Talk:Steven Crowder

Sexual harassment of male employees

Why are the allegations, widely covered in political and tech media, not acknowledged in this entry? Why does it seem that American far-right media people have the most whitewashed pages on Wikipedia? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody has tried to add anything to the article regarding any such allegations. Nobody seems to have discussed them on this talk page. Hard to see where any 'whitewashing' could have taken place.

Read WP:BLP and WP:RS carefully, and if you think the sources justify content, propose it here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article is not particularly whitewashed. It just has to maintain a neutral point of view. We do have a fairly regular problem with Crowder's fans coming along any trying to whitewash the article but that normally gets reverted pretty quickly. Anyway, I wasn't aware of these particular allegations. I've done a bit of Google News searching and it seems to be pretty new. In fact, it seems that there are two news items about him at the moment which might merit inclusion if we can find sufficient RS sources for them. The trouble is that, at a first glance, I'm mostly seeing sources that we can't use:

1. He is alleged to have flashed at, and sent unsolicited dick pics to, male colleagues. I see mostly non-RS coverage but maybe this is usable?
2. His divorce seems to be getting nasty, with him apparently requesting sole custody of the one year old twins. This is in the Daily Mail and the NY Post, which we can't use. I did find this, which might be something. It does mention there being a "gag order" so I'm not sure what affect this has on us being able to include it.

Does anybody have any more/better sources? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the NY Mag source is that it is simply reporting on what the NY Post is reporting. Miner Editor (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

We should monitor RS developments of this issue. I imagine if former employees are beginning to allege abuse then it will be covered in various RS. At that point it would be due weight. We are not there quite yet. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice to see an accusation that we are biased on behalf of the right, that makes a refreshing change. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I created a new "Controversies" subsection. If you have reliable sources, feel free to add on to it. B3251 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the merits in this specific case, we should generally be cautious about "controversy" sections. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Any “controversies” should be introduced naturally into the prose. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it to the prose in that case. Thanks, and noted. 👍 B3251 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg poll incident

I'm not sure why this is being referred to as a "claim" as I have already provided an archived link to the tweet, but the lack of significant coverage surrounding Steven Crowder creating a poll in 2019 that included "slutty Greta Thunberg" when she was 16 years old, with the only reporting outlet being The Daily Dot, can easily be explained due to Crowder deleting the tweet shortly after. The archived tweet shows replies criticizing Crowder right after he tweeted the poll. I feel like the archived link to the tweet should provide enough to treat this as more than just a "claim". Pinging iamreallygoodatcheckers. B3251 (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@B3251: You added this sentence to the end of the second paragraph of the lead: In late 2019, Crowder faced backlash for creating a Twitter poll suggesting different Halloween costumes, with one of the options being "slutty Greta Thunberg," who was 16 years old at the time. You sourced it to The Daily Dot.

There are several issues with the content. Firstly, it's poorly sourced. The Daily Dot has questionable reliability (see WP:RSP) and should not be used for contentious claims like this unless attributed. The Daily Dot is not sufficiently establish weight for inclusion. I did a Google search for this topic and I was able to find no other secondary reliable source coverage for this situation. For these reasons, I believe the claim lacks weight in general in this article, especially not due in the lead where it was placed. Furthermore, it's possible that the whole situation could fall under WP:NOTNEWS.

I would like to add here that the lack of coverage because the tweet was deleted quickly is not an argument that holds water. Wikipedia is not supposed to right great wrongs. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

