Talk:Hasan Piker

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2021 and 2 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sevs2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

He's a notable political commentator (like his (ex)TYT colleagues Cenk and Ana) and Twitcher. --Unreal7 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is has been expanded and have addressed previous deletion reasons and issues and notability, improved, added references. Panda619 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the tag, Panda619 as the creator (yes, you are the creator since you removed the redirect) you may not remove it. An admin needs to evaluate this. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not the creator just because I removed a redirect that you placed for no good reason and also now I will remove the G4 tag since WP:G4 says "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Panda619 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the creator, as you created the bulk of the content.[1]. Praxidicae (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I expanded it from Draft:Hasan Piker that already existed, Which I should I have moved the draft to mainspace, but I forgot about the move and just copied the content to mainspace. Panda619 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect restored

Per Praxidicae's nomination of this article for speedy deletion under criterion WP:G4, I have restored the redirect; consider this effectively a G4 deletion of the recreated article. I do not see any new WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that did not exist at the time of the AfD, and I see no new claims to notability that weren't in the AfD version. The closest thing I saw was the addition of the "Shorty Awards," and that just namechecked him as a member of TYT, which doesn't establish notability for him independent of TYT. Please do not restore this article without going through WP:AFC to propose a new version. If this article continues to be recreated without improvement I will protect the redirect. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

In the third paragraph of the "Twitch" section, the sentence "On October 19, 2020, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recruited Piker and Pokimane to organize and play Among Us with her on Twitch for the "Get out the vote" initiative." is written. The use of the term "recruited" has militaristic connotations, so changing the sentence to something akin to "On October 19, 2020, Piker collaborated with Pokimane and U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by playing Among Us on Twitch together for the "Get out the vote" initiative.". This uses more neutral language and has already been done on Pokimane's Wikipedia page. 85.229.187.66 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 14:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Should there be added context to Hasan Pikers 9/11 comments. Because it seems now that the comments are taken out of a significant context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartielomew (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, the full context sans expletives should be used, which would be, "America deserved 9/11, {...} Like we totally brought it upon ourselves dude" as his comments are referring to the fact that the 9/11 terror attacks were a direct result of american foreign policy. The follow up of, "Look at the way that this dipshit is running his fucking mouth, justifying genocide right now," is relevant as well, but I'm not sure of the best way to work it in, and that lengthens the quote quite a lot. See here Yakri (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

New Photo

This photo is really low quality--I see that it's literally a screenshot from a YouTube video. What are our options for a better photo? Are we limited to photos taken by Wikipedians? Are we allowed to try for a better YouTube or Twitch screenshot? How do the copyrights work on those within Wikipedia? Leopard of the Snows (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows: We're limited to images released under a free license. The current image came from a freely licensed video; if there are more such videos we can take another screenshot, or we might be able to find an actual photo someone has taken and released under a creative commons license, but I've had a quick search and turned up nothing unfortunately. Sam Walton (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Move 9/11 remarks to new controversy section?

I think the paragraph on Piker's 9/11 remarks might be better suited to a "Controversies" section. What do you all think? Leopard of the Snows (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about this but here's my thinking--a controversies section might separate the 9/11 comments from the overview of his career in a meaningful way. If someone is unfamiliar with Piker's work then the incident might seem indicative of his career, whereas if it's in a dedicated Controversies section then there's a little more context that suggests it's not representative of his career. As far as I can tell, however, most other Wikipedia pages just leave controversies under career, but if anyone agrees with my intuition here then we can change it. For now I'm going to leave it as is. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am here once again to discuss this with myself. I've seen on other Wikipedia pages that editors are hesitant to create a "Controversies" section because it potentially encourages future editors to compile all controversial events, so let's just leave the 9/11 comments under "Career" unless Piker has so many varying controversies that he becomes known as a controversial figure and needs a dedicated section. Thank you, myself, for discussing this with me. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your final conclusion here :) I think we're often too quick to jump for a 'controversies' section when it's not warranted. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea of a controversy section should be revisited. I came here looking for it, because all I know about Hasan is his controversies and I wanted a fair & balanced account of them, rather than twitter/twitch/youtube drama. Trumad (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid for scandal sheets. All the major controversies are covered under Career, Twitch. I think this is suitable for now. Onikaburgers (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

How is a controversy determined to be big enough to be worth mentioning in the first place? And why do some pages have entire controversy sections and others do not? Is it just based on the people interested in editing the specific articles or is there some kind of process to it all? Brids17 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Through the application of WP:NOT and WP:POV. Such sections can be problematic per WP:CRITS. --Hipal (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Turkish-American?

Would it be more correct to mark Piker as being "Turkish-American" under nationality? What are Wikipedia's rules on this? Leopard of the Snows (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as what has been discussed before, it seems Hasan was born in the US making him an American citizen and then moving to Turkey later on. His nationality remains American in the lead as that is his disclosed nationality as far as what we know now. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 20:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Since both of his parents are Turkish, he automatically gets the Turkish citizenship. On top of that he went to school in Turkey, so I can say with 100% certainty that he has Turkish citizenship. 176.227.51.101 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hasan was born in the U.S then his family moved back to Turkey soon after where he was raised until he was 18. 2A00:23C6:3EC4:1101:B9C3:85D8:A21B:9D27 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

news article which could possibly be incorporated into this wiki article

https://kotaku.com/the-gamers-of-the-year-2020-1845965574 TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Done! I've incorporated it into a new "Reception" section. I was considering including a section like this already, since a number of sources have all written approvingly of similar aspects of Piker's work. Since patterns of opinion have emerged across these sources, I felt they warranted including in this article about him, and this new kotaku source fits into that nicely. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A quick note on Piker's birthplace

