slurs and harassment, but this is not merely "personal". When a person uses slurs against a whole group of people then that is an attack on the whole group of people as well as the individual target. The fact that Crowder's insults of choice are those specific insults show who he is. We have more than sufficient sources to verify that this harassment occurred and is highly notable. It is true that Crowder's controversies are greater than this single event but this is the one that got him a lot of wide attention. Outside of his fan base, this is one of the main things that he is known for. It is not our job as Wikipedians to de-emphasise notable facts that make a subject look bad, just to make sure that we are not overemphasising them to make the subject look worse.

To address your behaviour: You make one claim, that the information should be moved to an appropriate section, but then you actually do something very different, move it around a bit and then remove it completely. This looks a lot like the Cups and balls trick. Please don't play such games with us. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Blaze

This is regarding this series of edits by Nightscream.

As hopefully all experienced editors already know, Wikipedia strongly favors WP:IS. If reliable, independent sources treat Crowder as a "news channel", let's see them, and we can summarize accordingly in context. Otherwise, gain consensus for the use of unreliable sources (like The Blaze) which have a vested interest in this for promotional filler. John Stossel is, superficially, a journalist, but his own youtube channel lacks clear editorial oversight and the necessary reputation for accuracy and fact-checking to be reliable. Just as importantly, this isn't page isn't a platform for PR, so cherry-picking obscure and flattering quotes to imply importance or legitimacy is unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And another one.

@Nightscream: Your habit of ninja-reverts doesn't mean you're not edit warring. As you surely already know, the burden is on you for these changes per WP:BRD.

The significance of his subscriber numbers, and the accuracy/significance of the name of the category he has placed his channel in, will still require reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream, I'm sorry, but you are taking this a bit too far, in terms of your claims about sources and the tone of your edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: What "ninja" reverts? What does this mean? Please see WP:AGF.

@Drmies: Please explain why you take no issue with the "tone" of Grayfell's "ninja" comment, but take issue with my supposed "tone". Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nightscream, this is childish. Have you stopped beating your husband/wife? I didn't see any "ninja" comment, and now that I see it, I am not impressed. Your tone had nothing "supposed" about it, and "fraudulent rationale" is a violation of AGF, unless there is some obvious truth to it--and I don't see any, certainly not here on the talk page, where you could have explained. This is disappointing. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you somehow sincerely insulted by being called a ninja? I doubt it, but a "ninja revert" is when someone manually reverts a change without using the revert button, bypassing any notification. It should not be that hard to figure out why this behavior appears to be stealthy.

I have explained my reasons for opposing these changes, and your accusation that this was a "fraudluent rationale" is both unhelpful and unambiguously insulting. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Not a comedian, no proof video print or otherwise that he has performed comedy. Most notably no stand-up, although really no comedy and not part of any affiliated comedic associations. 68.77.156.226 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a source given, and many more available. There's also a source that notes the stand-up background. Kuru (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on text in lead

As of current, the following text is incorporated into the lead:

In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were investigated over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs to describe journalist Carlos Maza. YouTube did not suspend the channel and said it did not violate the site's policies, but demonetized the account the following day, citing community guidelines. In August 2020, his channel was re-monetized after Crowder addressed his behavior and content.

It seems to me this is not notable enough for the lead and belongs in the body, where it is already elaborated on in detail. Should it remain, or should it be removed? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a properly formatted RFC. Worse, this ignores many, many prior discussions. Please review past discussions, propose a specific change based on Wikipedia's goals, policies, and guidelines, and if consensus isn't formed, then consider starting an RFC. Grayfell (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Crowder uses neither homophobic or racist language. This is emotive language designed to characterise Crowder as someone he is not.Not-PCwoke (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Cold feet

Crowder recently ambushed by Sam Seder Cameron.l.tobias (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. He had set up a civil dialogue with another YouTube commentator and in good faith expected to have a civil discussion. The other host, Ethan, had no intentions of acting in a mature manner and was not willing to dialogue with Crowder. Instead, Sam Seder was thrust in front of Crowder, and the dialogue between Ethan and Crowder was no longer possible. As this had violated the terms agreed to by both Crowder and Ethan, Steven terminated the call.Not-PCwoke (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The article needs another update

I'm Getting Heart Surgery...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp9w9qc27KQ 50.32.138.4 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"addressed his behavior and content."