What's the opposite of damning with faint praise? Praising with faint controversies? Considering all the many heinous and well-documented controversies Crowder has been involved with, including this in the lead seems a bit silly. The Daily Dot could potentially be reliable in this instance, since I don't think this qualifies as a contentious claim. Is anyone doubting for a second that Crowder would try a stunt like this? It just doesn't seem even remotely implausible or extraordinary. The problem is that it doesn't appear to matter. The source, such as it is, doesn't indicate why this one incident among many is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A close reading of The Daily Dot article doesn't even unequivocally establish that the Tweet existed. It uses words such as "allegedly suggested" and "Crowder reportedly posted". This question the verifiability of the tweet and makes me think that little actual investigation was done by The Daily Dot to confirm the tweets existence. Even if it did exist, it's unknown the specific phrasing. The lack of any other sourcing is not helping the verifiability concerns. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 17:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The text you wanted to add: In late 2019, Crowder faced backlash for creating a Twitter poll suggesting different Halloween costumes, with one of the options being "slutty Greta Thunberg," who was 16 years old at the time.. But the only "backlash" the source documents is from a number of Twitter users who saw the original Tweet. When I think of a "backlash" I think of activity outside the Twitterverse, and that is not documented in this case. The lead section of articles is for the most important aspects about the subject, and even if the nature of this "backlash" was clarified, this does not qualify for inclusion due to a lack of WP:WEIGHT. This is why we require reliable sources, not because we don't trust lesser sources with matters of fact, but we can't trust sources like the Daily Dot with how those matters of fact are described and contextualized. Miner Editor (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this is poorly sourced, and there's no indication of notability of incident. I strongly suggest that you do not re-add the content again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 changes

The reason for the revert was explained and all the rest is just time-wasting.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you look at edit history, people reverted my edits for no reason, can someday fix this? 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) somebody 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) The cited sources are clear - he was investigated and then had his channel demonetized for the use of racist and homophobic slurs. You were reverted because you removed that information, which made the Wikipedia article worse. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) I can't see a case for removing that info, or replacing it with the less-informative "violating YouTube's hate speech policy". I'm not opposed to describing Crowder as "conservative", and I can't recall if we've talked about that before. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Whether or not something is a slur depends partly on how it is used. The CP in NAACP stands for "colored people". That does not mean that it is not also used as a slur; which is why Rep. Crane apologized last month for using the term on the floor of Congress. Just because queer is in LGBTQ+ doesn't mean it is not used as a slur. Some blacks use the N-word in an attempt to take ownership of a vile slur. The use of the included words used by Crowder were clear slurs, even without the need for the included citations. As far as your edit summaries, please read WP:CIV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Some blacks use the n-word to take ownership? Bro black people pronounce the n word differently. They say n**ga instead of n***er. Also Crowder didn't say racist slurs, he called Maza a Mexican? How is that a slur? Maybe he thought Maza was a Mexican, how do you know he intended to be racist when he called him a queer Mexican. Because most Mexicans aren't queer so maybe he thought that was strange to see a LGBTQ Mexican but he didn't intend to be racist when he said Mexican, it was just weird to see a queer Mexican for crowder. Also the word Mexican isn't a racist slur, so crowder literally said no racist slur. No racist slurs 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia follows the cited sources, and they are quite clear about this. That you don't personally think they were slurs is immaterial. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) If you read the sources linked, Maza was complaining to YouTube that he was being harassed by crowder due to his bigotry. And he said Crowder definitely violated YouTube's bullying policy, YouTube was investigating crowder mainly for bullying and harassment. YouTube knew crowder didn't violate hate speech because YouTube is literally extremly quick to remove that type of content. If crowder was hate speech, his content would've gotten removed without investigating. YouTube was looking into the harassment Maza was receiving due to Crowder. So instead of saying YouTube was investigating slurs, it should say YouTube was investigating bullying and harassment due to Crowder. 