There have been a few edits regarding Piker's birthplace. From what I can see, the Cosmo feature does say Piker was born in Turkey, but New York Times feature from November 2020 says he was born in New Jersey and raised in Turkey. The Politico profile says he was born in New Brunswick, specifically. If you wish to edit Piker's birthplace, please provide another source that suggests he was born in Turkey, otherwise your edit will be reverted. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2021

Change age from 29 to 30 DLightOToko (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The reference does not mention the age of Hasan Piker within it. Terasail^[✉️] 23:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Improper reversion by Panda619

On 20 August 2021, User:Panda619 improperly reverted my contribution. As I stated in my edit summary when adding this content, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Daily Beast "is considered generally reliable for news" and The Daily Dot "is considered generally reliable for Internet culture." I request consensus to restore my contribution. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

To anyone reading this, there is also this source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hasan-piker-twitch-criticism-home-b1906619.html . I am not interested in writing about this particular drama but it has become notable by Wikipedia's standards and I agree that this particular reversion was improper. Astral Shepherd (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are opinions, not facts; and should not be included on a wiki. 2601:642:4C02:617E:99CA:CF9D:34A6:CA1E (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Banning from Twitch

Hi SrAlfredos, I want to explain my edit here. I think that the sentence should probably be deleted per Wikipedia:Too much detail. Why is it important that two - as you have said - non notable individuals were banned for the same thing as Piker? How does that relate to Piker? Information added to the article should relate to the person's notability and this seems excessive. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to the title description

The correct formatting and in accordance with examples, the description should not include the date of birth. Please consider removing the date of birth from the description. Live405 (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Fix alignment of ‘Twitch Information’

Fix alignment of Infobox section to match ‘YouTube information’. Thain97 (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Question: How? Pabsoluterince (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section revision?

I have to agree on a need of a “Controversies” section. The current format is inconvenient for those who need quick access to the information, particularly regarding the Twitch bans. I could see it being more digestible if the controversies were ordered from oldest - newest, as well as some more recent updates that were put out on the behalf of Twitch. Overall the controversies need more context, as well as a glimpse of public reception. 2001:569:7E1F:8100:FDA9:FEF5:6BCB:28B4 (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Currently one of the most viewed streamers on Twitch"

No he isn't. This is false information and simple braggadocio and shouldn't be on this wiki. Also the words "one of the most" and "currently" are unquantifiable and dated and shouldn't be used in any wiki. What did children write this bio or something? Oh wait, no it was Hasan himself, of course. Currently. One of the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4C02:617E:99CA:CF9D:34A6:CA1E (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.twitchmetrics.net/channels/viewership twelth most viewed this month, try not to be rude if you are also wrong. Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Unions: noticed there is a mention of the strike fund fundraiser, so I think his interview with Chris Smalls from the Amazon Labor Union [2] could be included as well (and him criticizing Terry Crews for appearing in an Amazon ad [3] ). Theres also a WaPo article that mentions Hasan donating $5k to the union GoFundMe. And this NBC article on Waymo workers unionizing with UNITE HERE mentions they were inspired by Hasans stream. And this Slate article on Chiptole workers unionizing began by co-workers talking about Hasan and Noam Chomsky.

Various: I also found some articles on his talent management agency and agent [4] [5], and Salon mentioning Hasans criticism of Jordan Peterson, if you wanna include that [6] or his Andrew Tate[7] and Nicki Minaj [8] debates. Or AOC voters saying Hasan helped convert them [9] And an LA Times mention for his interview with DSA reps during the LA mayoral race. Theres also a few quotes in this NBC article on Esports unions.

--jonas (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Hank Pecker" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hank Pecker and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#Hank Pecker until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 05:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• HasanAbi reacts to Logan Paul APOLOGIZED to Me Coffeezilla.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Given Hasan's extensive philantrophy it seems to make sense to make a seperate philantrophy section. Hasan has generated millions in donations, and that should probably be acknowledged in a seperate section than it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenSun01 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Change August 21 2019 Date to August 20 2019

https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/streamer-hasan-says-america-deserved-9-11

The controversy actually happened on Tuesday August 20, not August 21. Bluesharkeye (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

More proof the controversial date was August 20 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viLHAvc-NCY&t=750s Bluesharkeye (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Change the line in Controversies from "During a Twitch stream on August 21, 2019" to "During a Twitch stream on August 20, 2019"

Evidence being here

https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/streamer-hasan-says-america-deserved-9-11

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viLHAvc-NCY&t=750s Bluesharkeye (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Also source provided failed verification. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm not familiar with the edit process. Looking into it, is the consensus just done here between editors to discuss if it's valid or not?

Also, can you clarify why the sources provided failed verification? The first source, the article mentions the event happened on Tuesday of August 2019, which is the 20th. I understand that the article doesn't necessarily provide direct evidence, but other than saying the event happened on Tuesday, the article was also published on Aug 21, 2019 9:58 am. Hasan said the controversial comments during a nighttime stream, so it's unlikely that the article was published in the morning the same day Hasan said the comments.

The second link I provided was a YouTube link to one of Hasan's past streams where he himself says that the event happened on the 20th. I understand that maybe he himself could also be wrong, but I have not been able to find any verifiable evidence that the comments were actually made on August 21st other than memes so in this case I trust the man himself.

Given this information, why would both of these sources not be enough? Bluesharkeye (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bluesharkeye I couldn't find explicit evidence to support the changes, you would like to be made, hence it's considered as failed verification. Please provide a better source with explicit evidence. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. I think the first source I provided was pretty decent evidence. I don't think we're going to find the exact clip because Hasan deleted the VOD. The second source I'd argue is very explicit evidence because it's literally coming from his own mouth.

I've also found multiple articles saying the day this happened was on Tuesday August 2019, which is the 20th.

