This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change far-right commentator to right wing commentator. Steven Crowder does not fit the criteria for the far right which would include extreme nationalism, facism and authoritarianism. Along with this he does not have other aspects including homophobia, transphobia or being theocratic.
Various links to YouTube videos
|
---|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iQzpaIr5w -- A video that shows him taking the political compass test which is a bias test (aside from plotting political ideas on a 2d compass) but highlights his views against such horrific ideas that are linked to him which can be found throught the link that shall be changed. Any other links to this are at the very least misinterpretations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUM6glxCAY -- A video in which he talks to a homosexual conservative and allows them to get their voice heard while not in any way insulting the man or calling him a degenerate or use of clear homophobic language with vicous intent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vef_fjyBYOk -- A video in which he protects the right to firearms which is a liberal view point as it is against more government control of the soverign individual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJSEef4vFo -- A video in which he protects free speech which is an anti-authoritarian view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIoyyE9UPc -- A video in which Crowder protects the free speech of Dave Chapelle while stating he does not agree with issues on him but his jokes should not be censored and he should still be heard. On top of the fact that he is showing liberal values he is also showing his ability to want to listen to voices from BAME groups in his videos it shows this as he references his lawyer who is half chinese and other members of his team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNMC4mZi1ds -- A video in which he pokes fun at the idiotic nature of racism. |
from these catalogs of videos on mostly social policies apart from the first it should give an idea that he does not adhear to the disgusting beliefs that are attributed to him through this and as this will be the first thing people see of him it is not a good first impression for people trying to find who he is.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
N8 WLD (
talk) 13:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The t-shirt said socialism is for figs, not f*ags(the slur). A006Delta ( talk) 21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Crowder had been repeatedly using the shirts long before the Maza controversy and him and his team repeatedly stated "figs" rather than the homophobic slur. - historyman1812 ( talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020
Since there has been a lot of revert-warring over this... there was an extensive discussion in the past that broadly affirmed that "pro-life" / "pro-choice" violate WP:NPOV in the article voice, and an Arbcom case that affirmed the finality and generality of that outcome. Epithets meant for political grandstanding like that are generally not WP:NPOV and violate MOS:LABEL when (as in this case) clear, unambiguous alternatives without the same weight exist. Nor can we rely on someone's WP:ABOUTSELF self-description on Twitter in that context, since framing their beliefs that way is clearly self-serving. In the article voice, we use anti-abortion and abortion-rights as more neutral terms. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
"At the time, experts said". One source provided from an op-ed website. MPs (in the UK) and officials in Congress have discussed the issues there have been with the accuracy of data. Crowder has not spread any disinformation as he has clearly and openly displayed his sources of reference. The chief medical advisor to the President Of United States (Dr. Fauci), doctors and elected officials have openly disputed and supplied evidence against lockdowns and the coronavirus religion. Plenty of sources can be looked up on YouTube for this. Labelling something as misinformation, based on a single biased source - does not make the information misinformed. -- Jackromeo123 ( talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Crowder's claim that "leftists at hospitals are inflating the death count" is false, as the fact-checking source makes clear. Wikipedia describes false things as false, per WP:YESPOV. There are no mainstream reliable sources supporting Crowder's claim. Using the weasel word "many" similarly weakens the reliable source's clear and unequivocal description of Crowder's claim as false. I have reverted this section to the last stable version, and request that J.Turner99 discuss their proposed changes and gain consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I just want to add one word so the readers know that not every expert in the world agreed. The source does not say every expert agreed (because that's not possible), so we must be clear. J.Turner99 ( talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone i'm going to add one word for clarity. It's important the readers know that not all experts in the entire world agreed. Please AGF if you disagree, and please no lengthy paragraphs. Thank you J.Turner99 ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
A trans individual has (Redacted). Whether it's true or not, the accusation has got a lot of traction on Twitter. Is it noteworthy? (Redacted) [Link] -- 78.18.102.143 ( talk) 16:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Many news outlets are writing about his latest video getting pulled off of YouTube for Covid misinformation and for his racist jokes aimed at Black farmers. Should this be added? -- Vember94 ( talk) 12:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
New sources available
John Cummings ( talk) 11:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
And many more
John Cummings ( talk) 10:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs"
Crowder referred to Maza and "Mexican" and "Latino"
Neither of those are racist slurs.
The closest thing to homophobic slur that could be considered is him referring to Maza as "Queer" but even members of the gay community use that term so I would be hesitant to even call that homophobic.
