Talk:Steven Crowder

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)