1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7385477/Hasan-Piker-rips-Rep-Dan-Crenshaw-saying-brave-insurgent-took-eye.html

"Piker, who is a contributor on the liberal Young Turks network, dug into the Republican Texas Congressman during a Twitch livestream on Tuesday."

2. https://www.foxnews.com/media/hasan-piker-dan-crenshaw

"During a Twitch livestream on Tuesday night, Piker blasted Crenshaw for his continued opposition in the House to stop sending arms to Saudi Arabia. Piker questioned why Crenshaw would be opposed, considering he lost his eye while serving."

3. https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-commentator-profanely-attacks-rep-crenshaw-claims-brave-soldier-took-his-eye

""What the f--k is wrong with this dude? Didn't he go to war and literally lose his eye because some Mujahideen -- a brave f-----g solider -- f---ed his eyehole with their d--k?" Piker asked Tuesday on the live streaming video platform Twitch."

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwvOS5kxqks

This is the video Hasan was watching about Dan Crenshaw on Joe Rogan's channel which was uploaded on August 20th 2019. I've followed Hasan for years now and I know he watches Joe Rogan clips the day they come out, sometimes waiting for them on the YouTube page to be uploaded.

I don't know what other evidence I can provide at this point to prove that the date written on the Wiki is incorrect. I haven't found a single piece of evidence that the date happened on the 21st and I'm sorry if this is rude, because it's not my intent, but unless you do, I don't think you can consider my evidence as not explicit enough. I honestly don't know why the meme revolves around the 21st. All I can think of is maybe he got banned on that day, but regardless it wasn't the actual date he said the comments and I think I've provided plenty of evidence proving this. Like I said, I don't think we will ever find a clip that shows the timestamp because Hasan deleted the VOD that night. Bluesharkeye (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Pursuant to WP:CALC, basic calculations like days of the week don't need an explicit date reference. All the sources refer to it happening on the Tuesday of that week, which was the 20th. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Change Paragraph 2 of “Personal Life to “In April 2023, Hasan adopted a Tibetan Mastiff mix puppy that he named ‘Kaya’, a Turkish name that means “rock”. His Twitch chat helped to name her by voting in a Twitch poll containing a list of possible names he chose.” 2601:603:1680:820:A9EE:F5DB:6FCC:C735 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Lightoil (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

controversies section

no mentioning of hasans support of the annexation of crimea and supporting chinese claims on taiwan and being againist military aid transfers to ukriane? Monochromemelo1 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

These should be included 175.39.88.109 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

These controversies have not received enough coverage to warrant inclusion in this article. Additionally, being familiar with Hasan's statements on the matter his views on these matters are more complex then you are stating here, you are clearly acting out of bad faith. Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Care to elaborate what denotes "enough coverage"?

It seems some editors here are using personal opinion judgements rather than WP rules. 82.16.132.36 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Hasan recently created controversy by saying Tibet deserved to be invaded and annexed by the PRC and Tibetans have greatly benefited from PRC rule

https://twitter.com/PostLeftWatch/status/1708640453665649035?t=ASTJQf6Th6jptNT9sSrFfw&s=19 175.39.88.109 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Not true

The statement "He is currently one of the most-viewed and most-subscribed-to streamers on Twitch" is not true today. And the ref is to over four years ago. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:297C:3C45:61E7:E82C (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. He is ranked #122nd here: https://twitchtracker.com/channels/most-followers?page=3 --82.192.173.74 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

I was going to add to his political stance that he has some ideas and takes representative of marxism, and also that he is friends with other Marxist youtubers. that's all. not too important Erik1918 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

“Baby settler” controversy

Hasan October 2023 controversy of labeling infant victims of 7/10 attack as “baby settler”. Should this be added to list of controversy? 23.93.18.48 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? 75.54.114.162 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Controversy section revision?

As stated previously, I think a need for a "Controversies" section is needed more than ever. Hasan has had multiple controversies in the past few years, with mainy gaining mainstream media spotlight.

Hasan has been banned from Twitch multiple times due to controversies.

It's now 2024 and Hasan is a very large streamer, especially one of the largest in the left-wing sphere.

These are basic but a starting point for those wishing to review:

https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/hasanabi-s-five-contentious-takes-landed-hot-water

https://www.pcgamer.com/twitch-mega-streamer-hasanabi-suspended-over-ongoing-cracker-controversy/

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leftist-streamer-hasan-piker-says-155952661.html?guccounter=1

https://www.vods.tv/blog/hasanabi-streamer-and-political-commentator#controversy

https://metro.co.uk/2024/01/17/hasanabi-called-cringe-loser-interviewing-hot-houthi-pirate-20130484/

Controversies follow this guy, with the most recent being in relation to the Houthi attacks in Yemen.

Controversies are, at this point, a mainstay of his streaming career and should be addressed as such in the article. 82.16.132.36 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to re-submit with the following changes:

-remove all sources that are considered unreliable

-choose a different format that fit better into the structure, being mindful of Wikipedia:Criticism

-re-read the requirements for WP:BLP

Your suggestion may have some validity, but I would rather it be refined before engaging with it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

New topic based on ADL report - extended-confirmed Editors only

Based on this reporting by the ADL (which is an RS), and should therefore be added to the reception section (with attribution). FortunateSons (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2024

there is no mention of "muslim rights" in the cited source for the same. That should be removed if no valid source is provided. Myh98 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The linked source literally says "Muslim rights" in the second sentence of the second paragraph. If you (or anyone else) has a problem with the source that's another story, but I disagree that it is not mentioned in the source. Bestagon ⬡ 13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Accords and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

JPost

Jewish Insider

National Review

I would like to add the content from the following three sources, with a (but not necessarily the) possible phrasing being:

In May 2024, the Jerusalem Post and National Review reported that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agreed with Pikers statement that the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was a direct consequence of the Abraham Accords and the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem during a live stream. FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of the sources can be found here

Primary concerns:

-due weight?