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) And once again, crowder used no racist slurs, the word Mexican isn't a slur. Most of the articles said Maza was being harassed due to homophobia and racism, maybe one of the articles says he used racist slurs but that article is clearly misleading. Why let one misleading article ruin the whole page when other pages' say something totally different. YouTube was investigating crowder due to harassment not hate speech 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC) And someone claimed I ruined the page or made it worse due to a small edit on a long article that corrects misinformation. How is Changing a few words and adding like 1 extra sentence ruining a massively long article, literally makes no sense. And it literally makes no sense why you care so much about keeping misinformation in a Wikipedia article? Why are you guys even on Wikipedia when the point of Wikipedia is to educate people but you don't care at all about misinformation. 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) To quote Time.com: homophobic and racist slurs targeting another video maker - this is obviously not 'misinformation'. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Is that even a source linked in this article, if so most sources say otherwise. This is quoted from the Washington post one of the sources linked in this article "Carlos Maza, a video producer for the news site Vox, said the harassment began about two years ago. Steven Crowder, a right-wing commentator and comedian, had begun to call out Maza’s sexuality and his race — Maza is gay and Latino — in some of his videos on YouTube." So one of the sources claimed he was being harassed but there were no "racist slurs" Here's another quote from Washington post "And last week, Maza said, he finally grew sick of it. He edited a video of all the epithets that Crowder hurled at him over the last couple of years into a video and uploaded it to Twitter." So basically like I said, Carlos maza said he was tired of being harassed because of Crowder's bigoted insults, and he said that on Twitter. He was being harassed. YouTube wasn't investigating hate speech, the were investigating harassment because of Crowder's hate speech, YouTube knew they weren't going to take down Crowder's video because of hate speech, because if it was violated their hate speech policy, someone would of reported Crowder's content on YouTube and YouTube would've removed it in the very beginning before Maza complained. They were investigating harassment why should we have misinformation in this Wikipedia article just because one bad journalist said he said racist slurs. The word 'Mexican" isn't a slur and I still don't think queer is really a gay slur anymore. Crowder only said the f-slur which is one slur. One slur, not multiple. 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Your quotes don't contradict what's in the article. You can look at the sourcing list yourself - next time I suggest you do this before attempting to remove parts of the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) But I already explained the word Mexican isn't a slur. No racist slurs. Why does my quotes from sources have to deny another article that says that it's a slur. The article that says Mexican is a slur obviously contains false information. Why are you even on Wikipedia if you don't care about misinformation. If that misleading source is linked in this article, it should be removed. and my edit should be added back because crowder didn't say any racist slurs. Only one homophobic slur. The word queer isn't a slur anymore, he said the f-slur. Why does this have to be a hours long discussion. Why can't you just see that misinformation in Wikipedia is bad and remove it and allow my edit back. 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) I literally proved Maza was complaining to YouTube that he was being harassed due to me quoting Washington post. YouTube was investigating bullying and harassment. And crowder saying racist slurs makes no sense because Mexican isn't a slur. So like I said. Maza was being harassed, and crowder didn't say racist slurs. What's there to deny what I'm saying 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) You apparently care a lot about Wikipedia, you have many edits, You care about the rules of this website because you got mad I broke the "no edit war rule" but you don't care about the reason why Wikipedia exists, to educate people. I know you don't care about educationing people because you allow misinformation on this article. Why? 2607:FB91:934:1A06:E0E6:3BFF:FED1:D4C5 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) One of the ways we ensure Wikipedia educates people is by following the sources, not our personal opinions of what is and is not a slur. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) That's exactly what I'm doing. The Washington post says maza was harassed by crowder, and that Maza was complaining to YouTube on Twitter. I'm literally trying to follow a source and I'm trying to ignore one bad source who falsely claims crowder says racist slurs, because from what I've seen in the Washington post, they only mentioned crowder being racist when he calls Maza a Mexican. Also why did you link "no original research", I literally didn't have to research anything to know that Mexican isn't a slur, let me look up the definition of a racist slur to make sure. 2607:FB91:945:6541:30C5:1EFF:FEE9:60BC (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Video of "f*cking watch it"

