Talk:Vaush

Article makes no mention of his sexual harassment controversy

This article makes no mention of what is arguably Vaush's most important controversy: He has sexually harassed people online in the past and had to rebrand and change names to avoid the fallout. Given there is a section dedicated to his controversies, this should be at the top. Anything else is dishonesty. This 100% happened and Vaush has acknowledged wrongdoing, there is record of this. 2601:CF:80:5220:6DDF:6FCB:83ED:6EDE (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources of this if we are even to discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWv33d5jyKY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_1nOZoYyRs

This is just the two videos I saw when searching "Vaush sexual harassment" on YouTube.

The first is him acknowledging the scandal, the second is another user's investigation. There are many of these videos. 24.98.136.4 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. Please see WP:BLPRS SKAG123 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The instance, where there were reciprical sextings which never went onto being irl stuff is in no way in line with sexual harassment. He was angry following a break up, that is normal. Not to mention that vaush constantly repeats the actkons were bad personally but not sexual assault which id agree with (https://x.com/VaushV/status/1489660079691341825?s=20)

Going through every one who does say he did commit sexual harrasment, theres a common element. None of them show chat logs, none of them accurately describe or know what happened, and many, such as bad empanada, are known for frequently spreading misinformation about people (and acknowledging they actively lie about people they dont like by tefering to them as pedophiles as in the case of badempanada). This query deserves no real attention and I'd hazard to say the original poster has little to no knowledge of the real events that occured. Varjagen (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Tweets even by the person, are not reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:RS for acceptable sources. SKAG123 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE

these are all HIS OWN videos, this is enough proof, unlock the article 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The dude's on the left, therefore WP:BLP actually applies to him.

You clearly don't know how things work here. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not empowered to edit a Wikipedia page... But here is a legitimate written source of many of his scandals

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/popular-youtuber-vaush-history-apologizing-pedophilia-child-pornography-immoral

If someone who is empowered wants to use it it does not cover the more recent controversy.

I think Wikipedia might need to seriously rethink why written media is required when there is a huge shift from people leaving written media where there's very little jobs and profit and going to podcasting or video creation.

Strange to me that we can't have some trusted verifiable methods using video or podcast sourcing since those are growth areas and written news is basically dying.

There's not even a local newspaper around my house anymore, and the local dailies have been gutted. Political outlets like the young Turks stop doing news gathering because it wasn't profitable. These streamers are influential but if we're going to rely on mediums that are not really used by anyone under the age of 25 then the articles were getting are going to reflect that bias.

This is a great example of an article that is missing basically all of the relevant controversies missing. This particular person is way more famous for his controversies than he is anything else he has done. 2601:18E:4101:9110:618F:4125:4FFA:3DB4 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if Evie Magazine is a reliable source (which I'm not sure that it is), per WP:BLP: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Also, Wikipedia doesn't require that sources be written media, it only requires that they be independent reliable sources. Written media just happens to be the most readily available and convenient (and often the highest quality). YouTubers and Streamers are not reliable sources in general, they can say whatever they want without any accountability, without policies on fact-checking or issuing corrections etc. Shapeyness (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Missing Controversies

This article is suspiciously devoid of any of the numerous controversies Ian has been involved in. He's a political steamer, like every other he has controversies.

Notably absent is the recent revalation that he apparently keeps files depicting acts of beastiality when he accidentally broadcast the contents of one of his computer's folders on stream. 2605:59C8:2052:6F00:D08:5D2A:3129:C3A3 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

100% a controversy section is way overdue 2804:14D:7E85:4AC4:69DA:5E5C:D23C:D5FA (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Any controversies need to be supported by reliable sources, given due weight for a WP:BLP. It's not that his controversies have been suspiciously omitted, it's that they haven't made news. SWinxy (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sky blue, they are literally just fqctual. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

“I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal.” Can’t we just use his own videos as the source? 2804:7F0:A085:D6A8:1070:F2D0:4D38:DA8D (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if it was Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder… 177.41.193.135 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine that reliable sources will cover L0LIGATE, if they haven't already. But it's best to avoid a WP:CSECTION, so I'd recommend adding a summary of that scandal to #Personal life. El_C 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Letdown101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Lib twitter will do it's darndest to keep these off the page despite Vaush's myriad statements concerning these topics. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:B4F2:4445:DFBC:C11E (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing controversy and why did his school change