-sustained coverage?

-attribution?

-direct link to stream?

FortunateSons (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is a mess, needing a great deal of cleanup. It appears that this would just add to the mess, and violate of BLP, NOT, and POV. --Hipal (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why you believe that it violates these policies? It’s covered by at least 3 citable sources (with each having dedicated articles, so not just a passing mention), uses paraphrased speech (so very limited POV issues, but if you prefer a direct quote, I’m not opposed), and goes beyond routine reporting. FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Fourth source (with lighter coverage):

Axios FortunateSons (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It was already pointed out at RSN. Verification doesn't mean inclusion. BLP, NOT, and POV explain why. But we've been over this before.

Simply: Show me a reference that demonstrates that it is of major relevance to the life of Piker. Otherwise, it looks like "someone said something on Piker's show that some are using to score political points". --Hipal (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is of significant importance to Pikers ‘career’ (can that word be used for streamers?) as a political streamer, as it a ‘special event’ (stream with one of the most well-known politicians in America), about a topic which he gives and for which he receives significant coverage (I/P) and that received specific and pretty detailed coverage by at least 3 (and plausibly 4) RS. It is therefore extraordinary enough to receive 1 sentence of coverage in his article.

One minor correction:

Piker did most of the talking, AOC just agreed with him. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Show me a reference". --Hipal (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If you consider RS coverage to be insufficient, what would you consider a reference? FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So we agree that there are no references that demonstrate it's of major relevance to Piker? --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I would consider broad RS coverage (Israeli, Jewish, Right, pretty neutral) for a non-standard event to be sufficient as a sign for major relevance for him. If you think that it isn’t or expect something else, you will have to actually describe what you would look for as coverage of a streamer for a relatively recent occurrence. I’m assuming you’re not looking for social media reactions? FortunateSons (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking for references that meet the requirements of our policies. If there are none, then we're done. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the given references do meet that. Could you elaborate on why you think they don’t? FortunateSons (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The burden is on those seeking to include content. --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But you do have to make an argument beyond “this is not sufficient”. While I have to fulfil the initial burden of proof (which I believe I have through both argument and RS coverage), the burden does not refer to me having to convince you, only to me having to make a sufficient policy-based argument. It would help to know what exactly you want, considering this is a political streamer, you’re not likely to have it mentioned in the State of the Union.

Having said that, I don’t believe that this will be productive with just the two of us, and would prefer using a consensus-finding mechanism. Do you have a preference regarding Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or an RfC? FortunateSons (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems you are repeatedly trying to change the burden. The references provided do not make a good case for inclusion. Neither do the arguments made, which amount to little beyond "the given references do meet that". --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There is also Times of Israel and New York Mag coverage, as well as less or insufficiently reliable coverage by Vin News and depreciated coverage by Breitbart (not linked for obvious reasons). There is also very marginal coverage by USA Today. Would you still say that the coverage is not sufficient for inclusion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP requires high-quality sources. Quantity doesn't matter at all if they are not high-quality. I'm unclear why you offered the USA Today article at all. You're bring up Brietbart suggests you're not taking policy seriously. [10]--Hipal (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

We have multiple high-quality sources that are useable for BLP per this and past RSN discussions, as well as coverage by lesser quality sources with a different focus (which for the sake of completeness includes Breitbart, which I described as depreciated and did not link); this plausibly shows that it’s not a minor event.

The question one of due weight, and considering AOC was asked about this in the interview with the NYM and it has received national and international coverage, it’s not routine. As I want to included it with fewer than 3 sentences in the BLP of a twitch streamer and not the article of a US president, I am curious what you are looking for, and perhaps looking for a specific policy based argument that prevents an inclusion? FortunateSons (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you be trying to apply WP:N which states, The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles.

You appear to be repeating yourself. See [11]. --Hipal (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I’m applying WP:Verifiability (which is clearly given), and am arguing that none of the exclusions listed WP:NOT are met. In this case, the content is WP:DUE in line with WP:BLP. Could you tell me why you believe that it’s not? By the argument you made, almost none of the content currently in the article should be there, and many other articles would have to be substantially changed: looking at other articles of similar BLP, the political views and statements of people in politics are often due. FortunateSons (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but it appears you are ignoring others' comments and trying to use generalities when specifics are necessary. This is not how to create the required consensus. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m engaging with your comments, and the others comments are about further coverage, which has since become available and I would therefore consider at least partially resolved. I’m curious of what you would specifically want to include something like this in this article? FortunateSons (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't expect further comments from me when the discussion is just more of the same. --Hipal (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I will tag you if I choose to use an RfC or noticeboard. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Nepotism

Why has the article been locked without mention of his blatant nepotism? Put it in the controversies section. It's well known that if he wasn't born into wealth and power he never would have made it as an online personality. Literally the only reason he got to work on TYT is that Cenk is his uncle. Even TYT acknowledge that his success is purely based on their nepotism. Nepotism is extremely related to Hasan Piker and his page. There are thousands of people far better informed and skilled yet they didn't receive the same success because they aren't children born with a diamond encrusted platinum spoon in their mouth, so their family couldn't artificially boost their online presense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobodyInParticular0 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide WP:BLP-quality, reliable sources? --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I cite Hasan's wikipedia page? Because it's already all there, it's just hidden behind weasel words and misinformation NobodyInParticular0 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I don't watch TYT much because it's the left wing equivalent to InfoWars. But from what I've seen it's always Cenk + Anna, they're the hosts, the only other person I've seen hosting is Hasan, and he's Cenk's nephew. If Hasan wasn't allowed to intern/host because of nepotism, then where's all the other "interns" who became hosts on TYT? NobodyInParticular0 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Hasan's wikipedia page", but wiki's themselves are not reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Times citation in Reception subsection

Hello @Hipal

You have reverted twice an addition to this article based on content from WP:NYTIMES, a perennial generally reliable source. You have cited WP:Due, but not specified how the addition contradicts WP:Due. What exactly is your issue with this addition? CeltBrowne (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

The content in question is:

In July 2024 Alex Mahadevan of MediaWise at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies (a nonpartisan nonprofit organization) characterised Piker as someone who "shares as much misinformation as anyone on the right" and cited Piker as an example of the "online chattering class" who do not hold themselves to journalistic ethics in contrast to their peers in traditional media.