History Man1812 ( talk) 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
The Washington Post is not a credible news sourceis irrelevant here. on Wikipedia, The Washington Post absolutely is a credible news source - there is longstanding consensus to that effect. If you wish to change that consensus, WP:RSN is over there - you'll need to open a discussion and create a new consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
“lispy sprite,”and
anchor baby; most of the sources also seem to consider repeatedly calling Carlos (a Cuban-American) Mexican to be a racial slur in context - the Time source specifically notes this aspect. In cases like these, we go by what the sources say. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If you are going to keep this completely false sentence in the opening paragraph, then the term "Alleged" or "Allegedly" should be used. I have seen absolutely no proof that what Crowder said was homophobic and/or racist. YouTube themselves conducted an investigation and decided that the language he used was "hurtful" but didn't violate their policies against racism and/or harassment. Carlos Maza, the person who actually made the complaints about Crowder, never claimed racism or homophobia. He claimed harassment. Obviously, the author of this article is imposing his personal biases on the content. The author does not get to state, unequivocally, that someone is a racist or homphobe, when that "fact" is clearly in debate. Doniboy71 ( talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Choose your battle. SJWs have limitless energy to fight their jihad. Yes its partial, yes it makes us look like hacks. This has been discussed endlessly, but the sane people always have the same selective reading of the rules, argue in circle, and stop engaging when they loose. Getting their points through attrition. Francis1867 ( talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The text in the lead concerning YouTube's response to the Carlos Maza saga seems not to be justified in being there. It belongs in the body as it does not fulfil the task of helping summarise who the article subject is and why they're relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. Or that's my opinion, anyway. Should this be removed, as it is already addressed at length in the body? Thanks, thorpewilliam ( talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Crowder only 'violated' YouTube guidelines according to YouTube's ambiguous and subjective application of their rules. His videos contain no bullying, and this comment needs to be countered. Not-PCwoke ( talk) 04:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The issue with Maza is clearly personal, and has the appearance of politically motivated vandalism. It is in no way a descriptor of Crowder. If anything, Crowder's controversial issues are far broader than this single event. That Crowder is controversial could be included, no doubt, but the placement of the current information in the header appears personal and is not proper. The information needs to be moved to a section that is appropriate, preferably a section titled "Controversies". User: Ima Groinitch 7 August 2021
This is regarding this series of edits by Nightscream.
As hopefully all experienced editors already know, Wikipedia strongly favors WP:IS. If reliable, independent sources treat Crowder as a "news channel", let's see them, and we can summarize accordingly in context. Otherwise, gain consensus for the use of unreliable sources (like The Blaze) which have a vested interest in this for promotional filler. John Stossel is, superficially, a journalist, but his own youtube channel lacks clear editorial oversight and the necessary reputation for accuracy and fact-checking to be reliable. Just as importantly, this isn't page isn't a platform for PR, so cherry-picking obscure and flattering quotes to imply importance or legitimacy is unacceptable. Grayfell ( talk) 19:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Nightscream, I'm sorry, but you are taking this a bit too far, in terms of your claims about sources and the tone of your edit summaries. Drmies ( talk) 01:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not a comedian, no proof video print or otherwise that he has performed comedy. Most notably no stand-up, although really no comedy and not part of any affiliated comedic associations. 68.77.156.226 ( talk) 22:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As of current, the following text is incorporated into the lead:
In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were investigated over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs to describe journalist Carlos Maza. YouTube did not suspend the channel and said it did not violate the site's policies, but demonetized the account the following day, citing community guidelines. In August 2020, his channel was re-monetized after Crowder addressed his behavior and content.
It seems to me this is not notable enough for the lead and belongs in the body, where it is already elaborated on in detail. Should it remain, or should it be removed? Thanks, thorpewilliam ( talk) 03:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Crowder uses neither homophobic or racist language. This is emotive language designed to characterise Crowder as someone he is not. Not-PCwoke ( talk) 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Crowder recently ambushed by Sam Seder Cameron.l.tobias ( talk) 02:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. He had set up a civil dialogue with another YouTube commentator and in good faith expected to have a civil discussion. The other host, Ethan, had no intentions of acting in a mature manner and was not willing to dialogue with Crowder. Instead, Sam Seder was thrust in front of Crowder, and the dialogue between Ethan and Crowder was no longer possible. As this had violated the terms agreed to by both Crowder and Ethan, Steven terminated the call. Not-PCwoke ( talk) 05:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm Getting Heart Surgery... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp9w9qc27KQ 50.32.138.4 ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to say in Wikipedia's voice that "Crowder addressed his behavior and content"? The Business insider article cited to support that [1] doesn't itself say that he addressed his behavior and content, rather it just quotes YouTube's spokeswoman and official statements as saying that he did. Business insider doesn't say it except when quoting or paraphrasing Youtube. I think that it might be better to add a qualifier like "Youtube says Crowder addressed his behavior and content" or words to that effect which would be far more supported by the source we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMM12345 ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I added a section on the Sam Seder incident and it was removed by User:Vaselineeeeeeee who suggested moving this to the Talk section, so I'm doing so now. This is a notable occurence as it was covered by Forbes, Newsweek and Insider. If you Google "Steven Crowder," the autofill "Steven Crowder Sam Seder" will show up, which shows that people are searching for this. NOT including this seriously limits the utility of this wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demosthenes2.0 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were put under review over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs against journalist Carlos Maza.