Talk:Steven Crowder/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

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)

Crowders’s Page Needs Editing

Crowder’s page needs to be edited. As a media personality who challenges people to the debates, the recent disclosure that Crowder is refusing to debate another popular YouTube political commentor has relevance. Pensacola888 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Content needs to be based on independent reliable sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A good source would be this one: The Young Turks or this one: The Steven Crowder vs Potholer54 Exchange documented — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:64BC:9500:A973:2497:A25C:D72E (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Those Youtube videos do not appear to be reliable sources. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy with Sam Seder

Crowder has gotten into some hot water over refusing to debate Sam Seder of the Majority Report. I think this is worth adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GonzoTribune (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In the article, we only include information that has been reported by reliable secondary sources. Do you have any such sources? — Bilorv (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

POV tag added

I added a POV tag because the article is quite obviously biased. I made a couple simple changes to clear up some of the most obvious bias but it was quickly reverted by some editor named Wallyfromdilbert who appears to have spent a lot of time on this article. No doubt he is one of the reasons the article is so bad.Parmenides475 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source per WP:RSP. The content you are removing is also supported by the other sources cited in the section, including a Fox News article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. You are free to remove any citations that reference Fox News, I don't have a problem with that. But that is only one of the changes that you are reverting, and it is weird that you didn't address any of the other issues. The article calls him a racist and homophobic, which is an opinion, and an ad hominem attack. I have changed the way this is worded to reflect the fact that the attacks on him said this, not that this is an established fact. Also, the article has an obvious bias. I would make more changes but I suspect you would just revert them so I am not going to waste my time right now. This is why the POV tag is necessary.Parmenides475 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Parmenides475, please stop removing reliable sources. Regarding your POV tag, what are the specific issues you have with the article's content? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above.Parmenides475 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the Washington Post is not reliable, then WP:RSN is the place to do it (although that argument is not likely to go anywhere). For POV tags, if you are unable to present specific concerns with the article content, then the tag should be removed per Template:POV#When to remove. If you are still learning about Wikipedia and its policies, then you may want to edit other areas that do not involve WP:BLP or contentious topics until you have a better understanding. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please, stop with the condescension. I have been on Wikipedia for a long time and have seen this kind of thing many times before. I know the rules better than you do. The Washington Post is not reliable. It is a partisan source. That it would claim as established fact that someone is a racist because they used the word "Mexican" illustrates that. Frankly, one change I would make would be to change the lede entirely, as that second "paragraph" takes up half of the lede, even though it addresses only a small percent of the rest of the article. The lede should be a condensed mirror of the article. That is also what Wikipedia standards specify. And that whole section on the controversy should be shortened and made more balanced. I won't waste my time to do it because you will just revert it (I have dealt with editors like you many times before, I know how you operate, and that you are very predictable). This article should not be calling him a racist and a homophobe as if it is established fact, when it is only an opinion. Now if you want the article to instead say that the Washington Post accused him of being a racist and homophobe, or something along those lines, that could be reasonable. But the current status is blatantly biased.Parmenides475 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing here is a specific issue, it's just vague complaining. Petty personal attacks and kvetching about reliable sources are not actionable suggestions for how to improve the page. The Washington Post is a reliable source, regardless of how experienced you are as a Wikipedia editor. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, Parmenides475 when you use an account started in 2018 with less than 200 edits to brag about being here "a long time" and knowing the rules, it raises possibilities that this isn't your first or only account. Please review Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, if you haven't already. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Parmenides475: "unreliable" and "partisan" are not the same thing. There is no such thing as a source free from bias. Sources' provenances are a product of their culture, time and creators' beliefs. We have a duty to use sources which are reliable and we have a duty to use a fair balance of sources, such as using both The Washington Post and Fox News. Your misconception that The Washington Post calls Crowder "racist" needs reconsideration; it says that he used racist language. I'm afraid your strawman that Crowder simply used the word "Mexican" isn't going to stand up to anyone who reads the source, which notes that: Crowder [has called] Maza a “lispy sprite,” a “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,” “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” “gay Latino from Vox,” and more. — Bilorv (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Spare me your postmodern denial of truth or of meaningful categories of understanding truth. You see without perceiving. Washington Post is not reliable. It is partisan. It is loved by those who share its views, while hated by those who do not. In other words, it not impartial and it is not factual. It is opinion, and slanderous opinion, to state as fact that terms such as "gay Mexican" are either "racist" or "homophobic". It is not factual that they are. Some would say they are, some would not. And a completely unreliable source (Washington Post) is being used to claim as established fact that they are. By definition, this page is biased when it takes one of the sides.

Now user @TucLen: is intervening on my side. We clearly have a disagreement, despite the attempts of one side (as is typical of that side in other disputes) to treat as illegitimate to the point of not being worth even considering the views of the other side. We clearly have enough reason to keep the POV tag.Parmenides475 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Postmodern" or not, this is false balance, and these pretentious personal insults are not appropriate. Wikipedia takes the "side" of reliable sources. Trying to frame this as some sort of debate is misguided and doesn't improve the article. A partisan source can still be reliable. Crowder's repeated use of slurs, as with all slurs, depends on context. Reliable sources have evaluated that context, and individual editors are not qualified to dispute that based on their personal dislike of these sources based solely on ideological disagreement. Grayfell (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "false balance". "False balance" means "not balanced", which is what the article is without these edits. Crowder hasn't used "slurs". "Gay Mexican" is not a slur, if it was, that would be a problem for any gay Mexicans, or did I just use a "slur" by saying that? I guess under your religious system, you can't say if it is a slur that I said that since you don't know my intersectional status. Too bad for you. The opinion of who you admit is a partisan source that he has is not factual, and does not belong here. Yes, Wikipedia takes the side of reliable sources, and the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Thank you for admitting that the Washington Post is a partisan source. Weird how you can engage in the double-think of stating that a partisan source can still be a source that would be "reliable" by the standards of what Wikipedia would take the side of. Your syllogism concludes then that Wikipedia would take the "side" of a partisan source. Thus the article remains biased, which is why it needs the POV tag.Parmenides475 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Words mean things based on context. Everyone knows this. Playing games by ignoring or distorting context is not productive. Your opinions on which contexts count as slurs and which do not are irrelivant. Your opinion on which sources are reliable, partisan, etc. are also not relevant. As an experienced editor, you should already know this, but as a reminder, you can go to WP:RSN and see if they think the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, based on you opinions about its biases. I'm sure you can predict how that will go. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the theories that you clearly subscribe to, words have no meaning whatsoever. They mean whatever you want them to mean, which means they have no meaning. I am the one doing the ignoring? You haven't even addressed my issues. You simply say they aren't even legitimate or worth discussing. Unsurprising. Those theories you adhere to are cultural and intellectual acid. They only tear down. And so you exchange the truth for a lie, and then suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And thus we have what we have here. I actually can predict how that would go, it is the way things always go on Wikipedia: it is only a matter of which editors are active a that place and time, and what they believe. Wikipedia is ruled by the brute force of whichever editors just so happen to be engaged in whatever question is at hand. There are no standards on Wikipedia, just suggestions (which Wikipedia policy even admits) that editors go along with to whatever extent they wish. So yes, I know how it would go if I asked a group what they think about the reliability of the Washington Post: the random chance of whichever editors were there at the time would determine the outcome. I can't say which editors or which outcome, but it would be as it always is on Wikipedia: editors decide in accordance with whatever they just so happen to think is right in their own eyes.Parmenides475 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In no context whatsoever Crowder calling Maza a gay mexican can be considered a slur. None. TucLen (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The article reflects how numerous sources describe the situation. For example, several cited sources directly describe Crowder's actions as "racist", "homophobic", or "slurs":