Is it really appropriate to say in Wikipedia's voice that "Crowder addressed his behavior and content"? The Business insider article cited to support that doesn't itself say that he addressed his behavior and content, rather it just quotes YouTube's spokeswoman and official statements as saying that he did. Business insider doesn't say it except when quoting or paraphrasing Youtube. I think that it might be better to add a qualifier like "Youtube says Crowder addressed his behavior and content" or words to that effect which would be far more supported by the source we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMM12345 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely... the sentence in question is in the lead, but in the body it makes it clear it was YouTube saying he'd been a good boy, but not by any objective standard. I wholeheartedly endorse your suggested change. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the sentence in question. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Sam Seder incident

I added a section on the Sam Seder incident and it was removed by User:Vaselineeeeeeee who suggested moving this to the Talk section, so I'm doing so now. This is a notable occurence as it was covered by Forbes, Newsweek and Insider. If you Google "Steven Crowder," the autofill "Steven Crowder Sam Seder" will show up, which shows that people are searching for this. NOT including this seriously limits the utility of this wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demosthenes2.0 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that these sources are not as reliable as they sound. The Forbes article is actually a "Forbes.com contributors" piece, which according to WP:RSP lacks reliability. And Newsweek, according to that same page, has questionable reliability. (Though you could probably tell that from just reading the article, which contains the text "her [sic] has the recording of the call when he back [sic] out".) That leaves this Insider article, and this Daily Dot article, and both sites are considered reliable for internet culture stuff. That doesn't mean we have to include the articles, though. All four of these articles seem to follow the standard template for today's clickbait journalism: an attention-grabbing headline, plus a little bit of text, heavily interspersed with YouTube videos and Twitter posts, and quoting of random Twitter users to prove that "people are talking" about subject X (or, in Insider's phrasing, "The internet is dunking on the conservative comedian Steven Crowder"). Given the lack of serious coverage (in both senses of the term "serious"), my opinion is that this is not important enough to include. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

First off, respect for not edit warring and for taking it to talk. Regarding Google autofill, suggesting Sam Seder, I don't get that suggestion until I include the "Sa" for "Sam"... Google autofill is personalized for each user depending on their prior searches. Regarding the includability of the issue here, I don't have a problem with including a couple-three sentences about it, but I don't think it deserves its own section. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with comment above. The sources provided merit an inclusion of the incident, but not a whole section in my opinion Vanteloop (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Demosthenes2.0. I agree with Korny O'Near. The sourcing is questionable at best, and this one-off incident blown up by leftist new media reeks of WP:NOTNEWS. I've seen the behind-the-scenes videos on the matter from both Crowder and h3h3 and these sources are a joke and simply clickbait like Korny said. Given the scope of the articles, the one-off incident is not mentioned at h3h3 or Seder, and it is also not worth mention here, although this is beside the point. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Jumping back in to share this Vice article I found on the subject. I checked WP:RSP because i wasn't sure and there is no consensus on Vice so do with that what you will. Vanteloop (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Another thought... the Seder incident directly pertains to Crowder's occupation, which is to provide (oftentimes humorous) commentary. Often that commentary is done through debating (e.g. his "Change My Mind" schtick). That he is widely considered to have been bested by Seder in the realm of what his profession is (commentator and debater) is absolutely pertinent in the article of a professional commentator. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What are the sources that say he was bested? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that the sources given comment on Crowder leaving and reactions to that rather than being bested in an actual debate. Could something along these lines work as a compromise? 'On (date) Crowder was scheduled to debate Ethan Klein, a youtuber and podcast host. As the debate began Klein surprised Crowder by introducing progressive political commentator Sam Seder onto the video call. After 15 minutes, Crowder left the call. The incident caused significant reaction on social media. Insider notes 'Crowder made it onto Twitter's top 10 trending search terms ... with many viewers criticizing Crowder for fleeing the debate with Seder'. Crowder critized Klein, saying 'How cowardly is it to accept an honest debate challenge and bring in a grifter with 1/6 of your following to debate for you?' Vanteloop (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert Inviting you to give your thoughts on this matter following reversion of my edit Vanteloop (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a typical news story that will have no lasting significance for any of the participants. Without something indicating why this would be important enough for an encyclopedic biography, I'm not sure why it would be getting mentioned, much less getting a whole paragraph about it. Maybe a short sentence, but that would seem to underline the fact that this is not a noteworthy event for a biography. The "significant reaction on social media" and Twitter search terms are definitely not due. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vanteloop: Inviting you to not WP:CANVASS the discussion. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

'In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.' I invited a user (with a differing opinion to mine) who had edited the page on this point to discuss their revision of the point in question in the relevant area instead of engaging in an edit war. It is perfectly appropriate. I suggest reading the guidelines. Vanteloop (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanteloop, I also really appreciated your ping, as I had intended to leave an explanation of my reversion here and then had forgotten. Thank you for letting me know, as it was definitely a reversion that deserved a talk page explanation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I know that vice used the term "flee", but in this context it might be un-encyclopedic to use the term in reference to ending the debate. I don't know which word might be better, perhaps "leaving" or "ending the debate", but the term "fleeing" seems a bit loaded for our use here. JMM12345 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

