Talk:TJ Kirk

End of involvement with the Drunken Peasants

TJ just posted on his Twitter and Facebook that his Drunken Peasants Podcast is no more. We should fix all the mentions to the podcast ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElBOlovo (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

===Hmmm=== Victor obini (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing stub notice

All of the WikiProjects relating to this article show it as 'Start' class. As it is no longer seen as a stub by the projects linked to it, is it not time for the notice to be removed? GammaRadiator (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh

Three buck theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.157.38 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Drunken Peasant-related references.

I found some third party sources talking about the "Drunken Peasants" show/podcast that only briefly mention the Amazing Atheist by name, could I use those? Or only when the subject is the primary focus? Donald Trung (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Yes, as he's associated with the act those references should be fine.

Sincerely, --118.70.151.49 (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Drunken Peasants Mentions

The article suggests that the Drunken Peasants Podcast is owned by Kirk but, in actuality, it was co-owned by Kirk and a man who goes by the username Benpai (I am unsure of his full name). Also, the Drunken Peasants has not concluded but is still running under Ben and other guests (e.g. Billythefridge). Thus, the article's mention of how "Kirk announced on his channel that he decided to end The Drunken Peasants." is inaccurate and instead should read "Kirk announced on his channel that he decided to sever ties with The Drunken Peasants and former co-host Ben." I would edit it myself but unfortunately, it's a protected article (due to the BLP policy).Dual Insanity (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've rephrased it, but this really should be supported by a reliable source, ideally a source which is independent of both Kirk and the podcast. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

Under the last sentence in the History section, a statement along the lines of "On January 8, 2018, Kirk's new podcast, Deep Fat Fried, released their first episode entitled 'TIM ALLEN = DEEP FAT FRIED.' The podcast covers between one or two topics in an episode, ranging from serial killers to musicians to making top 10 lists. In March, they premiered a new series titled Flash Fried, where the hosts cover recent news." TGIR10 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Danski454 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

Under the catrgory section of TJ Kirk's page, get rid of Category:Critics of Islam and Category:Critics of Christianity and replace them with Category:Critics of religions. 205.211.145.161 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I can't find an instance of this in the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Subject's Political Status

According to the subject himself, he is a left-wing liberal according to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHQjhNH6g94. The part where it describes how he is a leftist but still criticizes SJWs should be re-instated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HairlessCat (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because it was not supported by a reliable, independent source. He's made hundreds of videos expressing dozens of opinions, but we cannot catalog all of them. It is not up to us as editors to pick which are significant and which are not. If any reliable sources emphasize his political position, or his own description of his political position, we could consider using his own videos to contextualize this as a WP:BLPPRIMARY response. Without such a secondary source it's arbitrary to pick one of his videos to highlight something about him based on editor preference. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

But how can you not state the subject has described himself as liberal, information which many people will find useful. It isn't an editor's preference to say the subject describes himself is liberal; it's the preference of reality. They may not be good, reliable sources you would usually use to obtain information, but the subject's direct statements on platforms like Youtube and Twitter can verify their stance. I disagree with your statement about how we editors can't determine what information is important. We're human and can decide what is substantial knowledge people are reading the article for.HairlessCat (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not disputing that he has described himself this way. This is about something else. There are a few ways to look at this.

First is this: You think it's important, but I don't think it's important. How do we resolve this? These particular kinds of disagreements come up all the time on Wikipedia. The standard way to resolve them is through reliable, independent sources. Some information is considered basic enough that a social media post is sufficient. This means really basic things like birth-dates, schools attended, or country of birth. Religion is sometimes, but not always, included in this. Political spectrum placement is not included without an independent source establishing why.

Another problem is that Wikipedia is not a platform for him to share information about himself. Picking part of his video and sharing it on Wikipedia is promotional. That wasn't the goal, but it's the end result. If we're including promotional content, it must be for a good reason.

Further, while Kirk's assessment of himself is obviously more significant than some random blogger, we still have to be careful not to selectively ignoring other perspectives. Why is "liberal" the part of that video that you think needs to be highlighted? Why not "anti-Islam", since the video is also about that? Highlight his own perspective on some issue because we think readers will find it interesting isn't neutral if there are credible signs that other people disagree. Just now, to get another sense of how reliable sources describe him, I typed his name into a different search engine from the one I normally use. This was the first result. This blogger explains his claims that Kirk has made statements he considers racist and anti-progressive, and he's explained what those statements are and why. If it were up to me to include things I think are interesting, well, that's a hell of a lot more interesting that yet-another-youtube-atheist calling themselves "liberal" in yet-another-video shitting on Islam. This blog post cannot be used in the article. I am citing it as an example of the dangers picking one perspective over another.