[2][3][4] YouTube did not suspend the channel and said the channel did not violate the site's policies, but demonetized the account the following day, citing "a pattern of egregious actions [that] harmed the broader community".[5] In August 2020, his channel was re-monetized after YouTube said Crowder addressed his behavior and content.[6] In March 2021, his channel was once again demonetized after violating YouTube's presidential election integrity policy for questioning the legitimacy of election results.[7]
To: Crowder was born on July 7, 1987 in Detroit, Michigan. Crowder's mother was French Canadian, and at the age of 3, his family moved to the Montreal suburb of Greenfield Park, Quebec, Canada where he would live for the rest of his childhood.[8] Crowder attended Centennial Regional High School, and at the age of 18, he moved back to the United States.[9] Crowder attended two semesters at Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont.[10]
The first section being from the heading. As it is something from over 2 years ago, it has become mostly irrelevant as a heading. The situation is also explained in complete detail later on the page under the "career" tab. The suggested change is from the "early life" column, which provides only basic information and hardly warrants its own section. This suggested change would not only be universally relevant to the subject of the page, but it is also more in line with the typical headings from pages of this type. (See Barack Obama and Donald Trump) 2600:1007:B012:48B1:A102:53D8:FA0:6F53 ( talk) 03:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You have called crowder in this article a homophobe and racist with no evidence of that fact when he has shown the opposite so I request that it be changed accordingly. ChristianSmallz ( talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of the second paragraph of the introduction. I'm not against slimming it down a bit but complete removal would prevent the introduction serving as a valid summary of the whole article. If it is to be slimmed down then it needs to continue to reflect the overall nature of the events but become less of a blow by blow account. Any content and references removed from the introduction need to be moved into the body if they are not already present there (which they should be!). We do not want to lose any valid sources if this gets reduced. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is the 10,000th most significant event in Crowders life, the Maza story, at the top? Is is because it’s negative about him and you dislike him? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FactCheckExpert (
talk •
contribs) 05:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the second paragraph of the introduction. It clearly does not belong to be there.
Skcin7 (
talk) 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. FDW777 ( talk) 12:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Some people have a lot of patience and that is being abused here by constantly re-litigating long settled issues in a deliberate attempt to wear us down and waste our time. This has to stop. Blanking is a form of vandalism and if it continues then people can look forward to warning templates for vandalism. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused. I'm struggling to see anything wrong with the paragraph that keeps on getting removed. Sure, it might be possible to improve it but doesn't seem in any way bad to me. Probably I am missing something but surely it is not for us to be concerned with sparing Crowder's blushes or appeasing his fans. That does not fall into any genuine category of preventing "harm" and the fans will never be happy with us anyway. Well, not unless we entirely cleanse the article of all critical content which we can't do. Obviously, I must be missing something policy based here as people who are clearly not motivated to run PR for Crowder are agreeing with the removal. Is there a discussion going on elsewhere about this content? If so, please can somebody post a direct link to that? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
be suspicious of people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions(even if that insinuation isn't intentional). I became aware of this situation (as I explained at ANI) due to an old friend contacting me (as I'd been a Wikipedia admin for 10+ years) asking me my thoughts of Crowder's video. (My thoughts were that it was basically entirely wrong.) Naturally I also looked through Crowder's edits and the related pages... as I always have when Wikipedia is brought up in pop culture etc. I saw the dispute here, and simply said "well this is clearly disputed, and doesn't have clear consensus from the ongoing discussions for inclusion (at least as it is written)"... the normal course of action for years on this site in such cases (as ArbCom has stated) is to remove in lieu of consensus. Consensus in such matters doesn't take long to ascertain, but at BLPN that discussion has not yet ended. There isn't a need for battleground behavior about this (nor assumptions of bad faith); we all will interpret policy different. But even so, it's important to remember we're all here for the same reason: to produce a great information resource. But, clearly there's something that needs clarification in policy and likely from ArbCom about this entire matter, if this many people are reading the same policies in such different ways. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
"people who are clearly not motivated to run PR for Crowder"category. I admit that I have difficulty understanding why there is thought to be any need for detailed discussion of the paragraph in question as it seems like perfectly normal, valid and appropriate encyclopaedia content to me but I recognise that this view is not shared to some people and that they are discussing it in good faith. I do feel that we are being bounced into dancing to a tune set by propagandists and trolls, and I very strongly suspect that they are laughing at us for doing so, but I do recognise that people are dancing in good faith.