• NPR: "racist and homophobic abuse" [1]
• Time: "homophobic and racist slurs" [2]
• Newsweek: "homophobic harassment" [3]
• Buzzfeed News: "racist and anti-gay comments" [4]

Even a source like Fox News describes Crowder's words as "insulting remarks" and "derogatory comments". Wikipedia articles are allowed to be "biased" when that "bias" accurately reflects what the reliable sources say. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

who in the world would consider "Mr. Lispy queer", not a homophobic slur? Doug Weller talk 10:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

How are his homophobic attacks "alleged"?

He doesn't deny them, YouTube took action against them, and they are clearly homophobic and racist. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Homoophobic"???

Most Christians do not fear gays, they simply cant stand them. Its part of christian values, look at Leviticus.

62.226.80.160 (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"considerable criticism", like "many", is a loaded and POV turn of words that make it look like that's the POV of most

We need to be careful in articles about living people. Calling his jokes "homophobic" is a POV. Putting him in a "discrimination against LGBT" category is actually rather left-field and random. And using an editorial from the post to frame like the majority of people wanted him kicked off YouTube doesn't look NPOV, when Cruz's opinion in the next sentence would also state he was in the majority, and Crowder would say his demonetization drew "considerable criticism" because he'd say he's in the majority at least as much as Maza would. J390 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Those characterizations are supported by the cited sources, which discuss criticism of Crowder's statements and do not support the claim that Crowder is "in the majority at least as much as Maza". I also don't see any editorial from the Washington Post cited in the article. You may want to review the sources cited in the section about this topic, as well as previous discussions on this talk page about that section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

But other sources, including Crowder's own, could easily reverse the narrative on how Youtube's being criticized here and say his demonetization drew "considerable criticism", which is POV on a living persons page. At least the editorial could be quoted directly instead of stated like a fact with loaded language. There's also no reason he's in a "discrimination against LGBT" category. J390 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As has already been said in the article's archives, any attempt to interpret Crowder's "own sources" would be WP:OR, and he's not reliable anyway. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If Crowder's sources are WP:OR, then so are Maza's. Which is fair, both are certainly biased as the two players in this feud, and his own weren't used. So let's take first and second person sources off the table as we have been doing. But just as said article that was linked is a third party coming down on Crowder and YouTube for not banning him on Maza's behalf, there are other third parties who came down for Crowder in this feud who would say his demonetization drew "considerable criticism". Then there's YouTube that would say they did nothing wrong. Wikipedia stresses both care on articles about living persons and NPOV. Go to the top of this article, it has a tab stating content must be written from a neutral POV. J390 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources can be used with attribution, but deciding which primary sources to use, and which to omit, should be determined by outside perspectives. Any (non-trivial) interpretation of primary sources must come from secondary sources. Presenting this as "both sides" is misguided for multiple reasons. Further, we go by actual sources, not hypothetical gossip. There are plenty of "third parties" for any position you care to name. Per WP:FRINGE, we are only interested in those perspectives if they are contextualized by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not "fringe" sources critical of his demonetization though, that's the thing. It's many mainstream sources. Criticizing YouTube for not demonetizing him is not the only "mainstream" or "non-fringe" position, some would call it fringe in fact. If this article has to be biased using "both sides" as a justification to come down on only one side, then I guess every single political article will be. That's the precedent. Which goes against our policy on neutrality. J390 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What reliable secondary sources contradict the information currently in the "Investigation by YouTube" section? The current sources overwhelming refer to Crowder using racist and homophobic abuse/slurs towards Maza. No editorials, opinion articles, or articles written by Maza are used in the section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I know that, and the article is correct in not citing Maza's or Crowder's own commentary on it, but the sources listed are on Maza's side of the feud. I just think if it's there for NPOV the article should cite the that article said that in quotes, like Ted Cruz's weighing in was what he said directly in the sentence after. J390 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are news articles, which include the Washington Times and Fox News. Wikipedia article can make statements based on what reliable sources say, and the Washington Post is a reliable source, with the other sources supporting it as well. That is not the same level as a statement by Ted Cruz. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Nahum The Historian (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) I'd like to correct the affiliation of Crowder in this article, his ideology could be better described as Liberal Conservativism since he has Libertarian Economic Views but also understands there's an important social tissue made by religion which he respects, therefore, is also Conservative.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:06, 20 April 2020 (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)

I honestly don't think it would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The dog part that is. The part about him being homeless is worth adding. Though I would like to know what video he said that one in. I know that this contradicts what I said last time but I have been wrong before so why not. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? ~ HAL333 04:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite what crowder has declared, the place he described living in are not in fact in Montreal, but in Longeuil, as was his highschools. There are more english schools in Montreal, so it would make no sense to send him to school elswhere. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/the-louderwithcrowder-team-remembers-where-we-were-on-911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Regional_High_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.44.248.46 (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible article bias