References

I agree with you that it should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice as long as we have just the one reference.

Are you going to look for better references?

Is Rachel Janfaza on staff at the NYTimes?

My concern with the reference is that it's rather poor, mostly a bunch of summaries and quotes from young conservatives.

To better understand what is resonating with young conservatives online, The New York Times asked 30 people between the ages of 18 and 30, all of whom identify as right-leaning, about the content they consume and the accounts they follow on social media.

It includes Mahadevan to provide some context for the article, where he briefly mentions Piker as a contrasting media personality who, Mahadevan says, shares a lack of journalistic ethics with the personalities that are mentioned in the article.

It's cherry-picking, with no context about Piker to draw upon. BLP articles require better references. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NYTIMES, content from the New York Times is generally reliable. I don't believe there is a requirement for an additional source when the first source is a generally reliable perennial source such as the NYT. We as Wikipedians generally don't get to "pick and choose" which articles are reliable and which are not from sources which have already been approved or banned on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Whether Janfaza is a staff writer or not does not alter the reliability of the content, as it's still overseen by NYT's editorial staff.

One could make the argument that I would need multiple sources if I were to state as fact in the Wikipedia voice that Piker is someone who shares misinformation, but I have not done this. It's made clear in the addition that this is viewpoint of Mahadevan. One reliable source should be sufficient for citing that very specific view. For example, there is only one source required on Joe Biden#Public image to note David S. Broder's view that Biden is self aware, and only only source required to note James Traub's view that Biden is generous. Again, multiple sources might be needed if these were said in the Wikipedia voice, but that has not been done.

You may not be impressed by the quality of this NYT article, but you cannot revert on the basis that the article is not to your personal standard. NYT and it's articles quality have been determined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to be generally reliable. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The key difference here is that being called self aware or generous are positive, while calling someone a serial spreader of misinformation is a serious accusation and WP:BLP demands more serious review of such content. The comment in the NYT article is a passing reference on a subject that was not the focus of the article with no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Are there other reliable sources that despite Piker as spreading misinformation? If so, the case could be made for inclusion, but if only one reliable source has covered this and only in the brief manner that it did, it would likely be WP:UNDUE. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Patar knight.

I'm not contesting the reliability. I am saying it looks like poor journalism that gives us no encyclopedic context for anything about Piker. It is bothsidesism as well.

Let's focus on the actual concerns: I'd say they are POV (including UNDUE and RECENTISM), BLP, and NOT (especially NOTNEWS).

Piker is not Biden, and WP:OSE. --Hipal (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the editor who was recently edit-warring over the content, without discussion, has been blocked for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, I've gone ahead and reverted. I hope we don't need to be looking for sockpuppetry here. --Hipal (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason why Alex Mahadevan's brief statement [12] shouldn't be included is the same as before, and it still shouldn't be included if other sources don't corroborate it in some way. I've restored my version pending this discussion, given the BLP concerns.

The first cited article, is cited as concurring with Mahadevan's statement, but it doesn't. The part cited about newsfluencers spreading misinformation was not about Piker, but about a potential problem with newfluencers in general if they deviate from journalist norms, and specifically cites two right-wing newsfluencers, Andy Ngo and Avi Yemini as examples of this possibility. This article explicitly had a chance to corroborate Mahadevan's statement by also listing Piker here, but it does not. Nowhere else in the article does it say Piker spreads lies or misinformation. In fact, it often praises him for audience engagement and relatability, none of which is reflected in your summary of the article.

The summary of the second article is also misleading. The article doesn't say that Piker dismisses mainstream news as manufacturing consent and primarily uses social media sources. What the article actually says is that he does incorporate mainstream news coverage, but that he critiques aspects of it such as sourcing, framing, and objectivity as manufacturing consent, which is very different. This article also compares Piker with PSB, which it explicitly describes as avoiding mainstream sources and promoting misinformation. This makes two scholarly articles that critiqued these commentary newfluencers as potentials spreaders of misinformation, but declined to name Piker as such, which is contrary to what Mahdevan said in the article. Your summaries of the articles seems to inaccurately focus on the negatives, while the articles themselves are pretty balanced in noting the lack of some journalistic norms but praising other aspects like relatability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This article, and the "reception" subsection, already covers Piker's reliability. In my edits, I also cited the new sources to the areas discussing his reliability.

This article, which contains a POV tag and several comments here on the talk page calling it unbalanced and in favour of the subject, needs to cover both pros and cons. His reliability is a pro. I am concernred that you've taken what was written for the most part removed the critical elements from it, the Mahadevan quote in particular. There is quite clearly a near-exact overlap in Mahadevan's point about an emerging class of influencers and the Sept 2024 Digital Journalism article about an emerging class of influencers. While the exact wording may be tweaked, simply "blocking" the Mahadevan source is incorrect. We have two sources discussing and concurring on the exact same topic. The focus should be reflecting the content of these sources rather than trying to have one dismissed.

The information about "manufacturing consent" comes from the April Digital Journalism article and states:

While Piker displayed familiarity with journalism mechanics—including sourcing, framing, and objectivity; these practices were critiqued as “mainstream” news’ efforts to “manufacture consent” around elite ideas... a casually-dressed Piker firmly positioned himself outside journalistic traditions.

