Talk:Steven Crowder

The Verge source

Regarding this edit by @Netoholic::

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources The Verge (and Vox) are broadly reliable sources. The statements made in the article were clearly attributed to The Verge as a Vox subsidiary, and the context that Maza works for Vox had also been explained earlier in the section. Readers have the info needed to weight this appropriately. The source itself also discloses this connection.

The reason for given for removal is that this is a biased source which is not independent of the topic it is covering. This is neither accurate, not sufficient in this case. Removing this source without any specific further reason is implying that reporters for an otherwise reliable outlet cannot be trusted to report on people who have insulted their colleagues at a sister-outlet. This is an absurd standard, because journalists commonly, and almost consistently, report on people who openly dislike them, and taunting someone with slurs doesn't undermine the reliability of the recipient of the attacks. It also doesn't undermine the reliability of other reporters who work under a different banner of the same corporation.

In other words, Crowder is not qualified in any way to decide whether or not a source is reliable on Wikipedia. Likewise, Maza's statements about Crowder's behavior do not make Maza's colleagues at another site any less reliable. If there is some specific reason why this source isn't reliable other than that Crowder has insulted one of Maza's co-workers, let's see it. If there is some clear reason this is a BLP violation, explain it, otherwise this appears to be using BLP as a deflection for whitewashing the article.

This source is not an opinion, and is not being used to support subjective claims. Here it is for convenience:

• Alexander, Julia (2019-05-31). "YouTube investigating right-wing pundit Steven Crowder for harassing Vox.com host". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-06-01.

Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Verge is considered a generally-reliable source, yeah; it seems sufficient, at least, to establish WP:DUE for a brief quote by Maza, attributed to Maza, outlining his position on a conflict that is clearly central to the topic. I don't think there's any serious doubt that said this, and it would be difficult to argue that it's irrelevant to the dispute, so I don't see the argument for omitting it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: The sourced quote ("routinely contain egregious violations of YouTube's policies against cyberbullying") is from the Verge article's prose - not a quote from Maza. Its a cherry-picked line taken from a WP:BIASED source which is not independent enough of the topic, since its about one of their employee's. Neither is it some from of official statement from Vox. Its a writer defending a co-worker, and since this is a BLP, it is inappropriate to include it. Its also not necessary to do so as there are a plethora of other sources which state opinions about the matter which are appropriately independent. -- Netoholic @ 06:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic:, you have broken the three revert rule.[1][2][3][4] I strongly advise you to self revert. It has already been established that The Verge is both reliable and relevant, so further changes should be proposed here first. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: See the above reply I gave to Aquillion. Also, I'll point out, that this particular line is factually incorrect because YouTube has specifically said that Crowder's videos do not violate its policies. Instead of trying to restore this biased source, please find WP:INDEPENDENT sources on the matter. I advise that you stop edit warring to include such a cherry-picked line from a connected source. As this a WP:BLPREMOVE situation, there is no chance I will self-revert because the inclusion of this source is a violation of BLP policies. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I have already read the reply above, and these issues have also been discussed in Carlos Maza's talk page, but it isn't a reason to break 3RR. Per WP:3RRNO, it's more advisable to report in the BLP noticeboard rather than edit warring. Notice that I haven't reverted again, and I would like to strongly advise, once again, that you self revert. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I've posted on Wikipedia:BLPN#Steven Crowder just as you replied. Self-reverting is not an option due to the BLP nature of this. No editor here, no matter what your opinion, should ever edit to include such defamatory and factually incorrect material to a BLP that comes from a source connected to the topic in this way. -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here; the wording is reliably sourced and we don't exclude sources merely because an employee from that source has been criticized by the article subject. Otherwise article subjects could literally control the sourcing of their Wikipedia article simply by criticizing people who work for sources they don't like. "I called a reporter for The Washington Post an ISIS-supporting commie socialist, therefore The Washington Post has a conflict of interest and you can't use it!" No, there's zero support in policy for that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I filed a report in the edit warring noticeboard so a third party can evaluate the situation, given that there isn't an agreement regarding if this is a BLP violation. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Many sources have commented on Youtube's failures to clearly articulate its own terms of service. Some have specifically said that Youtube has failed to enforce its own rules, regardless of Youtube's botched PR to the contrary. Youtube can decide that Crowder wasn't in violation, but that's not the end of the story, because sources are still talking about it. They are talking about it because Youtube's comments were definitely confusing and arguably hypocritical. It would be a very bad idea for the article to favor corporate PR over reliable sources, so we should probably indicate this problem. To put it another way, Youtube made a judgement call that Crowder had not violated its terms of service, and independent observers disputed this. I would say that Youtube's poor handling of this is a main point of most reliable sources on this specific incident. Omitting this perspective would be damaging the article for little benefit. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"It has already been established that The Verge is both reliable and relevant,” How is a statement that is by definition an opinion deemed “reliable?” Absurd discussion! Orthotox (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Content proposed by Cement4802

Cement4802 has recently added and attempted to re-add the following content (italicised content was already there):

The decision to demonetize Crowder's account was criticized by Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who had previously tweeted in defense of Crowder, saying "This is ridiculous. YouTube is not the Star Chamber — stop playing God & silencing those voices you disagree with. This will not end well". Similarly, the demonetization of Crowder's channel also drew criticism from free speech advocates.