From what I understand, that event lacks the necessary relevance to be included. It was discussed when it occurred and has not been mentioned since. I would say that what happened with Maza has had more of lasting coverage if you want to include something controversial, despite the fact that controversy sections are not supposed to be written as a rule. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems to be that there's a consensus that this incident is not sufficiently relevant to be added to the article Vanteloop (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Change: In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were put under review over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs against journalist Carlos Maza.[2][3][4] YouTube did not suspend the channel and said the channel did not violate the site's policies, but demonetized the account the following day, citing "a pattern of egregious actions [that] harmed the broader community".[5] In August 2020, his channel was re-monetized after YouTube said Crowder addressed his behavior and content.[6] In March 2021, his channel was once again demonetized after violating YouTube's presidential election integrity policy for questioning the legitimacy of election results.[7]

To: Crowder was born on July 7, 1987 in Detroit, Michigan. Crowder's mother was French Canadian, and at the age of 3, his family moved to the Montreal suburb of Greenfield Park, Quebec, Canada where he would live for the rest of his childhood.[8] Crowder attended Centennial Regional High School, and at the age of 18, he moved back to the United States.[9] Crowder attended two semesters at Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont.[10]

The first section being from the heading. As it is something from over 2 years ago, it has become mostly irrelevant as a heading. The situation is also explained in complete detail later on the page under the "career" tab. The suggested change is from the "early life" column, which provides only basic information and hardly warrants its own section. This suggested change would not only be universally relevant to the subject of the page, but it is also more in line with the typical headings from pages of this type. (See Barack Obama and Donald Trump) 2600:1007:B012:48B1:A102:53D8:FA0:6F53 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

You have called crowder in this article a homophobe and racist with no evidence of that fact when he has shown the opposite so I request that it be changed accordingly. ChristianSmallz (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's saying he was investigated by youtube for that, and includes a quote. It's all well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Didnt youtube say they didn't find evidence of that though? I am assuming this has to do with Crowder's tiff with Carlos Maza. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph of introduction

I have reverted the removal of the second paragraph of the introduction. I'm not against slimming it down a bit but complete removal would prevent the introduction serving as a valid summary of the whole article. If it is to be slimmed down then it needs to continue to reflect the overall nature of the events but become less of a blow by blow account. Any content and references removed from the introduction need to be moved into the body if they are not already present there (which they should be!). We do not want to lose any valid sources if this gets reduced. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is the 10,000th most significant event in Crowders life, the Maza story, at the top? Is is because it’s negative about him and you dislike him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckExpert (talk • contribs) 05:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Is is because it’s negative about him and you dislike him?" - Yes, that is precisely the reason that it is there in the 2nd paragraph of the opening/lead section of Crowder's page, as a way to discredit Crowder, because the editors of Wikipedia do not like him because he is a conservative and they have differing personal political viewpoints as him, and they cherry pick "reliable sources" articles, and put the most reputation damaging things they can about him at the top of his page, and ignore the other articles that are reliable sources that say anything different than the narrative they want to convey about Crowder, and they get away with it because a majority of Wikipedia editors have a similar personal political stance. It's really biased and terrible that it's there. It shouldn't be there, and it definitely shouldn't be written in Wikipedia's voice. This sort of behavior (which is rampant across Wikipedia) greatly damages Wikipedia's reputation as "unbiased" and "neutral", which is what it's supposed to be, and it's really a shame. Anyone with even a fraction of a brain can see that. I would edit it and remove it myself, but I've gotten into edit wars with people on here before and had my account suspended for a few days before about it, so I'm just going to express the problem of obvious political bias being reflected in Wikipedia's articles here in the Talk pages instead, and hope someone will read it and be able to work to improve this problem of obvious bias in the main articles. -- Skcin7 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the second paragraph of the introduction. It clearly does not belong to be there. Skcin7 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. FDW777 (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, other editors (myself included) clearly disagree, and your option at this point is to initiate an RFC, not edit-war longstanding and impeccably-sourced material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole Carlos Maza thing is one of the least notable things that happened in Crowder's career, so why is it listed at the top other than an obvious way to discredit him? Bias isn't allowed on Wikipedia WP:NPOV. Skcin7 (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion; other editors (myself included) clearly disagree. I stated your options. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Blanking