I believe there is bias with the wording in the article. Particularly when it comes to describing his supposed "racist and homophobic slurs" as fact. Since there is dispute between editors regarding whether or not his words were actually racist or homophobic, I believe we should word the article in a way that does not incite bias to one side or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmolken (talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Our personal opinions are irrelevant - what matters are the cited reliable sources which say that they were "racist and homophobic slurs." By foundational policy, Wikipedia articles are based on what is published in reliable sources, not on your or my personal opinions. Therefore, this phrase will not be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources which suggest otherwise. There is no reason to write the article to say that he used racist and homophobic slurs as a fact, since many sources can't agree with this statement and it's a matter of one's own personal opinion. I think you could say however, that his comments were regarded by many to be racist and homophobic. Dmolken (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is an issue that isn't going to be resolved any time soon. Mainstream media outlets (which are the ones that are traditionally associated with reliability) do tend to lean left, while alternative media outlets (which are often seen as unreliable) tend to lean right. Unless either this balance changes, or Wikipedia's policies on sources change, neither of which is likely to happen any time soon, then bias on articles like this are inevitable. There will never be an on-site consensus on the issue as one side will always point to the fact that Crowder has said things like "Mr. Lispy Queer from Vox", while the other will point to the fact that these comments are made tongue-in-cheek, and that it may be misleading to present these quotes, and descriptions of them, in an isolated text form. While I do agree that the wording of the article is somewhat biased, I also agree that there's not really anything that can be done about that at this time. Alex the weeb (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Dmolken makes a point. I've made an edit to address that point. I've also slightly altered the section heading for this thread. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't know how else you interpret: '"Mr. Lispy queer", an "angry little queer", and a "gay Mexican", and mocked him with a stereotypical gay voice, sometimes while wearing a t-shirt with Che Guevara on it that said "Socialism is for f*gs [sic]"'. In any case, we use RS. I reverted. O3000 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant here, Bus stop. Can you cite reliable sources which describe the statements as anything other than racist and homophobic? If not, then there is no significant factual dispute among reliable sources, and in such cases, Wikipedia states facts as facts. It would be a violation of policy to present these uncontested factual statements as mere opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and your personal opinion is irrelevant too. That's why you can't use "racist and homophobic" as it is as opinion, not a fact. Also I don't understand why pretty much all of these "reliable" sources happen to all be left-leaning. There should be more variety in the sources that the article uses. That way we can make sure that Wikipedia stays unbiased. Dmolken (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have a problem with venerable sources like The Washington Post, take it to WP:RSN. This is not the correct venue. (With apologies to RSN folk.) O3000 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on this talk page and there remains no consensus and no reliable sources to support any sort of downplaying of what reliable sources widely describe as racist and homophobic slurs. "Left-leaning" is in the eye of the beholder and tells us more about an editor's motivation than it does the news sources which have wide consensus to be treated as reliable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The characterisation of reliable sources is still characterisation. Lets not forget that Carlos Maza had previously described himself as a "lispy queer". The racism or homophobia of the words of Crowder are not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. Sharing opinions from reliable source just seems like a way to insert personal opinions one agrees with inside the article. Racism and homophobia are dependent entirely on intent, in on that matter, the sources are not only reliable on their ability to know Crowder's intent better than him, but are not credible, since crowder is a competing information entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.44.248.46 (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

-The line quoted below should be moved down into the 'Investigation by YouTube' category. If you refer to other Wikipedia pages they almost always place more controversial subjects lower on the page.

"In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were investigated over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs to describe journalist Carlos Maza.[3] The channel was not suspended, with YouTube saying, "the videos as posted don't violate our policies" while also demonetizing the account.[4][5]"

-The line below is biased and should be removed. If you search Crowder and his memes online you'll see that the majority of posts are actually in favor of his humor and openly support him, not parody him. The only source you have for referencing the line is biased media website The Daily Dot.

"After Crowder uploaded it on his Twitter account on February 18, 2018, the photograph quickly became a means for others to change the signs about different situations, often mocking and parodying Crowder.[26]" Chrisstevens84 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources, not memes and unverified information; we rely on reliable sources (which is not the same as sources free from bias, as there is no such thing). Our policy WP:LEAD states that the lead of the article should summarise the body of the article with due weight in accordance to how much reliable secondary source coverage there is on each topic. There is significant coverage of the investigation into Crowder, with the "Investigation by YouTube" section containing 10 sources, all to different websites (including Fox News and the Washington Post). — Bilorv (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Quantity does not equal quality. Journalist plagerise one annother ruthlesly. The fact that many journalist repeat the same opionion does not mean that this opinion is objective fact and should be reported as such. Memes can be primary sources, just like news article can be secondary sources. Our policy state that information should be present free of bias and that we should refrain from using loaded terms. This sentence would have the same meaning by respect our policies: "In June 2019, Crowder's Youtube videos were investigated over a complain by Carlos Maza who alleged that the way he was described by Crowder constituted Homophobic and Racist harasment." All the information is there, but wikipedia looks like its neutral and not a left wing commentary website. Francis1867 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Crowder's Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred

Crowder openly expresses Negative Views, Disdain and Hatred towards Islam and Muslims, He uses Stereotypes, Inflammatory Languages and Hasty Generalization about Islam and Muslims and How he describes Islam and Muslims, He describe Islam as "Cancerous Ideology", Muslim Men including Refugees/Migrants as "Mentally Ill", "Deranged Psychopaths", "Women-Hating Nazis" and "Rapists" etc, Muslims as "Godless Devil-Worshipers", "Terrorists", "Rapists", "Anti-American", "Anti-Semite", "Anti-Christian", "Anti-Women", "Murderers", "Sexists" and "They Don't Believe in God and Jesus", He goes on claims that "Muslims killed Jesus" and "Like Raping Women", He even expresses Hatred of, Disdain and Negative views about Prophet Muhammad, uses Inflammatory language by calling Prophet Muhammad a "Pedophile", "Rapist", "Terrorist", "Women-Beater", "Demon-Possessed" and he drew and painted Picture depicting Prophet Muhammad which is Extremely Offensive towards Muslims, He Called Muslim Converts as "Terrorists" and "Rapists" and etc. Crowder Condemns Homophobia when a Muslims commits it which shows his double-standard and I think this is worth adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subwayfan1998 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This talk page isn't a forum. Please give us reliable sources and propose specific, actionable changes. To prevent Wikipedia from being used as a platform for sharing Crowder's views, his own videos are not usable by themselves. We need sources to explain this for us, and then we can summarize what those sources say. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The entry should be deleted per not-a-forum. It's defamatory without sources. Anastrophe (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Crowder doesn't hide his contempt for all of Islam, and it is well documented by other sources spanning over a decade.[5][6][7][8][9][etc.]. Whether or not these are reliable in context, and how to summarize them if they are, is another matter, but that's exactly what talk pages are for. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