I recall seeing polytech as his education and why are mentions of loli, horse, and sexual harassment and political controversy not mentioned. 2601:1C2:1B7F:6C30:7061:202D:339F:7B40 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No sources means no content, as it has always been. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need a source to prove that the sky is blue. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No, but we need sources for someone's education and any controversies they may have been involved in. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said independent reliable sources. If no one is writing articles about this issue, it is not an issue we include in the article. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Is writing about it because it's not a particularly popular medium these days. It has been covered incredibly thoroughly by creators on YouTube who are just as thorough and not more thorough than someone writing for the daily beast or something

There's even first party evidence from vaush his own channel of him.The New York times is not going to cover the fact that he got caught with Loli. But it's verifiable with our own eyes because he was on the air when he did it, he admitted to it and he apologized for it

He wouldn't even dispute its factual nature, he might dispute what it means or whether or not it was intentional etc... But it's just an undisputed fact that he was on the air streaming and got caught with images of horses and drawn children. 2601:18E:4101:9110:618F:4125:4FFA:3DB4 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

But again that's literally an indisputable fact that he did move schools. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case then you should be able to find a source that corroborates it. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've always wondered why YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, particularly on articles involving YouTubers. It just makes no sense to me. George Mucus (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Very often user-generated and not prone to editorial oversight. Anyone can say anything in a YouTube video without it necessarily being true. It's not much different than referencing a blog post. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

YouTubers are still people; the bar for what can be accepted shouldn't be lowered because of their career choice. SWinxy (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:REDSKY Googleguy007 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple videos and discord messages of VAUSH HIMSELF saying he finds horses sexually attractive, thinks child porn should be legal to possess, and thinks sexual relationships with children are okay. How is this not proof enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCFQuui2iIY 2605:A601:AC1D:F000:B49E:BFDF:5B07:320C (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We need independent (and reliable) sources for verification; if someone says something and no one cares, it is not a controversy, similar to how if a tree falls in a forest (etc). Primefac (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that there are multiple threads about this is, in fact, proof that people care. 2603:6010:3001:9B00:A4E6:CE1D:E5BC:6E05 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Article Neutrality and Missing Events

Many of the sources of this article come from left-leaning news sites that share Vaush's point of view. The article also calls right-wing content "radicalization".

Many of his controversies aren't mentioned. Vaush has been outed in the past for sexual harassment, advocacy in favour of child pornography, racism, anti-antisemitism, and his possession of lolicon and beastiality. Cimmaron1 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Read every other damn thread on this talk page. Without WP:RS we cannot add content. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) Letdown101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am giving you these two articles for you to personally assess the reliability of those sources. Not for Wikipedia to assess, just you personally. —Maximum Walruses (Talk) 16:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

He opened a folder of CSAM and bestiality images on stream, and then proceeded to attempt to explain why he had them for the next week. How is that not proof? Do you intend on replying to Maximum Walruses? 120.154.136.100 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

He's pretty open about his love for horses, it's literally his twitter profile 86.9.5.164 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Discussion of adding the content first requires finding a (or several) reliable sources covering it. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to the content to the article, please provide reliable sources covering the controversies you just said. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Missing controversies

Vaush has many missing controversies, all of which have been pointed out numerous times in this thread. How about instead of complaining of a ‘lack of sources’ the Wikipedia editors actually start doing some editing and researching? That way you can at least pretend you aren’t trying to keep this page clean from (Redacted) rumours for some bizarre reason. 120.154.136.100 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of those who want to add the sources to find the sources. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024

Has obsession with having sex with horses. Calls everyone Nazis. 146.168.42.180 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Vaush'

The current IPA pronunciation listed is /vɔːʃ/. What is up for contention is the vowel. The vowel in the current IPA transcription is a long open-mid back rounded vowel, /ɔː/, which is the non-rhotic "or" sound, or "law" in RP. I disagree with this vowel being the IPA transcription, and shall explain.