Some people have a lot of patience and that is being abused here by constantly re-litigating long settled issues in a deliberate attempt to wear us down and waste our time. This has to stop. Blanking is a form of vandalism and if it continues then people can look forward to warning templates for vandalism. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Coffee, I think this complaint is about the same material you restored, an edit undone by another editor--I'm sorry, but I don't see the "harm" in this content, which seems well-verified and factual to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies I hope you’re doing well, and that 2022 has been treating you good so far! I understand that point, but WP:ARBBLP’s ruling doesn’t make a determination on the content itself beyond saying whether it has been called into question or not. The “do no harm” clause is a quick way of ensuring content meets the standards of inclusion by consensus via a discussion, then it can be safely added to the article and no one can claim foul play etc. Right now at BLPN, the current discussion has found multiple issues with the proposed presentation, and it seems the discussion will likely result in some form of the content being re-added with additional content from that source (such as Crowder’s responses) and others for neutrality (as seen proper). While we may both disagree on the use of “do no harm” here… I think we can both agree there’s not much harm in keeping the content temporarily off the article while the discussion at BLPN concludes (I doubt it will take even a week). It’s that differential that puts me in the position I’m in. I hope that helps clarify things. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Drmies The content has now been restored again, I’d still request that this be undone. I cannot see why it’s impossible to wait for a few days to come to a good conclusion about this. What is the harm in keeping the content off the article when a discussion is ongoing at BLPN? The individual who has re-added it uses the claim that an RFC needs to be opened, but a clear and obvious discussion at BLPN (which they’ve participated in) is already ongoing. ArbCom and VNOTSUFF both argue in favor of keeping it off during the consensus finding period. The continued use of the page as a battleground is disheartening… there’s no cause for such combativeness. This can be so simply resolved and is already in that process. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks Coffee; I hope you are well also. Yes, we disagree, but when you say "there's no rush", I do actually agree with you. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent, a ruling from 2008 has to be looked at through the lens of current content policy. Saying that decision mandates immediate removal before discussion is not something that's anywhere in the current WP:BLP policy. FDW777 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm struggling to see anything wrong with the paragraph that keeps on getting removed. Sure, it might be possible to improve it but doesn't seem in any way bad to me. Probably I am missing something but surely it is not for us to be concerned with sparing Crowder's blushes or appeasing his fans. That does not fall into any genuine category of preventing "harm" and the fans will never be happy with us anyway. Well, not unless we entirely cleanse the article of all critical content which we can't do. Obviously, I must be missing something policy based here as people who are clearly not motivated to run PR for Crowder are agreeing with the removal. Is there a discussion going on elsewhere about this content? If so, please can somebody post a direct link to that? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Steven_Crowder_YouTube_video and also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steven_Crowder, though you won't find much in the way of policy support there either. - MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow! I knew that his fans had been trying to sanitise this article for at least as long as it has been on my Watchlist but I had no idea that he was openly boasting about his part in an organised meatpuppetry campaign. That's seems like a good reason to slap a COI editing warning note on this Talk page and to be suspicious of people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions, while always bearing in mind that he has a lot of fans and inevitably some of them will find their way here without being part of anything organised or nefarious. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly condemn what you're insinuating there with the words be suspicious of people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions (even if that insinuation isn't intentional). I became aware of this situation (as I explained at ANI) due to an old friend contacting me (as I'd been a Wikipedia admin for 10+ years) asking me my thoughts of Crowder's video. (My thoughts were that it was basically entirely wrong.) Naturally I also looked through Crowder's edits and the related pages... as I always have when Wikipedia is brought up in pop culture etc. I saw the dispute here, and simply said "well this is clearly disputed, and doesn't have clear consensus from the ongoing discussions for inclusion (at least as it is written)"... the normal course of action for years on this site in such cases (as ArbCom has stated) is to remove in lieu of consensus. Consensus in such matters doesn't take long to ascertain, but at BLPN that discussion has not yet ended. There isn't a need for battleground behavior about this (nor assumptions of bad faith); we all will interpret policy different. But even so, it's important to remember we're all here for the same reason: to produce a great information resource. But, clearly there's something that needs clarification in policy and likely from ArbCom about this entire matter, if this many people are reading the same policies in such different ways. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's been the normal course of action for years when dealing with newly added or poorly sourced content, not impeccably sourced content that has been in an article long term. - MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not going to change the comment as I've already made it but I'm more than happy to clarify what it means because clearly you are seeing something in it which I don't think that I wrote and which I certainly didn't intend to write.

Please don't worry. That comment was not aimed at you or any of the other people who are discussing this in good faith. You are in the aforementioned "people who are clearly not motivated to run PR for Crowder" category. I admit that I have difficulty understanding why there is thought to be any need for detailed discussion of the paragraph in question as it seems like perfectly normal, valid and appropriate encyclopaedia content to me but I recognise that this view is not shared to some people and that they are discussing it in good faith. I do feel that we are being bounced into dancing to a tune set by propagandists and trolls, and I very strongly suspect that they are laughing at us for doing so, but I do recognise that people are dancing in good faith.

When I spoke of "people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions" I was talking about the endless succession of drive-by blankers, whitewashers and trolls who have been working away on this article for years to erase, minimise or otherwise spin the reliably documented facts about Crowder's actions. These sort of people do not normally engage in discussion beyond leaving the occasional abusive and/or counterfactual comment on the Talk page. Up until now I had assumed that they were all just Crowder fans who had stumbled on the article and didn't like what it said and, yes, I'm still perfectly sure that most of them were exactly that. The fact that we now have proof that at least a few of them were part of an organised meatpuppetry campaign puts a rather different spin on how we handle this article going forward. You say "we're all here for the same reason", and while that is true of the two of us and everybody else editing and discussing in good faith, that is obviously not true of the organised meatuppets. We need to keep an eye open for any more of this intentional bad faith editing. This will be hard. The bad faith editors will "hide their power level" to try to look like ordinary Crowder fans and, yes, we do have to start with an assumption of good faith in each case even though that makes a lot more work for us.