"people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions"I was talking about the endless succession of drive-by blankers, whitewashers and trolls who have been working away on this article for years to erase, minimise or otherwise spin the reliably documented facts about Crowder's actions. These sort of people do not normally engage in discussion beyond leaving the occasional abusive and/or counterfactual comment on the Talk page. Up until now I had assumed that they were all just Crowder fans who had stumbled on the article and didn't like what it said and, yes, I'm still perfectly sure that most of them were exactly that. The fact that we now have proof that at least a few of them were part of an organised meatpuppetry campaign puts a rather different spin on how we handle this article going forward. You say "we're all here for the same reason", and while that is true of the two of us and everybody else editing and discussing in good faith, that is obviously not true of the organised meatuppets. We need to keep an eye open for any more of this intentional bad faith editing. This will be hard. The bad faith editors will "hide their power level" to try to look like ordinary Crowder fans and, yes, we do have to start with an assumption of good faith in each case even though that makes a lot more work for us.
[ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@
Anastrophe: reverted my removal of the alma mater parameter
[2]. They agreed with my rationale that Crowder is a non-graduate and that his attendance at Champlain it's not significant to his notability, but they assert that this is a common infobox entry, and is objectively no less significant than his birthdate.
There's no doubt this a common entry, but it's only included if they graduated or it was significant to the individual life. See
Template:Infobox person; when describing the alma_mater parameter it says: It is usually not relevant to include either [education or alma mater] parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates.
With no existing consensus for inclusion and not compelling reason to include this parameter, it should be removed in accordance with biographical norms. Anastrophe's argument that it's not less significant to his birthdate is not compelling because it's the standard across biographical arguments to include birthdate under all circumstances, no such standard exists with the alma mater parameter as shown by Template:Infobox person.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (
talk) 21:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The recently added material regarding Crowder's video related to fat studies, describes abusive comments in the video's comment section, and a representative of the institution that hosted the fat studies conference criticism of those comments. However, anyone with the faintest familiarity with YouTube knows that their comments are routinely cesspools of vitriol and abuse, on subjects as benign as CPU's. The representative's statement isn't about Crowder - only the comments, and the youtuber isn't responsible for what is posted there. Is that response appropriate to the BLP, since it's not directly about the subject? Anastrophe ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Preferred pronoun is SHE 42069user69420 ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Why does the article say he has two children? He's stated repeatedly he has no children. In a recent episode he even talked at length about how he's afraid to ever have kids. https://twitter.com/drugcel/status/1618781646035243008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.26.219 ( talk) 16:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious how editors MrOllie and NorthBySouthBaranof can justify undoing my revision, and consistently seek to restore the hyperbolic language of a graduate student given how non-neutral it is. Please explain how graduate student Becca Lewis' language is consistent with the policy on neutral speech, as well as your actions in curating my good-faith attempts at making it more-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair points regarding NPOV vs. neutral speech. Now, please explain the veracity of the claim itself. You have afforded her the position of expert, and have not addressed that aspect again. Is it that you concede that point as untenable? The fact that Bloomberg runs it does not establish the veracity of the claim as such. We can agree that she said it because of Bloomberg's credibility. That by itself does not establish the veracity of the claim. For the record, I did not introduce the aspect of 'status'. Becca Lewis' status as an 'expert' was a claim made by others, to which I was responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs)
Is that to say then, you would have no issue with including the fact that she is a doctoral candidate while retaining her original quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you are conflating the sources here as well. Becca Lewis is the source of her own assertion, and is reported by Bloomberg. SHE is *their* source. (i.e. THE source). You yourself afforded her the status of Expert NorthBySouthBaranof in your original redaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is mostly on whether to include Lewis' comments. However, if they are included, there remains the question of whether it is accurate, given what we know (e.g. from Lewis' own website that includes her CV), to echo the Bloomberg article's misleading description of her as a "Stanford researcher". Adjunct instructors, laboratory technicians, assistants to faculty and other such positions at universities are often "researchers" in a sense, but it is nonetheless misleading to describe them as such especially in connection with a top institution like Stanford, implying a level of authority that is not there. A phrase like "graduate student researcher" that indicates Lewis' position when she made the remarks would be accurate. If that is considered overly WP:OR, the weight of the Lewis quote should be reduced, or some other phrase used that does not knowingly import the exaggeration by Bloomberg into the article. Sesquivalent ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
the section discussing the dispute with the daily wire could be covered in a brief paragraph with a different section. the details of this bickering lacks encyclopedic value. thanks for keeping things up to date, Saintstephen000 ( talk) Saintstephen000 ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not versed well enough on applying for a semi protect, but I feel it's rather correct in light of the Crowders' divorce, that we brace for trolls and vandalism, so if somebody could apply for semi-protect of Crowder's article for like a month or two, that'd be very cool. Lafi90 ( talk) 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Does Crowder have some business with Candace Owens that should be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change far-right commentator to right wing commentator. Steven Crowder does not fit the criteria for the far right which would include extreme nationalism, facism and authoritarianism. Along with this he does not have other aspects including homophobia, transphobia or being theocratic.