Here is the IPA vowel chart with audio to listen to how the vowels sound (note, there are differences within accents);

IPA: Vowels

	Front	Central	Back
Close	i y	ɨ ʉ	ɯ u
Near-close	ɪ ʏ		ʊ
Close-mid	e ø	ɘ ɵ	ɤ o
Mid	e̞ ø̞	ə	ɤ̞ o̞
Open-mid	ɛ œ	ɜ ɞ	ʌ ɔ
Near-open	æ	ɐ
Open	a ɶ	ä	ɑ ɒ

---

• IPA help
• audio help
• full chart
• template

Legend: unrounded • rounded

First, the vowel in 'Vaush' is definitely a rounded vowel, so there's not really a dispute there. It is also a long vowel, which should be noted when evaluating the vowel.

There a few (non-joke) options for the vowel which I shall list, then evaluate each in turn.

option 1: /ɔː/, the current transcription, non-rhotic "or" sound, or "law" in RP. Ipa transliteration is "vorsh".

option 2: /ɒː/, as in "thought" but long (with the low back merger, without the merger "thought" is /ɔː/)

option 3: /ɒ̃ː/, as in "en passant" (but long), in RP

Option 1 (current IPA transcription): first, the pronunciation of "vorsh" is used as a joking spelling of a mispronunciation within the community; this is the pronunciation used by creators such as, Carl Benjamin, and is noticably different from the pronunciation used by Vaush himself and the pronunciation in the article. If you say "vaush" in the correct way, you can feel with your tongue that the vowel is an open vowel, rather than an open-mid vowel.

Option 2 vs Option 3: The distinction between these is nasalization. You can tell that the vowel isn't nasal, because if you do it then hold your nose the vowel sound remains the same.

So I think it should be /vɒːʃ/.

I'm I was making this an RfC, so; here are the RfC options. Feel free to add more if the IPA transcription you support isn't listed.

option 1: /ɔː/

option 2: /ɒː/

option 3: /ɒ̃ː/

A Socialist Trans Girl 04:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC tag - there has been little in the way of previous discussion, and we don't need all and sundry giving opinions when likely the folks watching this page will be able to make a well-informed opinion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How about including both? I haven't listened to the examples you cited, but if both are common pronounciations, both should stay.

The IPA is definitely necessary since I first thought the name was pronounced /vɐoʃ/. and I don't think the vowel is nasalized, at least for my ears. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

IPA symbols enclosed in slashes, and even some in square brackets, don't mean the corresponding sounds on the IPA chart. Read Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad; phonemic versus phonetic and Phoneme.

As explained in Help:IPA/English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, the type of notation {{IPAc-en}} outputs is diaphonemic, and /ɔː/ means "whatever is the vowel in thought". That means the same as the vowel in lot if you have the cot–caught merger. But as long as those without the merger pronounce it with the vowel in thought (be it [ɒ], [ɔ], [o], or whatever, and however long), /ɔː/ is the right one to use in the diaphonemic system. (And that includes if whoever is our source has the merger. If someone with an RP-like accent introduces themself as [ˈɹɒbət], nobody who has a GA-like accent is going to call them [ˈɹɒbət]—they'll just call them [ˈɹɑbɚt]. So we transcribe any Robert as /ˈrɒbərt/, whatever their accent.) Nardog (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog I think there's a distinction to be made between your example with 'Robert' and this instance; 'Vaush' isn't a generic name, It's a specific name of the content creator, not necessarily using established english phonetic structure. Additionally, it's quite important to note that the name 'Vaush' is not of english origin, but is instead derived from a corruption of German. Because of these things, I believe that the pronunciation made up/decided by Vaush himself is the one which should be used; that being the long open back rounded vowel, rather than 'whatever is the vowel in thought in your respective accent'. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

[ɒː] is the vowel in thought in Vaush's accent. But "vɒːʃ" doesn't help others pronounce it in their own accents. Every language has a finite number of groups of sounds that can occur, and most people aren't going to be able to accurately produce [vɒːʃ] on command. Nor do people try to imitate the exact qualities of sounds when repeating a word they just heard; they just map them onto the available sounds in their own accents. That's why the vast majority of dictionaries out there and the tens of thousands of articles using {{IPAc-en}} use phonemic transcription. I don't see why this article should be an exception. Nardog (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nardog Well I don't think that "ɔː" helps to pronounce it correctly. It should also be noted that "ɔː" looks like a frown face.