I reiterate that my comment was not aimed at you and I'm sorry that you thought that it was. I hope this is sufficient to allay your concerns. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that does clear things up. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I'm out anyway, it's gotten too sticky here. Admittedly I would not have even touched it if not for the video which I felt was 99% garbagy but raised one somewhat valid point (that is, on the undue presentation of quotes) that warranted addressing given that this was a contentious BLP. Going forward, this definitely needs some cleanup anyhow (I hesitate from calling any of it "impeccable"... That would be an insult to all of our FAs and GAs...) And while your (and others') broadsides might not have been aimed at me, I am reminded why I prefer working on obscure, ancient topics. Peace! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Steven Crowder's wikipedia video

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s been discussed. Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link so I could dislike it. Dronebogus (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The "dislike" button is a trap. YouTube counts dislikes as "engagement" and thinks a widely disliked video is a good opportunity to wind other people up with. This is one of the reasons it is possible to get popular on YouTube by being obnoxious and unpopular, so long as you are proactively unpopular in a way that drives negative engagements. If you can get people downvoting your videos then YouTube thinks you've made it. I have no idea why the advertisers accept this. I just take it as a cue to avoid rage clicks as they are self-defeating. DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure I didn’t get any more Crowder crap in my recommendations Dronebogus (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But this is getting into WP:FORUM territory. Dronebogus (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Alma mater parameter should be removed

@Anastrophe: reverted my removal of the alma mater parameter [2]. They agreed with my rationale that Crowder is a non-graduate and that his attendance at Champlain it's not significant to his notability, but they assert that this is a common infobox entry, and is objectively no less significant than his birthdate. There's no doubt this a common entry, but it's only included if they graduated or it was significant to the individual life. See Template:Infobox person; when describing the alma_mater parameter it says: It is usually not relevant to include either [education or alma mater] parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates. With no existing consensus for inclusion and not compelling reason to include this parameter, it should be removed in accordance with biographical norms. Anastrophe's argument that it's not less significant to his birthdate is not compelling because it's the standard across biographical arguments to include birthdate under all circumstances, no such standard exists with the alma mater parameter as shown by Template:Infobox person. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I wasn't aware that that consensus exists. In the real world, and in common parlance, alma-mater describes those who both graduated and did not graduate. I still maintain it's no less significant than his birthdate, which adds no genuinely meaningful information either. But for the most part, I don't really care. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

'Fat Studies' information

The recently added material regarding Crowder's video related to fat studies, describes abusive comments in the video's comment section, and a representative of the institution that hosted the fat studies conference criticism of those comments. However, anyone with the faintest familiarity with YouTube knows that their comments are routinely cesspools of vitriol and abuse, on subjects as benign as CPU's. The representative's statement isn't about Crowder - only the comments, and the youtuber isn't responsible for what is posted there. Is that response appropriate to the BLP, since it's not directly about the subject? Anastrophe (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be removed since it's not relevant to Crowder. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've WP:BOLDly removed the content in question. Even if there is support for inclusion, this is recently added content that has been objected; therefore, it should be removed absent a consensus for inclusion, especially considering this is a WP:BLP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Preferred pronoun is SHE 42069user69420 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Children?

Why does the article say he has two children? He's stated repeatedly he has no children. In a recent episode he even talked at length about how he's afraid to ever have kids. https://twitter.com/drugcel/status/1618781646035243008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.26.219 (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who that tweeter is but they seem to have preemptively blocked me, so presumably some weird snowflake with a chainblocker. Anyway, we don't need to get into any of that because random claims on Twitter are not reliable sources. The existing content saying that he has two kids is also referenced to Twitter, which is not ideal, but as it comes from Crowder's own Twitter account and has pictures of the two kids, I think it is very unlikely not to be true. I mean, not even he would lie about that, in that way, would he? We should take it at face value unless there is a very good reason not to. Even so, let's see if anybody can find a better reference. I had a very quick look but what I found was no better than what we already have. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Bloomberg's citation of a graduate student as an expert.

I'm curious how editors MrOllie and NorthBySouthBaranof can justify undoing my revision, and consistently seek to restore the hyperbolic language of a graduate student given how non-neutral it is. Please explain how graduate student Becca Lewis' language is consistent with the policy on neutral speech, as well as your actions in curating my good-faith attempts at making it more-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Her views were quoted and used as a source by a respected professional news organization. That you don't like Lewis' statement is apparent. Take it up with Bloomberg News.

There is no policy on "neutral speech" here - you may be referring to NPOV. But NPOV does not require "neutral speech" - rather, it requires that articles reflect subjects as mainstream reliable sources depict them. That is what neutrality means on Wikipedia. Bloomberg is an unquestioned reliable source, and thus viewpoints published in it are prima facie reliable. If there are mainstream points of view you feel are not included in this article, we can and should address that.