This is an academic journal stating that while Piker knows what journalistic sourcing, framing, and objectivity are, he hand-waves them as something Journalists do to dupe the audience into buying ideas favouring the elite. This should not be written in a way that downplays it.

From the September article:

However, as discussed above, newsfluencers’ “authentic” style can conflict with traditional journalistic notions of detached objectivity. Newsfluencers’ departure from journalistic norms, as well as their fandoms, have already raised concerns... Like with “citizen” and “alternate” journalistic actors, while newsfluencers have the potential to reach new audiences and report on under-reported topics, being free from newsroom codes of conduct can also enable problematic behaviour.

While Piker is not mentioned in that specific paragraph, he is quite clearly mentioned elsewhere in the article as one of these newsfluencers:

This article conceptualises “newsfluencers”, that emerging figures like Piker are emblematic of...Overall, I argue that newsfluencers reflect endemic problems within the global news industry—such as individualised and insecure work, and a growing partisan and platformatised news culture.

The critique that he is a newsfluencer that struggles with objectivity applies to him too, and this is supported/buttressed by the April article and Mahadevan quote.

I am updating the wording to incorporate your points. I'm going to re-write and I'm going to make it much closer to this exact wording used in the source so that your concerns about accuracy are addressed.

If you re-edit what I write, please incorporate my points as I have done for you. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to revert this again (while trying to address some of your concerns) per WP:BLPREMOVE, since accusing someone of spreading misinformation is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which does not seem to be backed by the sources here. Please let this discussion play out.

I also want to note that per WP:FALSEBALANCE, neutrality doesn't require equal amounts of positive and negative coverage, only that it should be roughly proportional to how the subject is treated in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly fine and it is well-sectioned. The talk sections below this one have largely resulted in negative material being removed as overblown. I am taking down the tag and would encourage you to retag individual sections that you think are unbalanced and start new, focused talk page discussion(s).

Your interpretation of these sources appears to be an inappropriate WP:SYNTHESIS to reach the conclusion that Piker spreads misinformation. Yes, all three sources consider Piker to be a newsfluencer, and all three sources consider society's increasing reliance on newsfluencer to be potentially problematic because of the risk of misinformation among other factors. However, only Mahadevan actually accuses Piker of spreading misinformation himself, and his reasoning is never explained. By contrast, the articles go much deeper into Piker's content style, explicitly describe other influencers in their articles as promoting misinformation, but do not reach that conclusion for Piker. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be deferring to peer-reviewed scholarship in this case.

In respect to manufacturing consent, telling their audience about the concept is not equivalent to spreading misinformation without something more. Clearly, the authors did not think so either, because they describe how Piker contrasts with these norms in a section you cut out from your quotation:

Piker deployed an unapologetic ideological viewpoint and rhetorical style in which he referred to elderly senators as “vampires” and Trump supporters as “hogs.”

Being biased or crude is not the same as spreading misinformation. By contrast, the other newsfluencer is described in harsher terms:

Though PSB replicated some mainstream news norms, they opposed legacy institutions,...[t]heir website stated that mainstream media’s "[f]omenting racial hatred is not 'news' but irresponsible and reckless"...PSB differentiated itself from what it perceived as “corrupt” occupational ideologies to validate its “true” journalism.

And throughout the article, the authors make it clear that while Piker criticizes news, he still relies on them, while PSB are just conspiracy newsfluencers:

Piker incorporates news into broader content creation vs pro-QAnon 24/7 “news” station Patriots’ Soapbox (PSB) features an ideological subculture’s grassroots-driven newsmaking., and [Piker's] broadcasts rely on existing journalistic coverage and followers to source the content vs. Proudly “politically incorrect,” PSB offered hyper-partisan current events commentary, moderated by a rotating cast of “anchors.” Eventually banned from multiple platforms.... In any case, my revision already included the fact that Piker critiques media for manufacturing consent.

In respect to the September article, the part that you cut out in your first quote is important because it explicitly lists newsfluencers accused of spreading misinformation but not Piker:

...Other actors, for instance far-right newsfluencers such as Andy Ngo in the U.S. and Avi Yemini in Australia...have been accused of spreading mis- and disinformation around vaccines and other topics (Maurice 2019)—indicating that the amorphous spaces that newsfluencers occupy and the ambiguous identities they embody could be vectors of mis- and disinformation. Like with “citizen” and “alternate” journalistic actors...

The rest of the paper doesn't accuse Piker of misinformation, only noting that he openly admits his bias, which helps him relate to his audience and monetize his work:

Other less traditionally journalistic newsfluencers openly embrace comedic or opinionated self-brands: Piker and FriendlyJordies are known for their humorous sensibility, clear political stance, and memetic literacy and And as we can see from the Piker example, this relational and “authentic” labour is practiced by newsfluencers, where “authenticity” is generated by connecting with users in real-time and cultivating a “real” image through transparency (in Piker’s case, showing his messy tabs during long election live streams).).

My revision already noted that Piker was unapologetically ideological. This contrast is the whole point of the paper as shown in the part you cut from your quotation:

...and platformatised news culture. However, they also have the potential to make journalism more accessible and relevant to young audiences, as well as provide new revenue streams for freelancers.

The material that you picked out would be useful if you wanted to write an article on newsfluencers, but it is a BLP violation to include material about potential negative characteristics of a class that Piker belongs to when no scholarly sources attributes them to him and the only source that does doesn't explain it. For example, if there was a scholarly article about influencer scandals that discussed the DaddyOFive child neglect, James Charles's flirting with minors, and Andrew Tate's charges on rape and human trafficking to conclude that influencers can wield their power to abuse children and engage in potential sex crimes, it would obviously be inappropriate to include that conclusion on the article of any other influencer mentioned in the article if their scandal was not sexual and did not involve children. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Advert, various

Since the Advert template was added in June a bunch of fluff has been removed from the article, is there any reason to still include it? The fundraising is notable and everything else seems fine.