The closest transcription using sounds found in accents like RP would be like the "o" sound in "not", rather than "law". So I think the most accurate would be to have the general IPA transcription of ɒː, then say "the vowel is like "o" in "hot" in RP, or the "ough" in "thought" with the cot-caught merger. Then that'll be the most helpful with helping readers to pronounce it. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to raise the dead or anything, but I would like to point out that the pronunciation in the article is definitely a short vowel, and, to me, sounds like [vɔʃ]. –Konanen (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Vowel length is not contrastive in English except for a few combinations in some accents, and besides it's obviously impossible to tell from just one syllable. Nardog (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is not contrastive, then it should not be part of the /phonemic/ transcription. –Konanen (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, the discussion isn't dead.

Could you please elaborate on your position? A Socialist Trans Girl 06:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Vaush be added into the categories of "American anti-capitalists" and or "American anti-communists."

That is all. NesserWiki (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

American anti-capitalists? Yep. American anti-communists? That would be very strange considering he is one (self-described). A Socialist Trans Girl 09:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No reliable source describes Vaush as an anti-communist. Adding the latter would be against WP:CATV. Yue🌙 19:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't fully sure how Vaush classified himself. NesserWiki (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is due for a major overhaul

Hello, other editors. I saw this page is semi-protected so I won't edit it, but I have some important points to raise nonetheless.

As other users have pointed out, Vaush has been subject to numerous controversies, including very recently.

Many editors have shot down including these controversies here on the grounds their sources violate WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. As far as I understand this prohibits Tweets, YouTube Videos, and Livestream clips — especially those that are self-published.

I'm not here to challenge Wikipedia's sourcing rules. I'm only here to say that these rules should be applied consistently, as several references present in this article violate those rules.

My main problem is that this article employs YouTube videos and Tweets to boltser Kochinski's perspective, giving this article an unfair pro-Kockinski bent and promoting his content. It's frankly hypocritical that this page will not employ these same kinds of sources when covering the subject's numerous controversies.

Below are the bad references I found at the time of publishing this and the problems they have. These references should be substituted, and if that can't be done, the information held up by said references should be removed.

1: I recommend replacing it with the Social Blade or another similar site instead of linking it to his YouTube Channel.

4: This is just a one-sentence write up from an organization the article's subject was involved with. Why is this here? Of what value is this? It links to nowhere else. Just delete it.

6: I understand this is pretty benign info, and is most likely okay under Wikipedia's rules, but it's still a Tweet and comes off as promotional.

7: If YouTube videos are unreliable sources, then this YouTube video shouldn't be relied on to establish the facts of his early life. It also falls under the premise of being self-published.

11: This is another self-published YouTube video, with a pretty hyperbolic headline. This shouldn't be used as a source, even for info as benign as ethnic heritage. There has to be a better source for this.

24: Why is a Tweet the only source for how much money was raised for charity? Unlike birthdays or ethnicity, this is not very benign info.

30 & 34: Both of these are YouTube videos of Kochinski spinning controversies he was involved in. If YouTube videos are not reliable sources for controversies/online drama, then these should be removed. Similar videos from this creator have shot down by other editors as sources for drama.

If it is decided these above videos should be kept, then other YouTube videos be used as sources for other drama, no?

37 & 42: These are also YouTube videos where the subject is interviewed, so they might also be problematic and violate Wikipedia's rules around sourcing, but I'm not sure.

-- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The version being discussed is this one in case any changes are made (link)

• 1: tbh I would propably remove this altogether per WP:YTLINKS
• 4: I agree this should be removed, clearly not an independent source
• 6: This one is fine (see WP:ABOUTSELF)
• 7 & 11: Also covered by ABOUTSELF but I wouldn't necessarily care too much if these bits were removed, especially 11
• 24: agree this tweet should be removed, the other source works fine here anyway and we don't need an exact amount of money raised
• 30 & 34: arguably ABOUTSELF for his own opinions - it doesn't follow that if this is allowed, any random drama video on YouTube is ok to use
• 37: he is being interviewed by a prominent journalist here, there's no rule against using interviews
• 42: ok per ABOUTSELF, I'm neutral on whether we should keep this

Just my thoughts on these, I also won't make any changes in case others disagree. Shapeyness (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

In regards to your response I have no objections or disagreements with your points on references 1, 4, 6, 24, 37, and 42. In regards to refs 7 & 11, I neither agree nor disagree, so my mind isn't changed on them. I suspect we'll talk more about those later. I'll be back on refs 30 & 34 in a little while. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I’m back to elaborate on my issues with references 30 & 34. I don’t think I was clear enough on what I saw wrong with them. In my view, these references are the most egregious here. First, let me establish what is already known.