If your argument is that all mainstream sources are biased, then that is a problem we cannot fix. By foundational policy, articles are based on mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If a reliable outlet cites something, we may take that to mean it's possibly worth citing, if editors here find it relevant (which they apparently do). You are conflating two things: status (of some kind, with your repetition of "graduate student") and neutrality. They are two different lines of argument, but neither one is really valid here. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"Bloomberg is an unquestioned reliable source," according to whom? That sounds like an unsubstantiated POV. BenW (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair points regarding NPOV vs. neutral speech. Now, please explain the veracity of the claim itself. You have afforded her the position of expert, and have not addressed that aspect again. Is it that you concede that point as untenable? The fact that Bloomberg runs it does not establish the veracity of the claim as such. We can agree that she said it because of Bloomberg's credibility. That by itself does not establish the veracity of the claim. For the record, I did not introduce the aspect of 'status'. Becca Lewis' status as an 'expert' was a claim made by others, to which I was responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia, the fact that Bloomberg ran it is enough (see WP:V, WP:RS). We're not in the business of second guessing reliable sources here, certainly not based on our own opinions. But if you have a source that is at least as good as Bloomberg that disputes this, please let us know about it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Kkeeran, "You have afforded her the position of expert"--no, Bloomberg did that, by citing her. One more thing--please respect talk page guidelines for indenting/threading--thanks. And sign your messages: "~~~~"Drmies (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is that to say then, you would have no issue with including the fact that she is a doctoral candidate while retaining her original quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

We should describe her as Bloomberg did, as 'a Stanford researcher'. - MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would we do that? The source calls her a "researcher," which is good enough as anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are conflating the sources here as well. Becca Lewis is the source of her own assertion, and is reported by Bloomberg. SHE is *their* source. (i.e. THE source). You yourself afforded her the status of Expert NorthBySouthBaranof in your original redaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrangling about how 'expert' she is is irrelevant. Bloomberg thought her opinion notable enough to quote, and Bloomberg's fact checkers apparently didn't have issue with it, so it is plenty good enough to use on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how distinguishing between students (en route to credibility), vs. core faculty of a university is irrelevant, but I can agree that we currently disagree. If you are willing to place Bloomberg or similar in the realm of 'beyond reproach', then I'm happy to hold you to that rubric for past and future contribs.Kkeeran (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what " Becca Lewis is the source of her own assertion" means. Yes, I suppose her own words came out of her own mouth, but we get them from Bloomberg. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

