DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Remove "Right-Wing" Political Commentator until you find better sources

[edit]

If you are so passionate about including that moniker, you need to find better sources. The only reliable source that is cited is the Atlantic, but the writer is a culture critic and it clearly falls under "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". The other two are from somewhat obscure gaming magazines. In its current form, it's an NPOV and BLP violation, as the other editor recently noted.

WP:RS is clear, a reliable source should not be used for a statement of fact if the source is editorial and opinion commentary, which in this case it is. Please see WP:NEWSOPED, where it is written plainly: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I really don't see why all the back and forth on this edit. If other editors are so certain he is right-wing, find more reliable sources to support it, or else re-write the article so that the Atlantic article about him being part of a group of other "right-leaning" streamers is correctly attributed to that editor or author of the Atlantic, rather than as a statement of fact. Until then, the term "Right-Wing" should be removed. 107.218.124.222 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the three sources for this:
None of these sources appear to be unreliable, nor are they opeds or editorials. Grayfell (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's break this down. The three sources, all opinion articles, are the sourcing for blanket defining this guy as "right-wing" as a statement of fact. And how was that determined? In these ways:
  1. The op-ed in The Atlantic, from this single paragraph (pro tip: starting a paragraph with "Sometimes I'd start to wonder" is a great way to identify that something is an opinion piece): "Sometimes I’d start to wonder what I was doing spending time listening to Asmongold at all. Then I’d notice that 60,000 people were watching live, or I’d go to his YouTube page and see that the viewership for any given clip from his streams ranges from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. He may sound like just some guy on the couch—but now he, and many other guys on the couch, have captured a slice of the voting public, and have ties to political figures of influence. Not all gaming streamers are alike; Piker, who’s been hyped as the potential “Joe Rogan of the left” in news coverage since the election, delivers heady Marxist theory and wonkish research on geopolitics in a tone of frat-boy exuberance. But Asmongold is the more popular figure, and he’s one member of a larger, right-leaning ecosystem." And how do we know that he's a member of a right-leaning ecosystem? Because Spencer Kornhaber, pop culture columnist at the atlantic, thinks he is.
  2. The second source that was used to justify the label was the article from gamedeveloper.com, which while attempting to be a little more journalist in tone, is filled with editorializing. The sole justification is that none other than unknown writer Bryant Francis (who?) simply deemed it so, by declaring that: "Around that time, content creators and Steam users in the far-right ecosystem began a campaign targeting work-for-hire game narrative studio Sweet Baby Inc." and then: "One such creator was streamer and Mad Mushroom cofounder "Asmongold," who repeatedly discussed the campaign in a number of 2024 videos, agreeing with the claims" There's nothing else in this article about Asmongold, because the article isn't even about him. And the entire crux of using this article as a source is this: Anyone that criticized the narrative studio Sweet Baby Inc. was de facto right-wing, and oh by the way, Asmongold also criticized them on his stream. Therefore, Asmongold is right wing. Logic checks out. There's no fallacies there, right? RIGHT?
  3. And lastly, the last "source" for declaring as a statement of fact that Asmongold is a purely right-wing political commentator is the highly esteemed "aftermath.site" website, where the author of the op-ed shares his opinion that Asmongold has "leaned further into far-right politics". You can find this in the paragraph section, of the article you claim is not an op-ed, titled "The Asmongold Problem". You can't make this stuff up.
And that's it. Those three things are the entire justification for universally declaring in the opening introduction of a living person bio that they are "Right-Wing" in the entirety of their political commentary. Give me a break. 107.218.124.222 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not opinions just because you don't like what they say, and the Atlantic often publishes longer-form journalism which uses includes the journalists perspective and conversational elements. These elements are more prominent in New Journalism, but they have existed for about as long as journalism itself has. This style of writing is not the same as opinion content, and the purpose of that article is not to advance any particular opinion or cause.
If we're sharing pro-tips, than be aware that 'op-ed' isn't the same thing as 'opinion', and using them interchangeably weakens an already weak argument.
'The Asmongold Problem' was referring to when Asmongold went on a racist tirade, which created a problem for companies he is or was involved with. This tirade caused OTK issue a statement distancing themselves from Hoyt's views, and then Hoyt stepped-downed from his leadership position with the group. What is this if not a problem? Good lord. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are absolutely opinion pieces. I can't speak for others, but I neither like nor dislike what these opinions have to say, and nothing I have read above would imply the previous points were based on personal feelings about the content of the sources. What I dislike is that they are not reliable sources for a living person biography for use as a STATEMENT OF FACT. They violate every written policy about how to use opinion sources and the care that should be taken when writing and editing living person bios. A living person bio should ALWAYS err on the side of neutrality in cases when there is even the slightest of doubts. There is ample evidence to show that there is legitimate, good faith concerns as to the sourcing being used to make a blanket statement of fact in the intro of this living person bio. For that reason alone, the "right-wing" term should be removed to restore total neutrality to the article until which time a consensus can be reached. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if this person is or is not right-wing, and by using poor sourcing to make a statement of fact like this, that is what they are trying to do.