For the last 6+ months, users argued for adding sections on Kochinski’s recent scandals. As of writing this, these scandals have not broken out into journalism, only reaching various drama and politically-oriented YouTube channels and social media accounts. Incoming users have argued employing these sources, including videos from Kochinski’s YouTube channel where he talks about his scandals/statements, as potential sources in this article. More experienced Wikipedians have shot down these on the premise they violate Wikipedia sourcing rules.

This includes you who said: “YouTubers and Streamers are not reliable sources in general, they can say whatever they want without any accountability, without policies on fact-checking or issuing corrections etc.” -You, May 10, 2024, in “Article makes no mention of his sexual harassment controversy”.

This gets me to my point. References 30 & 34 are videos of Kochinski going over scandals he has been entwined in. Both sources are directly quoted in this article. If these are ok in this article, then other videos from him about his scandals should also be ok to use as sources and quote here. Ergo, if using videos from him about his scandals are ok, at least some other videos going over the scandals should be ok too.

However, keeping these sources on their own makes this article look hypocritical. Wikipedia looks willing to allow Kochinski to respond when he’s dealing with earlier/less impactful scandals and thus biasing this article in his favor.

Do you understand my point? -- Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I get the point you're making, but there are a number of issues at play here.

Firstly, WP:SELFPUB says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". The only exception is ABOUTSELF. There is a substantive difference between using Kochinski as a source of information about himself, and using other random YouTubers as sources in a biography of a living person. This is entirely consistent with saying YouTubers are not reliable sources in general.

Secondly, using Kochinski as a source of information about himself can be ok in certain circumstances, but should not be overused. In particular, we don't want to give undue weight to unencyclopedic topics, or to allow Kochinski's views to dictate the way we write the article. Sources 30 & 34 are only being used to expand on subjects already covered by independent reliable sources. I don't think we should go beyond this even if we could use Kochinski as a reliable source about some of his other opinions not already included in the article.

Furthermore, many of the things that others have pushed to include on this page are pretty major accusations. Therefore, the need for third-party sources is explicitly required by WP:BLP: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Shapeyness (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Then, I don't see why this Wikipedia page needs references 30 & 34 or what the information they supposedly provide. Given that the events were covered by independent reliable sources, including the videos and quoting them seems unnecessary. Kochinski's videos are not independent of himself, and the opinions expressed in them are not basic life facts like his date of birth, instead his perspectives on his drama/scandals. They should not be treated as reliable or trustworthy. For these reasons, they should be removed. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at reference 34, it is used to support that he later renounced his statements. Why would this not be an appropriate use of the reference? For what it's worth I don't think the quote is strictly necessary, but indicating that he later recanted is useful to have in the article, and reference 34 provides the evidence for that. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

25: This is something I noticed after posting this, but this reference has the incorrect publisher listed. It has "Vox" instead of "Kotaku." As far as I know this media org isn't owned by Vox. Even if it was, I'd imagine it'd still be listed. Someone who can needs to get on that asap. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed that one and removed the tweet (24 above). Shapeyness (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF covers most of these, but you raise some good points that have improved the article.

• Ref 1 is populated by Template:Infobox YouTube personality; sub counts are fine to cite YouTube.
• FFF and VPR should probably be removed; an un-bylined blurb is something to avoid in the lead, and VPR is WP:RSSM and doesn't appear to support the claim. I'd rather we remove "who debates and discusses politics online from a libertarian socialist perspective" entirely.
• The birthdate tweet is completely fine, per ABOUTSELF, and same for the video mentioning himself growing up in Beverly Hills.
• We don't normally include ethnic heritage, so I think this should also be removed for being largely contextless and irrelevant. But that it has a hyperbolic title or self published isn't a problem.
• The fundraiser total was closer to $300k than $200k, but ABOUTSELF draws a line on self-serving claims, which this falls under. Round it down to $200k because Kotaku says it, as done by Shapyness. (Kotaku is published by Vox Media; no idea how it was mistakenly attributed to Vox.)
• No opinion on the Political views section. More secondary sources are needed in any case.

I'll make the two changes (libsoc & ethnicity). SWinxy (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)