Various links to YouTube videos
|
---|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iQzpaIr5w -- A video that shows him taking the political compass test which is a bias test (aside from plotting political ideas on a 2d compass) but highlights his views against such horrific ideas that are linked to him which can be found throught the link that shall be changed. Any other links to this are at the very least misinterpretations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUM6glxCAY -- A video in which he talks to a homosexual conservative and allows them to get their voice heard while not in any way insulting the man or calling him a degenerate or use of clear homophobic language with vicous intent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vef_fjyBYOk -- A video in which he protects the right to firearms which is a liberal view point as it is against more government control of the soverign individual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJSEef4vFo -- A video in which he protects free speech which is an anti-authoritarian view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRIoyyE9UPc -- A video in which Crowder protects the free speech of Dave Chapelle while stating he does not agree with issues on him but his jokes should not be censored and he should still be heard. On top of the fact that he is showing liberal values he is also showing his ability to want to listen to voices from BAME groups in his videos it shows this as he references his lawyer who is half chinese and other members of his team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNMC4mZi1ds -- A video in which he pokes fun at the idiotic nature of racism. |
from these catalogs of videos on mostly social policies apart from the first it should give an idea that he does not adhear to the disgusting beliefs that are attributed to him through this and as this will be the first thing people see of him it is not a good first impression for people trying to find who he is.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
N8 WLD (
talk) 13:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The t-shirt said socialism is for figs, not f*ags(the slur). A006Delta ( talk) 21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Crowder had been repeatedly using the shirts long before the Maza controversy and him and his team repeatedly stated "figs" rather than the homophobic slur. - historyman1812 ( talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020
Since there has been a lot of revert-warring over this... there was an extensive discussion in the past that broadly affirmed that "pro-life" / "pro-choice" violate WP:NPOV in the article voice, and an Arbcom case that affirmed the finality and generality of that outcome. Epithets meant for political grandstanding like that are generally not WP:NPOV and violate MOS:LABEL when (as in this case) clear, unambiguous alternatives without the same weight exist. Nor can we rely on someone's WP:ABOUTSELF self-description on Twitter in that context, since framing their beliefs that way is clearly self-serving. In the article voice, we use anti-abortion and abortion-rights as more neutral terms. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
"At the time, experts said". One source provided from an op-ed website. MPs (in the UK) and officials in Congress have discussed the issues there have been with the accuracy of data. Crowder has not spread any disinformation as he has clearly and openly displayed his sources of reference. The chief medical advisor to the President Of United States (Dr. Fauci), doctors and elected officials have openly disputed and supplied evidence against lockdowns and the coronavirus religion. Plenty of sources can be looked up on YouTube for this. Labelling something as misinformation, based on a single biased source - does not make the information misinformed. -- Jackromeo123 ( talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Crowder's claim that "leftists at hospitals are inflating the death count" is false, as the fact-checking source makes clear. Wikipedia describes false things as false, per WP:YESPOV. There are no mainstream reliable sources supporting Crowder's claim. Using the weasel word "many" similarly weakens the reliable source's clear and unequivocal description of Crowder's claim as false. I have reverted this section to the last stable version, and request that J.Turner99 discuss their proposed changes and gain consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I just want to add one word so the readers know that not every expert in the world agreed. The source does not say every expert agreed (because that's not possible), so we must be clear. J.Turner99 ( talk) 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone i'm going to add one word for clarity. It's important the readers know that not all experts in the entire world agreed. Please AGF if you disagree, and please no lengthy paragraphs. Thank you J.Turner99 ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
A trans individual has (Redacted). Whether it's true or not, the accusation has got a lot of traction on Twitter. Is it noteworthy? (Redacted) [Link] -- 78.18.102.143 ( talk) 16:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Many news outlets are writing about his latest video getting pulled off of YouTube for Covid misinformation and for his racist jokes aimed at Black farmers. Should this be added? -- Vember94 ( talk) 12:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
New sources available
John Cummings ( talk) 11:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
And many more
John Cummings ( talk) 10:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs"
Crowder referred to Maza and "Mexican" and "Latino"
Neither of those are racist slurs.
The closest thing to homophobic slur that could be considered is him referring to Maza as "Queer" but even members of the gay community use that term so I would be hesitant to even call that homophobic.