So, those sources corroborate every one of the 24+ claims made in that screed? I doubt it. Spewing a litany of grievances isn't article improvement, it's using it as a forum, and particularly here, that's not acceptable. See WP:BLPTALK. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

None of these descriptions of Crowder's words and actions appear remotely close to libel, to my eyes at least. We know he has said and done intentionally offensive things specifically towards Muslims. The details are not necessarily relevant, but that doesn't make them libelous. All of them are entirely plausible and verifiable (verifiable isn't the same as verified, of course). The sources I listed do support some of them, which is why it is plausible, but probably not all. To support each specific point, one would have to pour-through WP:PRIMARY sources, which is really, really not productive, but probably could be done. I agree that this is bordering on WP:NOTFORUM, which I also mentioned, but these issues were brought up specifically as things to include in the article. I am explaining what would is necessary for that to happen, which is coverage in reliable, independent sources, and a large does of context. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere does the policy for BLP talk pages mention libel specifically. You're setting the bar too high. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.", and "be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." Merely tagging onto the end of a lengthy CamelCase screed "I think it should be added to the article" gives absurd license to make unverified claims. "Daffy Duck was a pedophile, a mass murderer, a rapist, a misogynist, a white nationalist, possibly a cross-dresser (in keeping with those times), and participated in medical experimentation on homosexuals at Dachau. I think this should be added to the article". No. Not how it works. Anastrophe (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

An appropriate inquiry would be something like "Crowder has made an assortment of statements that could be characterized as anti-muslim. I think this should be covered in the article if there are reliable sources to back it up." At best, that should be substituted over editor Subwayfan1998's contentions, until such time as they are verified and considered appropriate to add to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You said It's defamatory without sources. Libel is the relevant form of "defamation". I am attempting to explain why I think your concerns about this being defamation are prohibitively restrictive. None of these unsourced actions were attributed to Crowder, they are things he has accused others of doing, and this seems very comfortably within his wheelhouse. These are not extraordinary claims, in context. What is being said is that Crowder accuses other people of these things, and what we should be discussing is if and how to include this. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfell for bringing up the sources and explaining, those sources that you backed up proven that Crowder has made an assortment of statements that is Islamophobic and anti-muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subwayfan1998 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

These do not prove that the statement are objectivly racist or homophobic. In fact, if you follow the guidlines on Reliable sources and on [[10]], you would know that objective and accurate information should be presented, and non-expert opinion from news should be excluded, unless to prove the existance of this opinion. The wording in the article does not seek to establish the existance of the opinion, but rather the objective veracity of that opinion. It would be preferable to quote the words used by Crowder from a primary source, or quote them from a secondary source. We should not quote the characterisation of these words by a secondary source, even if that source is not a news organisation known to be untrustworthy. Francis1867 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources, and any interpretation of his words must come from secondary sources to avoid WP:OR. The "proof" that they are racist and homophobic is that sources document them. We're not interested in original research about what he really meant, nor in second guessing reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are not fact, and should only be presented as such if a source is both RELIABLE and AUTHORITATIVE. Sources quotes may not be entirely unreliable, but no one could claim them to be authoritative. This is so we avoid having the page about Donnald Trump say something like "Donnald Trump is the misogynistic president of the united states" or Kim Jung Un is "A blood thirsty dictator of North Korea, noted for his oppression of his people". These might be said in many reliable source, they are not objective facts, they are opinions derived of objective fact. Wikipedia does not aim to repeat the bias of its source, it aims to use it sources to convey bias free information. Francis1867 (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Calling him a Canadian-American sounds like he's a Canadian born American immigrant, but on the other hand American-Canadian sounds like he's American born and currently and primarily presides in Canada, and on yet another hand, just calling him an American detracts from the importance of his upbringing in the heavily left-wing culture of Canada.

Have you all had this discussion before? My first instinct is to say to leave it, but I thought I'd take a stab at a fix anyway. BattyMRaps (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall this having come up before. See MOS:LEADBIO, specifically MOS:CONTEXTBIO. The goal of the first paragraph is just to briefly indicate who someone is and why they are noteworthy. The lead isn't the place to go into detail about his upbringing, so any connection to Canada's left-wing culture would need to be made by reliable sources. I have no specific opinion on the arrangement of these terms, but merely mentioning one nation would be misleading. That is, unless we have some reason to think his tweet on his citizenship isn't accurate, in which case he should be described as American, since that is the main location he is notable. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously we have no reason to question him when he says he's from Canada though. J390 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Steven Crowder speaks French with a thick Canadian accent, his mom speaks english with a thick French-Canadian accent. Steven Crowder was raised in Canada, anglophone in French City. His cultural background is quite unique in north america. That being said, Canada is part of America, we could there fore call him an American Francophone, Texan-Quebecer, Unitedstatian-Canadian, ETC. If thats such a big bother, we couls simply call him a "Canadian and American", since he acquired both citizenship at birth, and is really equaly both, and because united-state english does use the original wording to denote someone's national origin instead of citizenship or actual ethnicity. Francis1867 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments about his accent or cultural background are original research. We have no reason to doubt that he's Canadian, but as I said, any connection to Canada's left-wing culture would need to be made by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

He describes himself as French Canadian, he is from greater montreal, and whats up with "Canada's left-wing culture?". Francis1867 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Above, BattyMRaps made a reference to his upbringing in the heavily left-wing culture of Canada. This is nonsense, but also WP:OR. I was explaining why it doesn't matter unless reliable sources explain how it matters. Do you have an actionable proposal for how to improve the article, or are you just chatting? Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have said before but you might have missed, "we couls simply call him a "Canadian and American", since he acquired both citizenship at birth, and is really equaly both, and because united-state english does use the original wording to denote someone's national origin instead of citizenship or actual ethnicity." Francis1867 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yotube investigation edit