Someone added an ADL statement without a secondary source to his Yemen interview, especially considering how the ADL is a "generally unreliable" source in this conflict, should it be included without secondary coverage?

Lastly, is it too early to add a subsection for his 2024 election coverage? Theres already Politico coverage and some interviews (this one has a quote from Senator Ed Markey) of his DNC invitation and coverage, which could also be incorporated into the Coverage of military conflicts or Political views section, the last one is particularly out of date. His GQ piece also seems to be missing, as is a WIRED interview about the election (And this WIRED piece on Influencers in the 2024 campaign) — jonas (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Currently, I don't believe all the references have been reviewed for suitability in a BLP, not the content against NOT and POV. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion directly below is a good example of the problems in this article. When better sources are actually found, they do not support the POV being presented, and it's unclear if the material is DUE or meets WP:NOT. --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede doesn't look bad, though the Politicon and Kotaku refs should be replaced with something better. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Highsnobiety ref needs to be replaced. It's reliability is questionable, especially for BLP info. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

ADL probably needs to be excluded unless other sources covered its criticism per WP:ADLAS. Right now I just trimmed the sentence to actually reflect what was said by them about the incident (since ‘justified October 7 attacks’ doesn't seem to be in any way related to the Houthi Tiktok guy interview). stjn 13:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content: Piker criticized for buying expensive house

@Hipal: This part, which is reliably sourced and relevant, has been there for almost 2 years (see here):

In August 2021, Piker purchased a $2.7 million house in West Hollywood, California. The purchase was criticized online by some who felt that his purchase opposed his views as a socialist. Similar criticism was aired in February 2022 after it emerged that Piker had leased a Porsche Taycan. Piker has also been criticized after a large-scale information leak from Twitch, which included the financial earnings of Piker among many other streamers. He responded by stating that his earnings have always been transparent, as his subscriber count has continuously been prominently displayed on screen.

Its removal would require consensus first FMSky (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Consensus is required for inclusion per BLP. Please stop the edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you have read the part where this has been in the article for 2 years --FMSky (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your justification for the removal?

In August 2021, Piker purchased a $2.7 million house in West Hollywood, California. The purchase was criticized online by some who felt that his purchase opposed his views as a socialist. Similar criticism was aired in February 2022 after it emerged that Piker had leased a Porsche Taycan. Piker has also been criticized after a large-scale information leak from Twitch, which included the financial earnings of Piker among many other streamers. He responded by stating that his earnings have always been transparent, as his subscriber count has continuously been prominently displayed on screen.

References

Looks like anti-fan soapboxing, NOTNEWS, and UNDUE content; based upon poor sources. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is sourced to The Guardian and The Independent, among others. It seems more you don't like this part to be included because you're a fan of Hasan Piker --FMSky (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the strikeout

The Guardian ref is an opinion piece, so a poor source.

The Independent ref isn't so bad. Added here. NOTNEWS applies. I also see that the pov from this source isn't actually being used, so let's add POV vio to the list of problems with the content. --Hipal (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's another high-quality source, Business Insider, as well as another one from The Independent, and one from The Intelligencer. This is longstanding, reliably sourced, and due content. --FMSky (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The second is another opinion piece.

The first is inferior to the (Graziosi, 2021) ref. NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The longstanding content will be restored shortly --FMSky (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You want to be blocked or banned? --Hipal (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Intelligencer piece is a fleshed out interview. Like (Graziosi, 2021), it would require a different pov as to not violate POV. --Hipal (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the current phrasing is trying to be too unbiased and ends up to be saying that a socialist can’t buy a house in California or something, whereas the sources used take a more partisan approach, which should probably be reflected in the article. Taycan episode doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant for WP:UNDUE (it is just Kotaku reporting on Twitter drama), house episode seems to be relevant enough to be included, but needs to be rewritten. The purchase was criticized online by some who felt that his purchase opposed his views as a socialist — it was mostly criticised by right-wing accounts which mocked a socialist buying something expensive, not by ‘some’ who wanted ideological purity, as the excerpt seems to suggest. This seems to be reflected in the sources. stjn 11:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit wars (house/mansion, adfontesmedia.com)

We can protect the article if the ip's continue to edit war, or take other action as needed.

"Mansion" appears to be an WP:OR violation.

Adfontesmedia.com WP:RSP entry is clear it should not be used in such a manner. - Hipal (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The article has been protected to prevent the edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The Messenger article / ADL

@FMSky: the proper source for what you seem to be trying to add to the article is the defunct The Messenger website, not MSN who just republishes everything that they have rights to. The article seems to be saved to web.archive.org despite the website being defunct. The article seems to be grasping at straws repeatedly, saying that Piker said that the murders ‘can be justified’ while also saying repeatedly that he did not agree with that. The addition of this content to this article then seems to be extremely biased and, for the lack of better wording, unjustified. ADL is also not a reliable source for Israel-Palestine conflict coverage per WP:ADLAS, so their reprinting of it should not be included unless deemed explicitly relevant. stjn 17:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also disagree with the notion that every single paragraph in the description of Twitch career needs to have a subheading if ‘controversies and temporary bans’ are not included in the subheading. It seems like that is motivated mostly by antipathy towards Piker from FMSky and nothing else. The subsection has 6 paragraphs, 3 are about ‘controversies’ and 2 out of 3 are about ‘bans’. The table of contents does not necessarily need to include every single thing Piker has done that someone considered to be wrong, this is literally already in the article. stjn 17:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to hide his controversies under a wall of text. The article has neutrality problems as it is and your edits aren't helping --FMSky (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem now is that the Twitch section essentially can’t be expanded without adding some additional meaningless subheading like current Usage of the word "cracker" or Collaboration with U.S. representatives (when it was just with AOC). The fact that Piker is the subject of controversies can be mentioned in the lead if there are sources that mention him as such (as I think there might be). Having it be describing literally his entire Twitch career is just unnecessary.