No amount of attempts to define obvious opinions in an article as "New Journalism" is going to change the fact that the Atlantic article, while ironically being the most reliable source used, is actually the most egregious of the sources in terms of its blending of opinion into the article, making it entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a STATEMENT OF FACT in a living person bio. The other two sources are not reliable at all. Whether or not you think they are opinion doesn't even actually matter. One is only listed as a reliable source for topics of game development, making them, again, entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a statement of fact about someone's political leanings. And the last source, aftermath.site, is not listed as a reliable source at all, and as a relatively unknown, obscure gaming news site with very low reach and unknown journalistic standards, it is, again, completely inappropriate to use as a source for a statement of fact in a living person bio.
You can dance around this reality all you want, but hiding behind technicalities or arguments about what defines New Journalism really does not change at all that the use of these sources to make a statement of fact in a living person bio violates both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia guidelines. Rebel Gnome (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is objectively a right-winger commentator, and no amount of Wikipedia editor mental gymnastics will change that. He has consistently praised Trump and supported right-wing viewpoints. The fact that this is even in dispute is really strange to me. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has consistently praised Trump and supported right-wing viewpoints. Actually, no... he has certainly NOT "consistently" praised Trump, and his support for a universal basic income, a constitutional right to abortion, a robust social safety net, and legalization of drugs on the basis that adults should be able to do whatever they want their bodies are certainly NOT "right-wing viewpoints". He's consistently "anti-corporate populist" in his attitudes, calling execs greedy, and of destroying good products... saying they don't care about employees or consumers, and saying "Corporations will do whatever they can get away with." He's critical of how some companies should be considered "too big to fail" and thus bailed out. He claims health care companies are failing the public and are extracting profit from human suffering, and that the poor should receive free health care. He's very critical of wealth disparity and of extreme concentrations of wealth. He advocates that people with debt simply not pay the bill... a tactic he proudly learned from his mother. And most lately, he's being very critical of Trump's involvement with Epstein... he's taken up the torch for the cause and is on the warpath now. Should it come down to it, he does not advocate another impeachment for his involvement with Epstein (claiming another impeachment would do no good) but advocates throwing him in jail. Unlike Trump, he openly rejects shaming people for their lifestyle choices. He is in no way a nationalist or a white supremacist. Most "right-wingers" have at least a respect for organized religion if they do not practice it, but Asmongold is critical of organized religions in general, and Christianity in particular, and makes jokes about it. And finally, he said that he did not vote for either Trump or Harris, claiming that neither one deserved his vote, and says he has no regrets for that. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pro tip: starting a paragraph with "Sometimes I'd start to wonder" is a great way to identify that something is an opinion piece) Ending it with "I recognize his hypnotized, single-minded mentality from my own gaming experiences. After a certain amount of playtime, what’s on-screen stops looking like a coherent world and starts looking like inputs and outputs, challenges and rewards. And when you look up, reality feels like the screen." is also not exactly Cronkite-esque either, if you know what I'm saying. The guy literally closes his piece by admitting his flaws, his past experiences with incoherence, and his tendency to project! Marcus Markup (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's just "New Journalism", so it's all good! Rebel Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia can't include primary sources and a number of sources explicitly referring to him as "right-wing" aren't good enough for you, what is? What exactly do you consider a "good" source? The fact of the matter is that he is widely considered a right-wing commentator, and should be referred to one as such. I have a feeling no source in the world would satisfy you. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not "widely considered" a right-ring commentator. Your mention of primary sources is interesting, though, because you posted your comment just before the below comment someone else made with links to primary sources of him sharing some of his left wing views. You are right insofar that he has said many "right-wing" things, yet I have seen plenty of counter examples of him saying "left-wing" things on his stream. Maybe he leans more right than left, I don't really know. My impression has been that he has a mix of left and right wing views and that much of what he says is for nothing else but shock value as part of his brand. However, I do agree that it's laughable that primary sources are not acceptable as "good" sources on Wikipedia, especially for a public figure whose entire career is sharing his views on live stream for hours every day. The idea that it's only a legit source if some third-party journalist goes and picks a few clips they think are relevant out of literally thousands of hours of clips, writes an article about it, and then we can say, 'Ah, see, look, this defines everything about this individual'. Absolutely absurd, especially in this case, where anyone can go see for themselves almost everything Asmongold has said on camera. And yet some reader of this article is supposed to take as gospel only what Joe Shmoe from The Atlantic, or some middling online publication, has to say about him? Who are you going to believe, these people or your lying eyes? Seems like a lot of people would prefer to believe anything that can pass as but the shakiest of a "reliable source" and ignore literal evidence to the contrary that is only a youtube search away. Sure, that may work in wikipedia editor land, but for everyone else, we can see for ourselves. Rebel Gnome (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asmongold is left-leaning. Don't believe me? Here's some primary sources, aka his own words:
He supports Universal Basic Income
He thinks rich people should pay more taxes
He is a huge fan of Bernie Sanders 216.71.201.101 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it is his headline-grabbing bigotry towards Palestinians which has some people (including writer from The Atlantic) absolutely convinced he is "right-wing", and that cancels out in their minds, his left-wing and libertarian views on many social issues. The implication that being a meanie is a defining aspect of being "right-wing" is a mistake pop culture critics get to make, but not serious political thinkers, or encyclopedias. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, he has consistently supported right-wing viewpoints for years, and his audience is primarily right-wing edgy gamer bros. A lot of cope is going on in this talk section. He openly supports the right and gives opinions from a right-wing perspective, and as such should be considered a right-wing political commentator. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. He has said right-wing things, he has said left-wing things. If anything he sounds more akin to a shock jock or some kind of populist commentator who benefits in viewership by discussing controversial topics. But the point is it doesn't matter what we as editors think he is, what matters is the current sourcing does not support labeling him "right wing" as a statement of fact. It's not the job of a Wikipedia editor to make the determination one way or the other, only to find reliable sources that contribute to adding the content required to accurately, dispassionately, and fairly describe a notable person in their bio, and Wikipedia guidelines are crystal clear on how to handle living person bios when it comes to disputed points of fact that are poorly sourced. Neutrality in the article should always win out.
It's really a disgrace that this has remained live on the article for so long. Looking over the edit log it is abundantly clear that zero consensus has ever been reached on this topic, as it's been in a virtual edit war ever since it was added, which means the WP:ONUS should have always been on those wishing to add the right-wing moniker BEFORE it was ever included into the article, especially given the special requirements that are to be taken in living person bios specifically. Rebel Gnome (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR — Czello (music) 16:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not listing those sources to say they should be included in the article, he' just making a point that it's a complicated subject that has nuance. Nothing changes the fact that the current sources are not appropriate to be used as a statement of fact in the way they are being used, and I have yet to hear any counter argument to that point. Rebel Gnome (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello please do not undo edits to page without discussion here first. Consensus to include the content you are trying to add has clearly not been reached, and the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve that consensus before adding it. All one needs to do it review the talk page to see that consensus has not been reached.
WP:BLP is clear that disputed content related to the neutrality of the article should be removed immediately.
The path forward is to remove the disputed content first and then achieve the consensus on talk. It is not appropriate to include the disputed content without consensus. Rebel Gnome (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty fishy when a brand new account starts spewing Wikilinks like an old pro while misrepresenting both the substance of this discussion, and the cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a long time IP editor and decided to finally create a user account because I got tired of other editors reverting my edits for no other reason than the fact that it was coming from an IP address.
And I misrepresented nothing. I read the entirety of those articles that were being used as sources, and I think I outlined their flaws pretty thoroughly already here in Talk.
The loaded term was stealth edited into the intro of a living person bio as a statement of fact using questionable sources without any discussion, much less consensus. And once noticed, it remained in a virtual edit war until now. Rebel Gnome (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Grayfell. The "right-wing" had been removed. Fortunately, I was able to restore the previous status quo. Should this page perhaps be locked or something? Protectron123 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been and is no consensus for calling Hoyt "right-wing", and the "status quo" at this point is for him to remain unlabeled. Biographies of living people have very high standards for using loaded terms to label people... please familiarize yourself with WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's only you, "Marcus", and the user "Rebel Gnome" who are opposing this long-established consensus? I think @Grayfell and @Czello are more of an authority here. I will now revert this back to what it was before. Protectron123 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus, and I'm not sure where you pulled "long-established" from. Regarding Czello, they admitted there was no consensus for inclusion here when they said, Indeed, I believed there was a consensus on the talk page from the discussion there, but in hindsight I was mistaken. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a solid consensus either way. Protectron123 (talk)

20:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, what's your relation to @Rebel Gnome, "Marcus Markup"? Protectron123 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the implication or the scare-quoting of my user name. I will not humor such trollery. Please remember you are no longer on Rational Wiki. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Protectron123, there is no relation other than the fact that both myself and @Marcus Markup (and others that have also weighed in here in the past) seem to believe this living person biography should remain as neutral as possible and that adding anything where the sourcing is disputed should be discussed here first and consensus reached. This should be your stance too, so it's concerning that it's not. When I got involved on this particular article, I was honestly surprised that there was such an active and prolonged dispute over the particular "right-wing" edit and yet editors here insisted on trying to keep it live on the article anyway, despite clear guidelines about how to handle disputed content when it is related to living person biographies. The fact that we continue to have this debate about it here on Talk should answer your question about whether or not consensus has been reached. My contention from the very beginning has been that this source from The Atlantic, while perfectly fine to continue being used for this article in other ways, has never been appropriate to use as a source to make a statement of fact in a living person bio in the intro paragraph. Rebel Gnome (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear as I was tagged, I was mistaken when I said there was a consensus. In hindsight I cannot see one. — Czello (music) 20:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the "right-wing" commentator description should be restored. Grayfell had numerous, reliable sources for the edit, whereas everyone else who commented here was only relying on their personal interpretation of out-of-date statements that they apparently heard Asmongold make in the past. By Wikipedia standards, this shouldn't be a controversy, because the "right-wing" description is the only one backed by recent, high-quality information. Hko2333 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that were cited are considered reliable for the way they were being used. That is, to make a disputed "statement of fact" in a living person bio. That's really the crux of it in my opinion - making it a statement of fact. Simply declaring he is right wing, case closed, end of story; And basing that declaration on some weak sourcing, no less. That's where it's inappropriate. The reasons have been debated here ad nauseam, but I will paste part of my previous remarks again here for your reference:
"...the Atlantic article, while ironically being the most reliable source used, is actually the most egregious of the sources in terms of its blending of opinion into the article, making it entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a STATEMENT OF FACT in a living person bio. The other two sources are not reliable at all. Whether or not you think they are opinion doesn't even actually matter. One is only listed as a reliable source for topics of game development, making them, again, entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a statement of fact about someone's political leanings. And the last source, aftermath.site, is not listed as a reliable source at all, and as a relatively unknown, obscure gaming news site with very low reach and unknown journalistic standards, it is, again, completely inappropriate to use as a source for a statement of fact in a living person bio." Rebel Gnome (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible writing