Problem with the section: 1) too long, disproportionate compared to the rest of the article. 2) Biased. Wikipedia's voice is used in a way that takes sides. 3) Too many direct quotes. Makes the reading a bit tedious, good paraphrasing would be preferable. Also, vox and buzzfeed news should be excluded as sources, unless used as source of what they said. Francis1867 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1) It's given proportionate length, as the article shows more reliable sources on this topic than the rest of Crowder's career. 2) It's an accurate summary of the cited sources. 3) Yes, the quotes should be cut down on. Per WP:RSP, Vox and BuzzFeed News are thoroughly reliable for the information they are cited for. — Bilorv (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1) thats conveniance sampling. Lenght needs to be proportional to encyclopedic interest. 2) It is an accurate summary of sources' opinion in wikipedia's voice, violating neutral point of view. 3) Per [sources], articles need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Vox and Buzzfeed can sometimes be reliable, but this has to be analyse critically. Someone can easily see that these are attack pieces and therefore, should not mimick their opinion in wikipedia's voice, for fear of creating an attack article per [page]. Francis1867 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not "attack pieces", and factual comments do not make this an "attack page". Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, so Wikipedia articles will reflect independent sources. It doesn't matter if these sources are merely unflattering. The purpose of encyclopedia articles is to summarize reliable sources, for Wikipedia, this includes a preference for independent sources. If those sources are unflattering, the article may or may not reflect that, as appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very interested in the reliable secondary sources we're not using, if this is convenience sampling. Francis1867, could you point us to them? — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal life edit

We should merge the personal life section with the Early life section, and create a distinct career section. I believe the following additions should be made: Crowder was not raised in Montreal, but in greenfield park, which is now part of the city of Longueuil. We should share in crowder's voice that he experianced academic difficulty in the French public school system that he was forced to attend by law, and then used a loophole to transfer to the english system. (Quebec makes it mendatory if you don't have at least one parent who went to school in english in Canada to attend public school in French). We should mention that he was born of an American father and French-Canadian mother. The current wording implied he was an american immigrant to Canada, while in fact he was born out of a dual national family. The article should metion he currently lives in Texas, and that he Speaks english and Canadian French. Francis1867 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What? No, we are not going to "share in Crowder's voice". He already has a platform for that kind of thing, and Wikipedia is not a blogging platform. We summarize basic biographical information based on reliable sources. Primary sources can be used for basic non-controversial information. This "loophole" stuff is not basic, but you have not pointed to any sources at all. None of this is actionable without sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sharing in Crowder voice meaning paraphrasing with "Crowder says". Crowder speaks French with a Canadian accent in many videos, which can be added as primary sources. He also claimed to have grown in Greenfield park in Many videos. Greenfield park is in Longueil, not Montreal. Law 101 is a well known and controversial law in Canada, and the private to public school loophole is also well known in Quebec, I can easily share several articles a french and a few in english that talk about it if you are so inclined. So we need source as to why we should avoid having two sections about his personal life, one of which is a single sentence? I am quite new to this, what kind of reliable secondary source would prove that its poor style to have that formating? Is there some Vox or Buzzfeed article about this? Francis1867 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Video of Crowder and Gavin McInnes speaking Canadian French Video where you hear his mother speak with a thick french-canadian accent, and him say many Canadian French words Video where Crowder explains his academic difficulty in French, and the fact that he was legally forced to attend school in Frenchenglish version of the law which forced him to attend school in french (sections 72 and 73) Article that states that Steven Crowder was attending school in Greenfield Park , now Longueuil, which is not Montreal. I know this isn't as reliable as Buzzfeed, but its uncontroversial things. Francis1867 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

None of these are independent of Crowder, except for the legal document (which is both WP:PRIMARY and does not mention Crowder at all, making it useless for this article) Any non-basic information should be relevant, and this relevance would be determined by reliable sources. Generally, we include basic info on higher education such as name of school, years attended, and optionally area of study. This sometimes includes the name of any high school(s), but not automatically. Anything more than that would need secondary sources and context to explain why this matter for understanding Crowder as a topic. It is not enough that he has talked about it, or even that he says it's important. Since this isn't a platform for promotion, he is not automatically qualified to decide what information is encyclopedically significant.

If you have any reliable sources indicating why his school troubles, his language, or his mother's language, are encyclopedically significant, post them.

To put it another way, his school transfer, and the languages he speaks (and how well he speaks them), are only presumed significant if they are discussed by sources. You, as an editor, are not reliable (and neither am I if that was a concern).

The petty swipe at Buzzfeed muddies whatever proposal you are making. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no reason this meets due weight if there are no secondary sources and it's not basic biographical information (e.g. birth date, name of university attended). There must be thousands of hours of footage of Crowder talking about himself and it's not neutral for us to choose one anecdote out of that and highlight it as if it's the most relevant one. For this reason, I object to BlueShirtz's recent edit, and invite them to comment in this section rather than making edits whilst discussion is taking place. — Bilorv (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If content is coming from the article subject, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB allow basic information that is about only the article subject. Claims about third parties are not allowed to be sourced to Crowder's videos or statements, including statements about his teachers' beliefs or government laws or regulations. His school attendance is factually stated in the article. Additional claims or connections would need to be made by independent reliable sources. I have removed BlueShirtz content about Crowder's teachers now for a second time as it is only sourced to Crowder's own statements. I also removed unsourced additions about Crowder's parents. [11] – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I shared the actual law as a link, in its english translation. CBC article sharing that access to school in english is restricted in quebec Article about immigrants like crowder not being allowed to attend school in english. Since we all agree that Crowder was indeed going to school not in Montreal but in Longueil, can we correct that mistake in the article, or do we need to wait until vox says it? There is no swipe at Buzzfeed. It is a credible, unbiased and authoritative arbiter of proof, especially when it attacks the character of right leaning public figures. Apparently. I don't see what is controversial about the fact that crowder prefers english to french, and claimed to have difficulty in school in french. Do we really need some journalist to track down an elementary school teacher who had him almost 30 years ago and remembers him having poor academic performance? Is that really too controversial when even the subject says it? Can we plese talk about the actual subject of the article, instead of just repeating mudslinging about him? Cause you know, there are people who might be curious about where he comes, more than what the media thinks of him.Francis1867 (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to determine due weight. This isn't controversial, but without a source, it's indistinguishable from trivia. Hopefully it's obvious that we cannot include everything he's ever said about himself in the article, so we need to weigh these by some outside standard. Adding ostensibly humanizing trivia to an article is a form of back-door promotion. Very basic info can be supported with primary sources, but this isn't basic. If his childhood school-troubles, or his personal language preferences, or similar, are encyclopedically significant, we would need some specific reason to include it, and that reason would start with good sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So a persons' language, ethnicity and nationality are all really relevent biographical information, which is why they are included. Why does the page about Paul LePage mentioned his schooling, where he was raised and the likes? Because it is of note and he is a public figure, just like crowder. One's language preference and academic difficulty can be reliably assertained by simply asking them. Just like we do for age and sex, we don't ask to see the birth certificate. We don't have a single reliable source that demonstrate he is racist, yet we just repeat the unreliable one that do. The fact that some think he is racist seems a lot less relevent to the character than the fact that he belongs to a small ethnic minority in north america, like Martin Van Buren. Francis1867 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

First, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Second, Paul LePage is supported by reliable, independent sources. That's the point. The Portland Press Herald's reports on an state-wide elected official (for example) are not treated exactly the same as some guy's comments on a Youtube video. If Martin Van Buren rises from the dead and starts blabbing about himself on YouTube, we can safely assume that it will also be covered by reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Francis1867, the article doesn't say that Crowder is racist, and indeed any such claim would be inappropriate. We say that Crowder used racist language, a fact verified by many of the sources under the "Investigation by YouTube" section, including the Washington Post source cited in the lead that you incorrectly deem "unreliable" (see WP:RSP). — Bilorv (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Opinion vs Fact re: Steven Crowder

Is there sufficiant controversy surrounding the interactions between Steven Crowder and Carlos Maza to consider that saying that crowder "Repeatedly used Racist and Homophobic slurs" against Maza is a characterisation of their interaction, and not an objective reality?

Should we avoid calling these interactions "Racist and Homophobic slurs" in wikipedia's voice? Francis1867 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Leave as is: The Washington Post's article about this called them "racist and homophobic taunts" in their headline. It's very rare for a newspaper to call anything "racist" or "homophobic" outright in their own voice. I therefore regard this as extremely reliable and therefore not our characterization at all. (Also: Wikipedia isn't going for "objective reality", Wikipedia is trying to represent the consensus of reliable sources. If those sources were all wrong, Wikipedia should be wrong.) Loki (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post's article reliable, is their opinion authoritative? Otherwise, we should adopt a neutral point of view and only retain factual information and refrain from sharing opinions. Francis1867 (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an "opinion", so this is a loaded question. Per WP:RSP and dozens or hundreds of discussions at WP:RSN, Washington Post is a reliable outlet. Your personal dislike of a source's conclusions is not enough to overturn this assessment. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which sources dispute it? - Which reliable sources suggest that the racist and homophobic slurs used were not, in fact, racist and homophobic slurs? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• This has already been discussed numerous times, and the sources overwhelmingly refer to the conduct as homophobic and racist and as slurs and harassment. Here is a previous post going through the sources on this page: [12]. Here is another post going through the sources on Maza's page about the issue: [13]. Unless new sources are being provided to contradict the overwhelming weight of the current sources, I'm not seeing the value of this RFC. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Homophobic but not racist. As the sources point out, he's used anti-gay language to describe Maza. But I see no example of racist language, unless calling someone a Mexican counts as racist. It's true that there are various reliable sources that say that what he said was racist as well, but their own reporting proves them wrong. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I consider this to be original research. Taking a source that characterizes what Crowder said as both homophobic and racist, and saying it only works as a source for homophobia, is not how Wikipedia works. We do what the sources say and try to avoid interjecting our own opinions where possible. (Also: yes calling someone a Mexican can be racist in certain contexts, especially given that Maza is Cuban.) Loki (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • This is not original reaserch, it is properly evaluating sources. If a source shares an unsupported opinion that could be considered slander, it is not a relyable source, per [source]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1867 (talk • contribs) 2:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not accurate. The source is reliable, and an unflattering statement is not automatically an opinion, much less "slander". Any interpretation of the events which is not supported by reliable sources is functionally the same as WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• The answer is no, no-one has provided sufficient controversy in reliable sources, which are very clear that the comments were both homophobic and racist. This is beating a dead horse. Korny O'Near correctly points out that reliable sources say the comments were racist, but their suggestion that we ignore this is editorialising that violates WP:SYNTH. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating the commentary of a news media cannot be done unless the comentary is from an authoritative source. None of the sources are an authority on racism or homophobia, therefore the guideline on News organization, we must not share the opinions of the journalists in the voice of wikipedia. Francis1867 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Homophobic but not racist per Korny O'Near ~ HAL333 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is - Sources are clear. Strictly as a reminder, Wikipedia editors are not obligated to ignore context when it's inconvenient, and language is judged context. Sources have already done this for us, and pretending sources must be wrong because it's not a nice thing to comment on is hypocritical. Singling out someone by their ethnicity for no obvious reason other than because it's supposedly "funny", in the same sentence as using a unambiguous slur, is adding to the bigotry. Crowder wasn't talking about the architecture of Uxmal when he described him as a "gay Mexican" and Maza isn't Mexican, his parents are Cuban. Does this matter? No, because the point wasn't about where he was from, it was cheap racism, per sources and common sense. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is per everyone above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 June 2020

Change nationality from American-Canadian to Canadian-American. The former indicates a Canadian of American descent, whereas the latter indicates—in this case, correctly for Crowder—an American of Canadian descent. Frevangelion (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the article, he was born in Detroit, Michigan, and he emigrated from the United States to Canada at a young age. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

left-wing smear

"his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs"

Some might find his jokes offensive, I consider them to be funny. Do not generalize by using such terms.

The accurate line would be "his use of slurs some critics called racist and homophobic" And the term "homophobic" is just dumb. No normal person is afraid of gays, many people simply cant stand them due to personal religious beliefs or the behaviour of gay people which often can be annoying and awkward.

--- As usual, Wikipedia always focuses on smearing a conservative. Nothing to see here.