The latter reference is to [5]. Pinging Grayfell who has reverted the addition multiple times.

Let's discuss the content rather than edit warring. I'll start: the quote from Cruz is undue weight to a small part of the media coverage of the incidents. The Business Insider article is not necessarily a reliable source but it does look detailed and like it could add value to the article. However, I do not see how it verifies the given sentence, which is also non-neutrally worded. Even if I have overlooked such a claim in the article, it would be undue weight to cherry-pick that as the only part to include out of the many reactions the article documents. Hence I believe the original version of the article is better, though I'm not opposed to using the BI source. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this perspective. The BI article appears broadly reliable, but it includes multiple perspectives which the source contextualizes. Picking one tweet among several, just because it's from a noteworthy person, is arbitrary and potentially misleading.

Likewise the terms "criticism" and "controversy" should be handled with caution. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should be able to indicate why these are controversial. If sources don't allow us to do that for some reason, we should neutrally indicate who is controverting something. "Free speech advocates" is not neutral, as it is euphemistic and leading for multiple reasons. Presenting this as a debate between censorship and free speech is similarly loaded, since the term "censorship" is both inflammatory and complicated. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The removal of videos following the oscars

This was a large scale issue with abc that put him in the limelight and should be mentioned Bgrus22 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Other Show Segments

"Change my Mind" may be the most well known of the segments but there are many others that may be worth listing. This would include: Crowder confronts, rebutals, debunks, and debates. Also it may be prudent to explain the format of these segments and/or list and link the topics. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources for adding content, especially on a biography of a living person. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal life updates

His dog is going through some health stuff and he mentioned in a video that he was homeless for a time. Is any of that worth adding? Bgrus22 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

This statement is cited as a source:

According to an analysis by Vox Media's The Verge, Crowder's videos "routinely contain egregious violations of YouTube's policies against cyberbullying."[32]

The controversy in question is about Vox Media- this makes an analysis from Vox Media a non-credible, biased source. This statement is non-relevant and should be removed. Gcallantii (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The use of this source has already been discussed in the section above ("The Verge source") and on the BLP noticeboard, and has been found to be appropriate for inclusion. Consensus agreeing with your proposed change should be reached before removing this content. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit, it does look fishy. Dogman15 (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Added description of imagery on t-shirt to provide context to sentence. Hksoftware (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this related to his "Socialism is for f*gs" T-shirt? Or the T-shirt he's wearing in the main article image, with Walther on it? Dogman15 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Change: 'sometimes while wearing a t-shirt that said "Socialism is for f*gs [sic]'

To: 'sometimes while wearing a t-shirt that depicted an image of figs, with the statement "Socialism is for f*gs [sic]' Hksoftware (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Dogman15 (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've undone this. The given inline citation says no such thing. We need reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that the information is significant, not just true. (And we would also need a source to demonstrate that it is true in the first place.) — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's proof that it depicts a fig fruit with a fig leaf attached, and is specifically marketed as "Socialism is for Figs": https://thehiguera.com/socialism-is-for-figs/ If anything, one would need to prove the opposite - that it "obviously" is meant to mean "fags". All the evidence, without assumptions and guessing, is that the shirt is marketed and sold as being about figs. Dogman15 (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A self-published source is not proof, or useful evidence for a contested topic. The article doesn't claim that it means "fags" either, which I agree would need a reliable source. If you believe that the word is uncontroversially "figs", then can you explain why (a) a completely innocuous and inoffensive word is deliberately bowdlerized by the creator, something which indicates use of a slur or swear word, and (b) what the sentence "socialism is for figs" means? And then I'd like to see your reliable secondary sources for such an unintuitive claim. — Bilorv (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Crowder's harassment disavowal

Hunkybuck has recently been attempting to add this content (or variations thereupon). Pinging the users (other than me) who have reverted this change at various incarnations: Grayfell, ToBeFree, Wallyfromdilbert. I assume the fact is uncontentious: Crowder has on some occasions told his fans not to doxx or harass. Hunkybuck offers four sources in favour of this fact. The issue I have with the content, which I believe the others who reverted this might share, is that the information is not significant unless it has been widely discussed in secondary sources. For instance, Grayfell says: Reliable sources do not take this "disavowal" all that seriously, for obvious reasons. Hunkybuck counters: They don't need to "take it seriously" or accept its sincerity. He has stated his disavowal; that is a hard fact. But I believe the point is that a fact has to not just be true (and verifiable), but also significant to be included in Wikipedia. Otherwise we could likely find multiple YouTube videos of Crowder to verify the claim "Crowder likes strawberries" or something similar which he might mention occasionally (frequently, even), but is not suitable as a fact for an encyclopedia entry.