[edit]

The below paragraph is among the worst things I’ve ever read on Wikipedia, which is particularly surprising given the high profile of the subject.

Sure, valid source, but the entire passage is just a poorly strung together set of snippets from the source article. It should be deleted entirely and the article used as a citation elsewhere in the page.


Hoyt has been described as being "technodeviant"; of being part of a group of typically involuntary celibate, white, heterosexual males whose privilege is alleged to displace marginalized communities from the gaming space. His non-gaming content has been described as being "carefully constructed to largely read apolitical unless taking up a particular right-wing grievance". The authors further said the "suggestion is that he is performing his brand for an audience, and that his statements do not adequately reflect his personal beliefs". Reference is made to a series of misogynistic comments he made which alluded to a former girlfriend and felt "obligated to say ... because his audience would want to hear them". In 2019 while in response to the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Hoyt provided "powerful commentary on disguised racism in the design of emotes" on Twitch. 147.147.185.167 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is based on a non-notable paper written by two non-notable academics. Nobody is talking about their paper in any way and there are therefore no secondary sources. I did object to its inclusion, but my revert was reverted. The initial insertion was also peculiar in that it did not actually include the purport of the authors of the paper, but seemed tailored to include one sentence fragment: their mention of the recently-contentious term "right-wing". In the interests of NPOV, I then added context and purport. Without at least one secondary source referring to their work, I still support complete removal of their conclusions from the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the heirarchy of RS:
Peer-reviewed academic paper > primary SPS, and non-notable niche online outlets.
As the latter are used prolificly through the article, there's nothing wrong with including sources that discuss Asmon which have some academic rigour behind them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What academic rigor are you seeing, exactly? 75.132.176.144 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with User:Marcus Markup here. there are academic papers and then there are academic papers. the pub has 0 cites and was published in a journal of SJR of 0.160. there are **undergrad** journals which are more notable. not to mention the source used is an online pdf from an AI research website.
If User:Cdjp1 thinks there are "non-notable niche online outlets" used in this article, you should bring them up and they should be removed too. this is a poor justification for including a bad academic source (and yes, speaking as an academic, there are *many* academic sources which are not reliable nor notable). not to mention this is a BLP page, which should have higher standards for sources that attempt to characterize the subject's personality/character, which is what the pub does. Ceconhistorian (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1 Mentioning you here in case you didn't see this when reverting. I do agree that this article has some problems with using sources not by WP:RSP, but that doesn't excuse the inclusion of non-notable sources either. UppercutPawnch (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To claim this is a "consensus" you are adhering to is a stretch, this shows nothing close to a consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PC Gamer not good enough?

[edit]

@Marcus Markup: your latest edit seems to suggest you don't think PC Gamer is a reliable enough source for this article, is that true?