One could get her words from the list of publications on her currently published curriculum vitae (CV) as I did. Would you like help finding it? Kkeeran (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The "expert" in question describes herself as a candidate only. Although she is a researcher for the school, this language obviously can confuse readers who would assume she is a professor. To improve clarity I propose we include her personal website or some other valid source material and indicate she is a phd candidate not a full professor, while maintaining the integrity of her quote, if we keep it at all. It appears that some editors feel that the view is not fringe, I do not believe an opinion is justification personally to make such a harsh claim, but if the opinion and quote are upheld they should be placed in proper context. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Kkeeran has outed himself as the article's subject (see his recent video). That being said, he raises a fair point and IMO the placement of the opinion was textbook UNDUE and stylistically it just makes the paragraph more awkward. Just because it appears in a so-called reliable source doesn't mean we have to contrive some way to use it. Adding to what Bgrus has proposed, it should also be placed in a separate section altogether. As of now I have taken the liberty of removing the two opinions (first one relates more to his wider persona, not Louder with Crowder specifically). Best Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The source itself is a RS; the fact that they cite her means that it's not an opinion in Wikipedia's sense (ie. the fact that she said that is treated as significant by a source.) That said I think the real solution is to provide more context in the form of expanding it into a larger paragraph on sources that have discussed accusations of racist language on Crowder's channel, for which there are extensive sources - the controversy over the language Crowder uses on his channel and the reaction to it is a major aspect of his notability, since it also relates directly to the massive section on YouTube demonitization below, so I don't think we can reasonably ignore it. One sentence for Lewis' comments isn't undue in the context of such a paragraph given the extensive coverage of that broad aspect from multiple high-quality sources over an extended period of time. --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have procedurally reverted a change that included disputed content before consensus has been reached in this discussion, per WP:VNOTSUFF. Please, before re-adding disputed content to a BLP, ensure there is consensus for doing so. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coffee:: Your revision is inappropriate. The content (at least, the original sentence) is longstanding and therefore, per WP:QUO, consensus must be demonstrated to remove it unless someone is willing to assert that it is an outright BLP violation (which, so far, no one has done, and which I do not believe is supportable when sources exist.) Meanwhile, since you specifically indicated that you did not object to my edits, nobody has objected to the new sentence at all - there is no procedural justification for removal. I'll give you a day or so to either point to a consensus for removal or to assert that this is an unambiguous BLP violation, then I will restore it if you haven't - and if you feel it's a BLP violation I expect that to be argued at WP:BLPN. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have restored the content. Content that has, apparently, been in the article since October 2020 has consensus for inclusion by default. FDW777 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that my edit did include a new sentence, but that, putting aside the procedural revert since Coffee specifically said they had no objections themselves, nobody has objected to it (yet.) That part we can / should discuss if someone has an actual objection. But yes, longstanding text should remain by default unless someone is actually willing to assert that it is a BLP violation (which I don't think is reasonable given that Crowder is both a public figure and the sentence is well-sourced.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@FDW777: That’s not how WP:VNOTSUFF works, as content can be in an article for a decade before someone realizes it needs to be disputed. Once content is disputed, consensus needs to be determined. If there is consensus here for it to remain, and at this moment that’s getting closer… then it should remain. The edit by User:Kingoflettuce was to dispute its inclusion on the basis of WP:UNDUE. The normal course of action is to simply have a discussion about whether it is DUE or not. I don’t think this should be very controversial to have happen, and once it does happen there’s no longer any questions or dispute on whether the content should remain. I won’t re-revert your edit, but I don’t agree that something being on an article for just over a year surmounts to indisputable consensus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It very much is how WP:CONSENSUS works. If it's been in the article since October 2020, it has consensus for inclusion per policy. FDW777 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that it has “presumed consensus”. The issue from my vantage point is that does not mean indisputable consensus. Otherwise, we’d never be able to remove anything added to articles after a set period of time. I’m not looking for a dispute here myself, I just reviewed the edit as I normally review BLPs and saw reason for a procedural removal. - We’re also sitting here in a discussion with the article subject themself, and regardless of our own political views, I’m going to stress that the Arbitration Committee has found it necessary that we observe WP:BLPKINDNESS. While Crowder clearly has issue with this part of the article, he was pointing to DUE without quite realizing it… none of his arguments therefore stood up to anything more than “XYZ isn’t an expert because there isn’t a standard on experts in that field” (or some such)… There’s obviously no policy backing to such an argument. But, Kingoflettuce (who has written many a GA) brought up a DUE argument. This is a feasible dispute to raise, albeit it isn’t by default going to permanently keep the content off of the article (unless consensus is against keeping it in). So, I see reason to default to keeping it off in a very temporary order (temp if consensus ends up in favor of it being DUE) and having a discussion per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. I would ask that we do that just until this discussion concludes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, per WP:QUO, longstanding text is presumed to enjoy consensus; this is standard policy and procedure. Do you actually believe that any part of any article that hasn't specifically been discussed could be removed at any time and would have to remain omitted until a discussion has concluded to restore it? Obviously WP:BLP violations are an exception (which is why I specifically asked if you were asserting that this was one), but you have to be willing to assert that; simply feeling that something that is otherwise well-sourced and well-established is undue isn't sufficient. WP:QUO isn't indisputable consensus, certainly, but you have to actually... dispute it, by demonstrating a consensus otherwise or by citing a policy like WP:BLP that justifies immediate removal. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPKIND, I am going to be willing to assert that at this stage the argument is that WP:UNDUE content is present in a WP:BLP (which therefore brings this up as a potential BLP violation as all policies/guidelines have to be followed on BLPs). The article subject has drawn issue with it, and ArbCom requests we show leniency here. That doesn’t mean any article subject gets whatever they want, but it should mean we hold even a short discussion on this content before re-including it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If I were to dispute a whole article, could I blank it and keep it that way until a discussion is held and completed? MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be an extrapolation of what I said, but I can see how you confused what I mean. When one disputes an entire article’s existence, if it’s an attack page for instance (or an extremely poorly referenced BLP) then yes it can be blanked. If it’s not that severe than no it cannot be, and the proper course of action is AFD etc. But, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:VNOTSUFF etc.. are the type of policies that reflect on particular content and they aren’t typically going to cover more than a section of an article at a time (unless it’s an extremely contentious article). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is already met, as stated several times it's long-standing content. We don't need to re-achieve consensus for inclusion every time someone comes along and removes it. FDW777 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If one can extrapolate an argument and quickly get a result that makes no sense, it is a sign that the argument makes no sense. WP:ONUS doesn't mean that one (or a handful) of objections mean we have to keep well established content out, that would completely paralyze any article on anything remotely controversial. Also, per WP:NOTBURO, please don't do these 'procedural' reverts or deletions in the future. If you make an edit, own it. If you don't think it is an improvement, don't do it. MrOllie (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Coffee was being polite when he said "Extrapolate", when he meant to say "Conjuring a silly slippery slope". Come on guys, let's use some common sense. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I reject this nonsensical argument and have restored the longstanding, impeccably-sourced content - there is absolutely nothing about it which violates any policy, much less BLP. If you don't like it and wish to remove it on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, you'll need a clear consensus to remove it. I suggest opening an RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Coffee Thank you for your service! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Description of Lewis as "Stanford researcher"