62.226.80.160 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is how reliable sources describe the words used by Crowder. The meaning of the word "homophobia" is, as we say in our article on the topic, "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality [including] contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy". It may have the "phobia" prefix, but it is not a sum-of-parts meaning. — Bilorv (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

the alleged racist language has not been put forward.Quenreerer (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia users think has or hasn't "been put forward." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

source never presents it. just parrots accusations for clicks. show examples of racist speech, and i;ll change my mind. Quenreerer (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You will need consensus to change the longstanding wording here. Simply declaring that it "parrots accusations for clicks" is non-responsive. Your disagreement with reliable sources is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No strong opinion here but I will point out that WP:RACIST says "racist" and "homophobic" are "words to watch" and that such Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

"Reliable sources", mainstream news media can be reliable sources, but one should always be weary of the bias of one's sources. The mainstream media can sometimes embelish a story or use colourfull language to describe something to attract reader. This is not an academic consensus by PHD students and graduate, its the opinion of a few journalis. Wikipedia seeks to inform its readers, not to sell advertisement, we should therefore show ourselves to be trustwordy by avoiding showing such willfull lack of critical judgment. Some find what crowder says to be offensive and characterise it, including some contributors here. The page can be just as informative without expressing an opinion. The sentence "In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were investigated over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs to describe journalist Carlos Maza." could be rephrase that way : "Youtube demonitized Steven Crowder's channel in June 2019, following a back and forth exchanged between him and fellow youtuber Carlos Maza. Maza alleged that Crowder had used racist and homophobic language to bully him, which Crowder denied." Francis1867 (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no evidence of willfull lack of critical judgment. We will continue to use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You should read the article you linked. Let me refresh your memory: News article can be reliable for statement of facts, articles that come from news media need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Evidence of the willfullness of the behaviour is shown by your passive-agressive content. The argument is not that we should exclude reliable sources, or that the source is not reliable. The argument is that the tone of the article is not neutral, and those who opposed it are members who self identify with very leftwing cause, just like you, who clearly state on your own page that you are a self-hating men. The point is that phrase "racist and homophobic slur" is a characterisation of the information, not the information. It is less informative and the terms are loaded. The news media do that because they do not pretend to be unbiased source of information, they are in fact commercial enterprise who aim to generate trafic in order to make profit. Wikipedia has to be written in a factual unbiased way, even if the individual contributors have their own bias.

(talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on my user page indicates any bias. WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Racist and homophobic slur" doesn't mean "bad", but (roughly) "comments which refer insultingly to a person's race and homosexuality". That Crowder used such terms is a fact. It's up to our readers to decide if they think this fact reflects badly on him or not. Objective3000's userpage also says You will occasionally find that an editor with whom you are debating, having run out of arguments, will look at your user page to find something about you to add to the argument and I think that's all the response a comment of this calibre deserves. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Its simply to point out possible motive why some editors here are being so willingly obtuse. Is calling someone gay or queer homophobic? Why does wikipedia calls Maza gay than? Why did Maza describe himself as a lispy Queer? Is calling someone a Mexican an insult? My mexican neighbours would be insulted at the very idea. You saw a comment with 7 very good argument to correct the very poor righting of this pager, ignored 5 of the points, missrepresented 2 of them, and weekly defended against one. The behaviour of some editor seems to betray partisan ideological motivation in this thread, and it just so happen that a few of these user also display similar ideological inclination on their user page. The point is that the majority of users agree that this article is bias in writing, the guildlines are pretty clear that this type of writing should be avoided, good common sense also dictates that it is preferable to give information to readers, instead of simply providing third party characterisation of the information. It is unfortunate that a small minority of editors with a dislike of the subject are using secondary sources editorial choice to deviate from the wikipedia norm about neutral tone. Good arguments are never adressed and there is constant moving of the goal post and strawmening going on. The question is simple: Is the current wording of the article more informative and more neutral than proposed change? The answer is an obvious no, and reasonable person can understand why characterizing someone's word as racist and homophobic is taking sides. Also, using these media outlet as reliable sources on Crowder is like taking Ford as a reliable source on General motors, its clear that they have an overt interest in not presenting the reality in the most accurate way in this context. Francis1867 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia favors reliable sources, which means sources that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. This means that Wikipedia has a mainstream bias. Conspiratorially assuming that anyone who is critical of Crowder must be "biased", and that this makes critical sources unreliable, is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and is a dead-end. Casting aspersions about editors because they are open about their own opinions is extremely bad form, and is a good way to get blocked. Discuss specific, actionable changes based on Wikipedia's policies, which means that changes to the article will be based on reliable sources, and since the article is on Crowder we have a strong preference for sources that are independent of Crowder. Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it good form to call other user conspiracy theorist, claim that their pointing out admitted bias of other user is false and misleading accusation, and threatening to block them? Just asking for a friend.Francis1867 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is calling someone gay or queer homophobic? Obviously this is context-dependent. It is not for us to evaluate the context, but for reliable sources, which find that Crowder used the words as slurs. Indeed you've noticed correctly that this talk page attracts a lot of alt-right people who are triggered by our accurate coverage of the topic, but the consensus amongst experienced editors has always been that the content is appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If its context dependant, it therefore needs an authoritative and reliable source. No sources provided are both, therefore it is the opinion of the source, not an objective fact. The consensus does not exist, since this discussion page is full of people who disagree with it. Using slurs to talk about user is extremely bad form, and is apparently a good way of getting blocked. I think that the fact that people with different views than your own react strongly to the wording of the article is one of several reasons to believe that the wording of the article is quite subjective and controversial, wouldn't you say? Francis1867 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why the second paragraph in the lead even needs to be there. It should be moved to the YouTube Investigation section if it has to be on the page at all. A.S. Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fold rant calling editors communists The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Adorable. Instead of debating me, you delete my post. That sort of proves my point, doesn't it? But fine. I'm tired of arguing with censor happy communists. I'll just ask this: If mainstream media is ALWAYS considered a reliable source, then does that mean all right wing and far right mainstream media sources (such as FOX news) are ALWAYS considered reliable as well? Or is it only the left wing sources such as CNN (I already know the answer. I'm hoping you aren't aware of answer and decide to go looking through some pages yourself. I'd personally choose some controversial leftwing pubic figures, as well as some people that identify as centrist, as in most of those cases any negative press, or opinion pieces from FOX and others tend to be ignored.) From my experience wiki mods do indeed have integrity. I honestly believe once you check a few pages, as I'm quite hopeful you will, you'll at least partially understand why we believe this article's wording is politically motivated. (One quick additional word; although the standard as of right now is to use mainstream media, that has turned into a bad idea. Both left and right wing media attack political opponents on a regular basis, with false or misleading word choice. You don't have to dig far to find that EVERY political leader and commentator has at some recent point been called Racist, Bigoted, Islamaphobic, Antisemetic, Sexist, Nazi, Communist, Authoritarian, Violent, Terrorist, etc. Although MSM continues to at least technically present the facts, it is a mistake to inlude the reporter's insulting opinions, even if repeated by other reporters.). Hopefully since I'm not making any arguments or accusations, this will Not be deleted as well, though I have my doubts. If the communist statement is considered insulting, it's not. A huge swath of editors identify as marxist in some way. 184.102.72.215 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC) LMFAO please, everyone go check the top line of O3000's page. The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. It's good for a few chuckles. 184.102.72.215 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Please let us focus on content. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Alright, fine. I'll remove all content even mentioning editors. Will you please respond to my question/argument now? This is the second time here the my point was completely ignored. I'll just ask this: If mainstream media is ALWAYS considered a reliable source, then does that mean all right wing and far right mainstream media sources (such as FOX news) are ALWAYS considered reliable as well? Or is it only the left wing sources such as CNN (I already know the answer. I'm hoping you aren't aware of answer and decide to go looking through some pages yourself. I'd personally choose some controversial leftwing pubic figures, as well as some people that identify as centrist, as in most of those cases any negative press, or opinion pieces from FOX and others tend to be ignored.) From my experience wiki mods do indeed have integrity. I honestly believe once you check a few pages, as I'm quite hopeful you will, you'll at least partially understand why we believe this article's wording is politically motivated. (One quick additional word; although the standard as of right now is to use mainstream media, that has turned into a bad idea. Both left and right wing media attack political opponents on a regular basis, with false or misleading word choice. You don't have to dig far to find that EVERY political leader and commentator has at some recent point been called Racist, Bigoted, Islamaphobic, Antisemetic, Sexist, Nazi, Communist, Authoritarian, Violent, Terrorist, etc. Although MSM continues to at least technically present the facts, it is a mistake to inlude the reporter's insulting opinions, even if repeated by other reporters.). Hopefully since I'm not making any arguments or accusations, this will Not be deleted as well. 184.102.72.215 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC) You will continue to be ignored if you continue along these lines. If you have a specific suggestion, make it. But, general rants of bias are not useful. Please read WP:AGF WP:RS WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Fine. Although I was trying to be detailed, not rant, I'll keep it short and sweet. Does wikipedia always consider republican mainstream sources, such as FOX, as reliable, the way it does democrat/liberal sources such as CNN? Could I use one of the many claims FOX news made in describing liberal politicians? If not, why? Disclaimer, not part of question; (I use FOX as an example, because it roughly tied with CNN for bias according to the pew research center among other things, and for every example I could find, CNN was always upheld as reliable source). Important addition: This is directly related to this wikipedia page, as FOX news, among about 7 other republican news sources, has used descriptors of Steven Crowder that directly contridict what CNN and others have claimed. (Wiki error, only posted half), I can provite sources and quotes, but first I need to know that it wont be a waste of time and will at least be fairly considered by editors. 184.102.72.215 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Apparently you failed to read WP:AGF as I suggested. Fox, at the moment, is considered much the same as CNN. That is, Fox News --- certainly NOT the Fox opinion shows. The Pew Research Center said nothing of the sort. You have misread the report they made – as have many others. So far, you have wasted editor time here. If you stop this disruptive behavior and actually provide a source, it will be considered. Also, please stop the large indents. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) For the record, I am the one who deleted the IP's posts, not Objective3000. I deleted them because they implied threats of offline violence, introduced WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM issues, and cast aspersions against other editors. None of this is appropriate. This entire discussion is misguided at best. All sources are judged in context. There is no source which is universally reliable, nor does this simplistic premise even make sense. IP, stop it with the aspersions, threats, and hypotheticals. This all appears to be an attempt to game the system. Propose specific changes, to this article, based on specific sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Corona virus misinformation" needs to be updated, numerous reports of death over counting have been widely publicized.