History Man1812 ( talk) 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
The Washington Post is not a credible news sourceis irrelevant here. on Wikipedia, The Washington Post absolutely is a credible news source - there is longstanding consensus to that effect. If you wish to change that consensus, WP:RSN is over there - you'll need to open a discussion and create a new consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
“lispy sprite,”and
anchor baby; most of the sources also seem to consider repeatedly calling Carlos (a Cuban-American) Mexican to be a racial slur in context - the Time source specifically notes this aspect. In cases like these, we go by what the sources say. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If you are going to keep this completely false sentence in the opening paragraph, then the term "Alleged" or "Allegedly" should be used. I have seen absolutely no proof that what Crowder said was homophobic and/or racist. YouTube themselves conducted an investigation and decided that the language he used was "hurtful" but didn't violate their policies against racism and/or harassment. Carlos Maza, the person who actually made the complaints about Crowder, never claimed racism or homophobia. He claimed harassment. Obviously, the author of this article is imposing his personal biases on the content. The author does not get to state, unequivocally, that someone is a racist or homphobe, when that "fact" is clearly in debate. Doniboy71 ( talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Choose your battle. SJWs have limitless energy to fight their jihad. Yes its partial, yes it makes us look like hacks. This has been discussed endlessly, but the sane people always have the same selective reading of the rules, argue in circle, and stop engaging when they loose. Getting their points through attrition. Francis1867 ( talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The text in the lead concerning YouTube's response to the Carlos Maza saga seems not to be justified in being there. It belongs in the body as it does not fulfil the task of helping summarise who the article subject is and why they're relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article. Or that's my opinion, anyway. Should this be removed, as it is already addressed at length in the body? Thanks, thorpewilliam ( talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Crowder only 'violated' YouTube guidelines according to YouTube's ambiguous and subjective application of their rules. His videos contain no bullying, and this comment needs to be countered. Not-PCwoke ( talk) 04:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The issue with Maza is clearly personal, and has the appearance of politically motivated vandalism. It is in no way a descriptor of Crowder. If anything, Crowder's controversial issues are far broader than this single event. That Crowder is controversial could be included, no doubt, but the placement of the current information in the header appears personal and is not proper. The information needs to be moved to a section that is appropriate, preferably a section titled "Controversies". User: Ima Groinitch 7 August 2021
This is regarding this series of edits by Nightscream.
As hopefully all experienced editors already know, Wikipedia strongly favors WP:IS. If reliable, independent sources treat Crowder as a "news channel", let's see them, and we can summarize accordingly in context. Otherwise, gain consensus for the use of unreliable sources (like The Blaze) which have a vested interest in this for promotional filler. John Stossel is, superficially, a journalist, but his own youtube channel lacks clear editorial oversight and the necessary reputation for accuracy and fact-checking to be reliable. Just as importantly, this isn't page isn't a platform for PR, so cherry-picking obscure and flattering quotes to imply importance or legitimacy is unacceptable. Grayfell ( talk) 19:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Nightscream, I'm sorry, but you are taking this a bit too far, in terms of your claims about sources and the tone of your edit summaries. Drmies ( talk) 01:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not a comedian, no proof video print or otherwise that he has performed comedy. Most notably no stand-up, although really no comedy and not part of any affiliated comedic associations. 68.77.156.226 ( talk) 22:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As of current, the following text is incorporated into the lead:
In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were investigated over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs to describe journalist Carlos Maza. YouTube did not suspend the channel and said it did not violate the site's policies, but demonetized the account the following day, citing community guidelines. In August 2020, his channel was re-monetized after Crowder addressed his behavior and content.
It seems to me this is not notable enough for the lead and belongs in the body, where it is already elaborated on in detail. Should it remain, or should it be removed? Thanks, thorpewilliam ( talk) 03:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Crowder uses neither homophobic or racist language. This is emotive language designed to characterise Crowder as someone he is not. Not-PCwoke ( talk) 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Crowder recently ambushed by Sam Seder Cameron.l.tobias ( talk) 02:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. He had set up a civil dialogue with another YouTube commentator and in good faith expected to have a civil discussion. The other host, Ethan, had no intentions of acting in a mature manner and was not willing to dialogue with Crowder. Instead, Sam Seder was thrust in front of Crowder, and the dialogue between Ethan and Crowder was no longer possible. As this had violated the terms agreed to by both Crowder and Ethan, Steven terminated the call. Not-PCwoke ( talk) 05:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm Getting Heart Surgery... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp9w9qc27KQ 50.32.138.4 ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to say in Wikipedia's voice that "Crowder addressed his behavior and content"? The Business insider article cited to support that [1] doesn't itself say that he addressed his behavior and content, rather it just quotes YouTube's spokeswoman and official statements as saying that he did. Business insider doesn't say it except when quoting or paraphrasing Youtube. I think that it might be better to add a qualifier like "Youtube says Crowder addressed his behavior and content" or words to that effect which would be far more supported by the source we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMM12345 ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