Finally, if we're going to present his political position, we should present it in context. Why are we mentioning that he's a "leftist" or "liberal" (which are two different things, by the way)? Are reliable, independent sources even talking about his politics? Doesn't really look like it, to me. Search results suggest they are talking about how he insulted some actor's breast size once. When it comes to people talking about Kirk, I had to go back over a year to find anything else, and that was a passing mention of him defending Pewdiepie after his "death to all jews" stunt. Is that progressive? Not without a reliable source saying it is.

Sorry, I still don't think this belongs without a better source. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So the only thing that would convince you to fix the article would be if a reliable, non-TJ source called him a liberal. Fair enough (since that's how we're doing it), but why can't you say he identifies as a liberal? Yes, that's important information. People expect to know the political identities of social figures. In TJ's case, that would be liberalism. And you see, if we couldn't determine what beliefs constitute importance, how could you distinguish the gravities of food taste and political belief? And sure, why not throw anti-Islam into the mix? By the way, no, defending Pewdiepie for using satirical imagery and comedy isn't anti-progressive by any definition as far as I'm aware. Additionally, I'm aware not all leftists are liberals, but all liberals are leftists.HairlessCat (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, him defending PewDiePie's use of antisemitism for a comedy skit isn't anti-progressive. That's why I said it's only progressive if reliable sources say it is. Kirk seems like a strong supporter of free speech, including speech on platforms owned by private corporations. There are plenty of progressive arguments for this, but he's not exactly an impartial party, right? That's a digression, but the point is that it's not simple, and if it's not simple we shouldn't try and interpret a source to imply something it doesn't actually say.

I'm sympathetic to this, honestly. I get that it seems like the article should mention this. I'm concerned that we're missing something important by using primary sources. If reliable sources don't discuss his politics, his self-identification becomes an answer to a question nobody has asked. By preemptively answering a question, we're telling readers that it should be asked. This is a subtle form editorializing (or even promotion). We need reliable sources to do the groundwork, first.

There are probably a lot of things that could convince me I'm wrong, but all the ones I can think of are sources. So one thing that would convince me is if reliable sources discuss his politics at all. If some reliable source is used in this article which calls him conservative or reactionary or neocon or neolib or "classical liberal", or whatever, we could (and should) reasonably use his own video to clarify that he calls himself something else. This courtesy is common practice for WP:BLPs to help limit gossip and scandal-mongering. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this article again. Anyway, now that I've thought about it again, would it really be bad if we said "although he identifies as a left-wing liberal, he also has notoriety for criticizing elements of the left such as "SJWs." It isn't promotional since it actually has purpose. Besides his atheist stance, most people know him for being an anti-SJW.HairlessCat (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this page necessary?

He has a relatively small YouTube account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NBIO. The article is based on reliable sources, not subscriber counts. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Having over a million subscribers and hundreds of millions of views is hardly a small YouTube account.Alialiac (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BananaGate?

I'm surprised there is no mention of "BananaGate", considering this is one of the main reasons this individual became popular: https://dplore.fandom.com/wiki/BananaGate_2011 99.244.133.113 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

Add citation under deep fat fried https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4NpbPE75Cb1xkbDLWq8WuA Thebatmanover9000 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. A Youtube channel isn't a valid citation for the statement being made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Waaaaahahahahahhah

Just wanna say, you can tell TJ himself wrote the Politics section because it uses the word espoused. Warlightyahoo (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

he's Cajun, right?

He mentions it in Douchebag Bible. The article should be added to Category:Cajun_people --Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 04:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs)

Twitter ban

As of January 24th, 2023, the ban levied on Kirk's twitter account has been lifted and he is active on the platform again. https://twitter.com/amazingatheist/status/1617949987408850944 50.43.23.163 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Please specify that TJ Kirk was born in 1985 2601:603:1B7F:8A57:3901:BEBF:B3C4:3DC (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)