Considering there have been numerous credible reports concerning corona virus case over counting, Crowder's contention that cases were over reported, as a generalization, is demonstrably true. There was a man who overdosed from alcohol and was subsequently listed as a corona virus death. There have been multiple government officials, doctors, and even members of the corona virus white house task force who have spoken out about this. Cases have been both under counted and over counted across the country. They are not mutually exclusive, you could say either and it would be factually correct.

Wikipedia is consistently showing its political bias. Conservative public figures have controversies or their worst moments affixed to the first paragraphs of the page. Meanwhile, left-wing public figures/groups have their pages scrubbed entirely (Hillary, Antifa, Kamala Harris), or if they do have it, the "controversies" section is lacking most of the relevant happenings associated with the person. Politics aside, I feel it is imperative to have a measure of impartiality in the framing of these pages. Left-wing journalists and politicians who spread the "Trump Russian agent" conspiracy theory have no mention of it on their pages whatsoever. Meanwhile, conservatives like Glenn Beck have "conspiracy theorist" label affixed to, again, the first paragraphs of the page.

Its framing. One can say something that turns out to be false, and it can be framed as being an erroneous statement, or framed as being a ridiculous conspiracy theorist behavior or intentional misinformation. This bias has become flagrantly transparent, and surprisingly brazen. If this website intends to be the steward of easily digestible factual information, partisanship narratives must be curtailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.180.183 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

December 2012 union protest

In this section, the page states:

"it seems likely that the man was knocked to the ground as members of the two sides pushed against one other, not shoved down by Mr. Crowder."

This is inaccurate. Crowder leaning in and the way the protestor falls is exactly the positions they'd find themselves in if Crowder used a Judo throw. There is no one else nearby that can make the man fall that way. Please see this video below.

https://youtu. be/dyRG51mrzRI?t=187

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicHound (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The line is a direct quote from the New York Times, specifically this story (I have fixed the link).

Because Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, interpretations of this video should be supported by reliable sources.

The video you mention (link) may or may not be correct, but it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. If you know of additional sources, please feel free to propose them, but reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources first would be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Simply change it from "conservative" political commentator to right-wing political commentator XXXNerdSlayerXXX (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)