As to Media Matters, what prior discussion has been had about not using it as a source for this article? As I am unable to find any mention of Media Matters in prior discussions here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit suggested nothing of the sort. I have no issue with PC Gamer. My edit suggested that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead, here to champion a cause. I hope I have helped clarify my POV. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you revert 3 edits, including the adding of PC Gamer as a source, that were made before the addition of Media Matter sources? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I ask again, what discussion do we have that says that Media Matters should not be used for this article? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one: Creating a new subsection, with only entries negative about the subject, is violation of policy. I wish I had the time or patience to properly Wikilink the Wikilaw, but I do not ATM. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For two: when a problematic editor makes a problematic edit, every edit surrounding said edit gets reverted, is my policy. I am not your copy editor. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1) You say you don't want to wikilaw, but you may have to, as your arguments don't seem to to be inline with our P&Gs. Point 2) So, you chose to remove sources because you don't like the editor who added them, as believe the editor to be problematic, while acknowledging you support the references? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For once, and for all" I fully support your removing the third tier sourcing for so much of the article. It has needed an enema for a while, and thanks for administering it. Going forward, our only interaction will be should you choose to add links to sources such as "Pink News" or "Media Matters"... at that point, we'll have to have a chat. In the meantime, please do accept my genuine thanks for un-crappifying the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to answer that is fine. I will continue to work to our P&Gs regarding sources and reliability, which will likely cause you annoyance, based on what we have with regards to the likes of Media Matters, until a specific discussion is had here with regards to them, as per our P&Gs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated yesterday, it continues. Removing not just edits that they believe to be at issue, but removing all edits from other editors as they view editors as problematic, even when the edit in question is formatting references, so that they comply with the article's referencing style. This may be disruptive. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you request to discuss sources, will you actually now discuss sources, as you said yesterday, you chose not to engage in discussing sources, instead pointing to a hypothetical future discussion? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your choice to remove your comment after making it, am I to take it then, that despite your request in edit summaries to discuss sources you are choosing to remove, you are choosing not to engage in said discussions on the talk page, as implied in your removed comment? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will engage you. What is your question. Ask it with precision. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you want to discuss the removal of the source from Kourkoulou & Bettivia, so what do you want to discuss? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing of the sort. I want to discuss nothing with you. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to talk -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you get one try. I am NOT about to play ping-pong with you. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean, you request that we discuss a source, but then your commentary suggests that you have no point to discuss? So what is the point of even requesting discussion if you potentially don't want to discuss it? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the point of even requesting discussion if you potentially don't want to discuss it? No point at all, of course. Glad we agree.
My work here is done. Peace out. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you do not want to discuss sources for this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which source, exactly, and in which context. Enough with your bullshit hypotheticals. Be specific, or GTFO. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly stated the source (Kourkoulou & Bettivia), to which you replied I want to discuss nothing with you. You can not keep claiming you want to discuss the source with me and then responding that you don't want to discuss it with me. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which edit of mine, exactly, do you have issue with? Because "Kourkoulou & Bettivia" genuinly means nothing to me, and I am not about to do homework in order to help grind your axe. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So despite removing a source calling it shit, telling other editors to take it to the talk page to discuss it, you now claim you don't know that you removed the source? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a question. Which edit of mine, exactly, do you have issue with. Provide a link. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit where you removed Kourkoulou & Bettivia and said in the edit summary Take it to talk. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A truly third-tier source, and my apologies to the authors for calling it "shitty" in my edit summary, but it really is third-tier and is of no use in a BLP. There is no consensus for its insertion, so therefore, out it goes until such a thing can be obtained here. Which will, of course, not occur, because it's that bad. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so why did you not want to say this for the past hour? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because my opinion was already crystal clear. My asking you to "take it to talk" was so that you could make your case to others, and engage with other editors regarding the source. It was not intended as an invitation for us to meet over on the talk page and continue. "Take it to talk" is my way of saying, "We're done here, so go tell it to someone who cares." I'll make sure to be clearer, going forward. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus Markup: @Cdjp1: I am begging you two, WP:Assume Good Faith. If this helps resolve this slapfight at all:

· Marcus and Ceconhistorian's rationale to exclude the paper is valid in my opinion. It appears that this paper was published by 2 non-notable researchers from American universities who not only published in a low quality journal, but in one for a university in Brazil which by default displays the paper in Portuguese. The quality of the source has been sufficiently called into question to exclude from this article, especially since it's a BLP. Also see WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD.

· The Media Matters sources look to be effectively republishing clips Asmon's content regarding Nick Fuentes with transcripts, effectively making them primary sources. In turn, they should not be included.

· Cdjp, throughout your statements I detect an air of condescension that you should avoid in the future.

· Marcus, your unwillingness to collaborate, especially as mentioned relative to the talk page, seems WP:NOTHERE.

· Both of you, please consider taking a break from Wikipedia at some point. UppercutPawnch (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to review what Cdjp did. Ceconhistorian removed a weak source ("Kourkoulou & Bettivia") for valid reasons. So Cdjp responds by then removing a significant number of other weak sources, and a significant amount of content surrounding them. Which I think is great... the article needed to be pruned, and I thank them for helping make the article lean and impeccably sourced. But the next day, they come back to the article and, against consensus, restore just the "Kourkoulou & Bettivia" source! While my ways on talk pages do sometimes leave something to be desired, this guy is out of hand and exasperating in the article space, and if my exasperation with them shows, I am sure others will understand, if not approve. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to understand why, despite repeatedly pointing to low quality sources, you choose to never actually remove any of them? I provided explanations in my edit summaries, but based on the extreme amount of effort it takes to have you engage in discussion, where while I point to your exact actions, and point to specific references you repeatedly claim to have no idea what is being referred to. Are you not reading edit summaries? Are you not reading the comments in discussion? It would be great to be able to have fruitful discussions, but taking over an hour and dozens of messages to have you acknowledge the source being talked about is frankly a waste of time. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kick

[edit]

his Kick activities are not mentioned. In a short he has show the monetization is kind of 10x that on Twitch. ~2025-43484-58 (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]