References
I added a section on the Sam Seder incident and it was removed by User:Vaselineeeeeeee who suggested moving this to the Talk section, so I'm doing so now. This is a notable occurence as it was covered by Forbes, Newsweek and Insider. If you Google "Steven Crowder," the autofill "Steven Crowder Sam Seder" will show up, which shows that people are searching for this. NOT including this seriously limits the utility of this wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demosthenes2.0 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were put under review over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs against journalist Carlos Maza.[2][3][4] YouTube did not suspend the channel and said the channel did not violate the site's policies, but demonetized the account the following day, citing "a pattern of egregious actions [that] harmed the broader community".[5] In August 2020, his channel was re-monetized after YouTube said Crowder addressed his behavior and content.[6] In March 2021, his channel was once again demonetized after violating YouTube's presidential election integrity policy for questioning the legitimacy of election results.[7]
To: Crowder was born on July 7, 1987 in Detroit, Michigan. Crowder's mother was French Canadian, and at the age of 3, his family moved to the Montreal suburb of Greenfield Park, Quebec, Canada where he would live for the rest of his childhood.[8] Crowder attended Centennial Regional High School, and at the age of 18, he moved back to the United States.[9] Crowder attended two semesters at Champlain College in Burlington, Vermont.[10]
The first section being from the heading. As it is something from over 2 years ago, it has become mostly irrelevant as a heading. The situation is also explained in complete detail later on the page under the "career" tab. The suggested change is from the "early life" column, which provides only basic information and hardly warrants its own section. This suggested change would not only be universally relevant to the subject of the page, but it is also more in line with the typical headings from pages of this type. (See Barack Obama and Donald Trump) 2600:1007:B012:48B1:A102:53D8:FA0:6F53 ( talk) 03:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You have called crowder in this article a homophobe and racist with no evidence of that fact when he has shown the opposite so I request that it be changed accordingly. ChristianSmallz ( talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of the second paragraph of the introduction. I'm not against slimming it down a bit but complete removal would prevent the introduction serving as a valid summary of the whole article. If it is to be slimmed down then it needs to continue to reflect the overall nature of the events but become less of a blow by blow account. Any content and references removed from the introduction need to be moved into the body if they are not already present there (which they should be!). We do not want to lose any valid sources if this gets reduced. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is the 10,000th most significant event in Crowders life, the Maza story, at the top? Is is because it’s negative about him and you dislike him? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FactCheckExpert (
talk •
contribs) 05:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the second paragraph of the introduction. It clearly does not belong to be there.
Skcin7 (
talk) 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. FDW777 ( talk) 12:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Some people have a lot of patience and that is being abused here by constantly re-litigating long settled issues in a deliberate attempt to wear us down and waste our time. This has to stop. Blanking is a form of vandalism and if it continues then people can look forward to warning templates for vandalism. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused. I'm struggling to see anything wrong with the paragraph that keeps on getting removed. Sure, it might be possible to improve it but doesn't seem in any way bad to me. Probably I am missing something but surely it is not for us to be concerned with sparing Crowder's blushes or appeasing his fans. That does not fall into any genuine category of preventing "harm" and the fans will never be happy with us anyway. Well, not unless we entirely cleanse the article of all critical content which we can't do. Obviously, I must be missing something policy based here as people who are clearly not motivated to run PR for Crowder are agreeing with the removal. Is there a discussion going on elsewhere about this content? If so, please can somebody post a direct link to that? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
be suspicious of people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions(even if that insinuation isn't intentional). I became aware of this situation (as I explained at ANI) due to an old friend contacting me (as I'd been a Wikipedia admin for 10+ years) asking me my thoughts of Crowder's video. (My thoughts were that it was basically entirely wrong.) Naturally I also looked through Crowder's edits and the related pages... as I always have when Wikipedia is brought up in pop culture etc. I saw the dispute here, and simply said "well this is clearly disputed, and doesn't have clear consensus from the ongoing discussions for inclusion (at least as it is written)"... the normal course of action for years on this site in such cases (as ArbCom has stated) is to remove in lieu of consensus. Consensus in such matters doesn't take long to ascertain, but at BLPN that discussion has not yet ended. There isn't a need for battleground behavior about this (nor assumptions of bad faith); we all will interpret policy different. But even so, it's important to remember we're all here for the same reason: to produce a great information resource. But, clearly there's something that needs clarification in policy and likely from ArbCom about this entire matter, if this many people are reading the same policies in such different ways. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
"people who are clearly not motivated to run PR for Crowder"category. I admit that I have difficulty understanding why there is thought to be any need for detailed discussion of the paragraph in question as it seems like perfectly normal, valid and appropriate encyclopaedia content to me but I recognise that this view is not shared to some people and that they are discussing it in good faith. I do feel that we are being bounced into dancing to a tune set by propagandists and trolls, and I very strongly suspect that they are laughing at us for doing so, but I do recognise that people are dancing in good faith.