The discussion above is mostly on whether to include Lewis' comments. However, if they are included, there remains the question of whether it is accurate, given what we know (e.g. from Lewis' own website that includes her CV), to echo the Bloomberg article's misleading description of her as a "Stanford researcher". Adjunct instructors, laboratory technicians, assistants to faculty and other such positions at universities are often "researchers" in a sense, but it is nonetheless misleading to describe them as such especially in connection with a top institution like Stanford, implying a level of authority that is not there. A phrase like "graduate student researcher" that indicates Lewis' position when she made the remarks would be accurate. If that is considered overly WP:OR, the weight of the Lewis quote should be reduced, or some other phrase used that does not knowingly import the exaggeration by Bloomberg into the article. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You might consider looking at her publication record. Having peer-reviewed publications is what matters, in academia. Some PhD candidates are really good at it. Some editors here are making way too much of the word "student" -- implying, perhaps, that Lewis is no better a source than a college sophomore would be. "Stanford researcher" is entirely appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

News articles (and encyclopedias) typically give an objective job description for academics quoted: professor, lecturer, biologist, historian. "Graduate student" is equally objective, "graduate student researcher" is not a specific position but OK if we want to preserve the word from Bloomberg without obscuring the truth. Clicking on Lewis' web site to read her CV is a very mild form of talk page WP:OR, but judging her publications to determine whether, at the beginning of her third year of doctoral studies, she met the vague standard of "Stanford researcher" is much more subjective and invites argument as to what different people would consider entirely appropriate. "Stanford graduate student (researcher)" is clearer and more accurate than what is currently in the article. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we use what is in the (entirely reliable) source (Bloomberg). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in the business of accurately summarizing RS, not copying them, particularly when the sources are known to be inaccurate or (in this case) potentially misleading if merely copied. Is there any reason to not clarify the matter given what we now know? Sesquivalent (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Your proposed clarification doesn't make things any clearer. A PhD candidate is someone mainly engaged in research. She's doing this at Stanford. There's nothing wrong with "Stanford researcher". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Lewis was interviewed at the start of her third year of PhD studies, which in the US typically means she would have, at best, just started to be "mainly engaged in research" after two years of taking classes and passing examinations. In any case, the more important question is not what you personally presume but what a reader of the article might understand from the description as "Stanford researcher", which is not generally interpreted literally but as someone fully qualified as an expert (already has PhD) with a job title such as Research Fellow or Professor and position judged mainly on research. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I support using the descriptor used by our reliable source rather than engaging in original research to come up with our own. Also, at the risk of indulging OR, the PhD timeline you're assuming will be different when somebody already has a related MS - much or all of the coursework is waived. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

When the RS is caught bluffing, we are not obligated to import the bluff into the article. Reduced WEIGHT, up to and including not using that source or the passage in question, or using a different phrasing that avoids the problem, are all options.

Speculative storytelling about how some graduate student might or might not fit the concept of "Stanford researcher" does not get around the matter of what the phrase suggests to a reader rather than to you or me. I contend that the default interpretation and in any case a quite frequent one is someone hired by Stanford on the basis of their research to do more of it. That's not what a graduate student is, or even what Stanford PhD graduates generally become, i.e., most will not qualify for hiring at Stanford sometime after the doctorate based on their research. Sesquivalent (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, right now the article almost verbatim copies from the source and could also be reasonably argued on the grounds of WP:COPYPASTE As in, the whole sentence and not just the quote. How is this good practice at all? --95.91.212.65 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

COPYPASTE is about plagiarism, not properly attributed quotes. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

While you argue about reliability, has it occurred to anyone to just use common sense and see that the Lewis person apparently missed the joke? "Aggressively Asian" is hilarious. And this is Lewis' best example of "horrible racism"? C'mon.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:4034:67CC:6BBA:BBF3 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Crowder2023.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

the dispute with the daily wire

the section discussing the dispute with the daily wire could be covered in a brief paragraph with a different section. the details of this bickering lacks encyclopedic value. thanks for keeping things up to date, Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi protect request due to divorce?

I'm not versed well enough on applying for a semi protect, but I feel it's rather correct in light of the Crowders' divorce, that we brace for trolls and vandalism, so if somebody could apply for semi-protect of Crowder's article for like a month or two, that'd be very cool. Lafi90 (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad, so far, but it is easy enough to request it if it becomes necessary later. There is a form: here. DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

When discussing personal details, like divorce, or anything else in a BLP, we should stick to third party reliable sources. That excludes Crowder's social media accounts (e.g. Twitter and YouTube). Otherwise, we could be putting in every personal detail a person happens to mention on their social media. If you want to argue that there are reliable sources, then please just add those sources, and avoid a pointless argument. --Rob (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I added Newsweek to the divorce bit and made it a bit less sensational in tone. Others have improved it still further. I think it is OK now. DanielRigal (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Candace Owens

Does Crowder have some business with Candace Owens that should be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Crowder, Owens, and many others, are all fighting like cats in a sack and it is very hard to work out which bits are worth including and which bits are just noise. We don't want to detail every dysfunctional element to the feud(s) in detail but the Owens part has some RS coverage, so... maybe? DanielRigal (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)