The current version of the article mostly suffers from sourcing problems and inclusion of details that aren’t covered by RS. The non-inclusion of random Twitter drama is not a ‘neutrality problem’. stjn 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We can also go back to how the page originally looked before the sections were changed (1) and have the controversies is a seperate section. I don't know which version is better --FMSky (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

FMSky Definitely not controversies separately; it often risks undue weight on biographies and potentially makes them appear more negative than neutral. WP:CSECTION describes why much better than I can. If readers still prefer it separately, we could combine some of his controversies with the Reception section to create a bigger Public Image one. Otherwise, we should instead interweave his controversies into his career section so it'll flow comprehensively, like a story of his life. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Fan's POV?

I've been checking this article sporadically since the Fan-POV tag came on, but I'm genuinely wondering what exactly about this article seems fancrufty here. It's probably changed a lot since the tag was added, but I read the article several times and I haven't seen much in the way of info only fans would mostly care about - and this is coming from someone who doesn't watch him. Maybe the "'abi' meaning 'elder brother'" part which is unsourced. Maybe the "Hank Pecker" mention, but even that's reliably sourced (per WP:VG/S), and it seems to be a factual statement about his videos - which readers would reasonably expect on a person who makes web content. Maybe some of the sources seem unreliable or are primary, but they could be replaced with better ones instead of outright deleted. And some of the quotes he said may be overly detailed, but minor trims would be fine here. Overall, I'm not seeing much in this article that would warrant this tag. Maybe it was valid when it was first placed in August, but I don't think it applies anymore. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a great deal of back-and-forth between what appears to be fan vs anti-fan pov.

Skimming without looking carefully at the refs to determine proper weight:

The "Early life and education" section appears overly detailed. Same with "Dispute with Dan Crenshaw, 9/11 comments, and temporary ban", "Usage of the word "cracker"", "Other ventures", and "Fundraisers".

There are a number of references that look questionable for BLP information. --Hipal (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it would be a bit heated. You had me on the "Dan Crenshaw" and "Cracker" sections. Do they really merit individual headers? I think the Other Ventures and Fundraisers sections seem appropriate though - at least comparing similar e-celeb articles - but I agree some of the sources may need replacement. Overall I feel it needs copy edits and better interweaving, but I was expecting a lot worse. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

@Hipal can you clarify specifically what about the article is violating WP:NPOV? It would be good to get some discussion going so that we can actually attempt to fix it. Horep (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you reviewed this talk page? --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Questionable summaries

I have noticed some issues with how this article summarizes controversies and I think it could be due to there being limited news media sources covering them. While I understand neutrality is important, the Houthi pirate controversy wasn't because Hasan interviewed the person, and this summary is misleading.

The main criticism was the manner in which Hasan conducted the interview, such as how he didn't challenge the interviewee, asked inane questions (like whether he had watched One Piece), and afterwards said that he believes the Houthis are doing what Lufi (the heroic pirate protagonist of One Piece) would do. Hasan later dismissed these criticisms by: a) claiming the interviewee was just a random Yemeni teenager (there is prior streaming footage of Hasan acknowledging the interviewee was a Houthi pirate), and b) misrepresenting the criticism as it being just because he interviewed the person (which is obviously not valid criticism).

While it is not reasonable to fit all of this into that specific summary, the summary as it appears now is not an accurate description of what actually occurred, making the criticisms appear less reasonable.

The next issue is in regards to Ukraine. Hasan wasn't criticized for wrongly predicting that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, he was criticized for displaying arrogance in these opinions, claiming the invasion of Crimea was completely justifiable, and saying that Putin's imperialism isn't comparable to Hitler because "Hitler wasn't bad because he invaded Austria, it was bad because he was killing Jews." As well, putting Hasan's apology in the Reaction section is questionable, as it isn't summarizing a reaction but showing how Hasan (the subject) responded to a reaction, a reaction that is not described.

Not saying that all this detail needs to be summarized, but the summaries of these controversies should at least accurately show what the actual criticisms were. 64.228.236.152 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, reliable sources are required for these claims.

Though in particular, I have to raise doubt that any reliable source would seriously write an article about anyone "displaying arrogance". LaughingManiac (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That's kinda the point, there aren't reliable sources for most of these controversies because they are mostly restricted to social media. Journalists don't generally write about Twitch streamers. 64.228.236.152 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the above, only content that is verifiable can be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to share social media outrage or a discussion forum. This is especially true for BLP, who must use high-quality sources to avoid legal problems.

I'll also add (in line with the BLPN discussion in progress) that the standards here are even higher, since part of the changes you're proposing are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is a contentious topic and has specific restrictions; namely, users who wish to edit in this topic area must be extended confirmed - which means that the account should have existed for at least 30 days and made at least 500 edits - and changes concerning the topic area may only be implemented through edit requests.

I'll put this very straightforwardly: unless you can make a formal edit request, with reliable sources supporting the changes you want made, I'm afraid that you're out of luck here and should find better uses of your time. LaughingManiac (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to emphasise what LaughingManiac has said, the Houthi stuff seems to clearly relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict so should be discussed in a separate thread where only EC editors should participate. As for the rest, unless there are sources then there's nothing for us to talk about anymore. Clearly journalists do talk about Twitch streamers, because the article already has quite a number of reliable media sources about Piker during since Twitch career. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)