"people who show up here with, shall we say, implausibly charitable interpretations of his actions"I was talking about the endless succession of drive-by blankers, whitewashers and trolls who have been working away on this article for years to erase, minimise or otherwise spin the reliably documented facts about Crowder's actions. These sort of people do not normally engage in discussion beyond leaving the occasional abusive and/or counterfactual comment on the Talk page. Up until now I had assumed that they were all just Crowder fans who had stumbled on the article and didn't like what it said and, yes, I'm still perfectly sure that most of them were exactly that. The fact that we now have proof that at least a few of them were part of an organised meatpuppetry campaign puts a rather different spin on how we handle this article going forward. You say "we're all here for the same reason", and while that is true of the two of us and everybody else editing and discussing in good faith, that is obviously not true of the organised meatuppets. We need to keep an eye open for any more of this intentional bad faith editing. This will be hard. The bad faith editors will "hide their power level" to try to look like ordinary Crowder fans and, yes, we do have to start with an assumption of good faith in each case even though that makes a lot more work for us.
[ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@
Anastrophe: reverted my removal of the alma mater parameter
[2]. They agreed with my rationale that Crowder is a non-graduate and that his attendance at Champlain it's not significant to his notability, but they assert that this is a common infobox entry, and is objectively no less significant than his birthdate.
There's no doubt this a common entry, but it's only included if they graduated or it was significant to the individual life. See
Template:Infobox person; when describing the alma_mater parameter it says: It is usually not relevant to include either [education or alma mater] parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise, as perhaps at Bill Gates.
With no existing consensus for inclusion and not compelling reason to include this parameter, it should be removed in accordance with biographical norms. Anastrophe's argument that it's not less significant to his birthdate is not compelling because it's the standard across biographical arguments to include birthdate under all circumstances, no such standard exists with the alma mater parameter as shown by Template:Infobox person.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (
talk) 21:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The recently added material regarding Crowder's video related to fat studies, describes abusive comments in the video's comment section, and a representative of the institution that hosted the fat studies conference criticism of those comments. However, anyone with the faintest familiarity with YouTube knows that their comments are routinely cesspools of vitriol and abuse, on subjects as benign as CPU's. The representative's statement isn't about Crowder - only the comments, and the youtuber isn't responsible for what is posted there. Is that response appropriate to the BLP, since it's not directly about the subject? Anastrophe ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Steven Crowder has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Preferred pronoun is SHE 42069user69420 ( talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Why does the article say he has two children? He's stated repeatedly he has no children. In a recent episode he even talked at length about how he's afraid to ever have kids. https://twitter.com/drugcel/status/1618781646035243008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.26.219 ( talk) 16:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious how editors MrOllie and NorthBySouthBaranof can justify undoing my revision, and consistently seek to restore the hyperbolic language of a graduate student given how non-neutral it is. Please explain how graduate student Becca Lewis' language is consistent with the policy on neutral speech, as well as your actions in curating my good-faith attempts at making it more-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair points regarding NPOV vs. neutral speech. Now, please explain the veracity of the claim itself. You have afforded her the position of expert, and have not addressed that aspect again. Is it that you concede that point as untenable? The fact that Bloomberg runs it does not establish the veracity of the claim as such. We can agree that she said it because of Bloomberg's credibility. That by itself does not establish the veracity of the claim. For the record, I did not introduce the aspect of 'status'. Becca Lewis' status as an 'expert' was a claim made by others, to which I was responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs)
Is that to say then, you would have no issue with including the fact that she is a doctoral candidate while retaining her original quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you are conflating the sources here as well. Becca Lewis is the source of her own assertion, and is reported by Bloomberg. SHE is *their* source. (i.e. THE source). You yourself afforded her the status of Expert NorthBySouthBaranof in your original redaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is mostly on whether to include Lewis' comments. However, if they are included, there remains the question of whether it is accurate, given what we know (e.g. from Lewis' own website that includes her CV), to echo the Bloomberg article's misleading description of her as a "Stanford researcher". Adjunct instructors, laboratory technicians, assistants to faculty and other such positions at universities are often "researchers" in a sense, but it is nonetheless misleading to describe them as such especially in connection with a top institution like Stanford, implying a level of authority that is not there. A phrase like "graduate student researcher" that indicates Lewis' position when she made the remarks would be accurate. If that is considered overly WP:OR, the weight of the Lewis quote should be reduced, or some other phrase used that does not knowingly import the exaggeration by Bloomberg into the article. Sesquivalent ( talk) 06:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
the section discussing the dispute with the daily wire could be covered in a brief paragraph with a different section. the details of this bickering lacks encyclopedic value. thanks for keeping things up to date, Saintstephen000 ( talk) Saintstephen000 ( talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not versed well enough on applying for a semi protect, but I feel it's rather correct in light of the Crowders' divorce, that we brace for trolls and vandalism, so if somebody could apply for semi-protect of Crowder's article for like a month or two, that'd be very cool. Lafi90 ( talk) 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Does Crowder have some business with Candace Owens that should be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 00:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)