Three of Hunkybuck's four sources are simply links to YouTube videos (with timestamps) of Crowder saying this. Indeed, they verify truth, but not significance. No number of YouTube references could show significance. The fourth is a Verge source whose relevant content is: In the meantime, Crowder has published his own video in response to Maza’s thread, defending his series as political comedy and disavowing any form of doxxing attacks his viewers might undertake. This does contribute towards significance. I am not convinced that the fourth source alone makes the fact significant enough for inclusion in a section which otherwise contains claims that are widely reported by dozens of sources: though usually just one reference is included for each fact, take one at random and google it and you should be able to find 10 sources for the fact. Other opinions would be useful in helping us achieve a consensus in this matter. — Bilorv (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this would be significant based on sources I have seen. The Verge source, as just one example, is very clear in how it contextualizes Crowder's disavowal. The one paragraph on this disavowal specifically says that Crowder violated Youtube's policies on cyber-bullying. In other words, the source promptly challenges the legitimacy of Crowder's disavowal. These statements are not treated as significant in isolation. The paragraphs before and after that one mentioning Youtube's failure to enforce its own policies, and cite specific examples of ways which Crowder's behavior has facilitated and ecouraged this incitement. To ignore this context and use the source for this one point and not the others would be cherry-picking. Context matters with sources, as always. Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, sorry if I've broken any of Wikipedia's rules or general customs. I'm not very experienced at editing, and I hope none of you think that I'm doing anything malicious.

To follow Bilorv's analogy: if it is deemed significant to state that Carlos Maza has claimed that Crowder doesn't like strawberries, it seems equally significant to show evidence of Crowder claiming that he does in fact like strawberries. Admittedly, I'm a Crowder fan, but I'm an even bigger fan of objective truth. It seems that by trying to kill one simple sentence which is stated in a very similar context as a rebuttal to Maza's claims without killing previous sentences stating Maza's claims, that neutrality is not the driving motivation behind the edits.

With regard to a YouTube video being used as a source, my citations weren't the first in the article. There is a statement that says that Crowder did a video comparing Democratic Socialism to Marxism or something like that, and the only source is said video. Therefore, I assumed that prima facie evidence was fair game for citations. Hunkybuck (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the last paragraph, that's a good point. In fact that content is in violation of policy. I've replaced the video source with a secondary source I found here, showing that the PragerU video received critical commentary. The source is partisan and I couldn't find any other sources on the video, so I won't oppose removal of the statement altogether, but certainly it should never have been referenced to YouTube alone. — Bilorv (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for creating this discussion. The edit reverted by me contained the word "frequently", which is a personal interpretation that is not verifiable by linking to a large number of primary sources. As this was clearly not a good idea, I had reverted it, but I do not have a specific opinion about including or excluding the information, as long as it is properly verifiable. Bilorv's concern seems to be mainly about WP:UNDUE, and this should be carefully considered, as "undue weight" concerns are often valid. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to included a properly sourced denial by Crowder. The Carlos Maza page addresses this content, and maybe we should just use that language and sourcing:

Crowder responded that his videos are meant as comedy and that he is opposed to doxxing and harassment.

References

• The Hill states: He also said he has discouraged doxxing or other targeted harassment online.
• Business Insider states: Crowder acknowledged his use of the language against Maza, insisting that it was comedic and used only when arguing against Maza's ideas and saying he had never promoted doxxing or targeted harassment and condemned it.

The citations to primary source videos should be deleted in favor of proper secondary sourcing, and the language we use should be based on those sources rather than our own interpretation of them. Also, Crowder's statements should be put in the second paragraph of the section along with the rest of them. I was bold and made these changes to the article, and others can review them. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The changes seem reasonable and balanced to me, with the caveat that I would suggest something in the wording that acknowledges that Crowder has specifically asked fans not to dox, not just the general statement that he's "opposed to" it. Given that I'm kind of at the center of this, I'll opt not to make the suggested edit myself, but leave it up to general consensus to decide the best wording. Thanks to all those involved for the reasoned discussion on the matter. Hunkybuck (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)