In the video, Crowder yelled at Hilary for failing to perform her "wifely duties" and told her to "fucking watch it" when Hilary accused Crowder of "abuse".

Can we get a link to the video with him telling her to "fucking watch it"? If not, that part of the sentence should be rephrased. Maybe something like:

In the video, Crowder scolded Hilary for failing to perform her "wifely duties". According to Ali, but not seen in the video, Crowder became angry and told her to "fucking watch it" when Hilary accused Crowder of "abuse". 2607:FB91:F09:CAF8:B579:EF31:33C9:488A (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The news publication is a valid source and should already be and is already enough, but if that still doesn't convince you for some reason, here's a video regarding the incident. B3251 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. I saw the video. There's no audio of him telling her to "fucking watch it" in that video. That is text written on top of the video, and that text is sourced to Ali. Thus my suggested rephrase:

In the video, Crowder scolded Hilary for failing to perform her "wifely duties". According to Ali, but not seen in the video, Crowder became angry and told her to "fucking watch it" when Hilary accused Crowder of "abuse".

Ali's text is the source of the quote. It isn't in the video. As currently written in Wikipedia, it is misleading. Lots of people think that part is in the video, but as far as I can tell, audio of Crowder's voice saying "fucking watch it" hasn't been released publicly. 2607:FB91:F09:CAF8:FDB9:13D4:3CDA:1D2B (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It's... literally... in the video...

Just because the part where he said "fucking" in "fucking watch it" is censored doesn't mean it didn't happen, given the fact that there's reliable sources that note him saying "fucking watch it". B3251 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• He says "fucking watch it" at 1:55[1], you can easily hear his voice, there's no interpretation needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Whistleblowing

WP:NOTFORUM. We do not base content on contributors personal analysis, and accordingly, this has no place here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added details regarding Crowder's new activities as a leaker of withheld government documents, known as whistleblowing. I added because of the major breaking news that releasing the documents was, at the time, and because Crowder has continued attempting to collect insider documents from other whistleblowers, sine this first event. It took about 18 hours before somebody reverted, with an explanation: "Ungrammatical, improperly sourced and not obviously noteworthy anyway" This strikes me as the description that I might write, if I simply didn't like the information that was written. (lol) Moreover, the incident apparently is noteworthy enough to have its own section on the incident's page, titled "leaks." So if it IS significant enough to include Crowder's name on that page, is it not correct to be documented on his actual page? It strikes me that it might be more appropriate to consolidate this information here, and not there. This is almost as silly as documenting Crowder's activity on the victim's wiki page. Does that seem correct? Crowder is now a whistleblower, who leaked sensitive government documents, and got away with it. An activity which he now engages in actively, via what he calls "mug club under cover." His supporters/donors have now reportedly (according to him) donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to him, to support these activities. This on its face is obviously noteworthy, and honestly, deserves much more expansion than the tidbit I started. The source I selected for this particular paragraph is Crowder's words, from his own show. Where he showed the photos of the manifesto that he leaked. If that's not enough/correct sourcing, so be it - but "not obviously noteworthy anyway" ? ArmandTreshi (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Noteworthy things are taken note of in sources unconnected with the subject. Find some, and we can have a conversation about whether it merits inclusion in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) References 44 and 45 from the incident's wiki. Apologies for not knowing how to better copy/paste/link this stuff yet! https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting#cite_note-CNNLeak-47 https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting#cite_ref-48 ArmandTreshi (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Neither source refers to Crowder as a 'whistleblower'. They say absolutely nothing about Crowder collecting documents from anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) That is true - those sources do not use the word whistleblower, nor reveal much detail at all. They don't even describe the details of the 3 pages that Crowder released. We know the details of the three pages, because they were released by Crowder, in the youtube link originally provided. You now seem to have 3 different points - the noteworthiness, the "whistleblower" wording, and also the specifics of how Crowder collected the documents. Crowder has not released details of how he received the information. He did not say whether he received, for example, text messages, emails, or hard-copy prints of the photos. We don't know that exact mechanism. However, in the referenced episode of Crowder's show, he explained that a member of the Nashville PD contacted him with the material. He then published them. In the YouTube link originally referenced. We also now know, that the police department conducted investigations of this matter src. In this investigation, they confirmed publicly that the 3 photos specifically published by Crowder were legitimate. I don't have an external source for this, but the police department investigation did not reveal the identity of the leaker. Crowder boasts about it on every show - his informant was not caught. Literally since this incident, he has ramped up the whistleblowing activity and become a full scale informant operation. Nashville PD admits that they didn't catch the actual leaker, this is fact, I just don't have an external source to cite. The two additional links I reference in previous post validate that indeed <this, is, that> and that the situation is noteworthy. If one doesn't agree with the whistleblower wording, that's fine - it is also considered a leak, very technically. The unnamed source of the photos is most technically a whistleblower. Crowder has gone on to begin full scale whistleblowing operations after this event - but, not really the main detail of this whole story. Lol I would encourage browsing whistleblowing and other noteworthy whistleblowers, like Snowden. This might help in understanding how Crowder's actions are "whistleblowing." Final fun fact: the very original video on Nov 6 where Crowder conducted the leak, is not available on youtube. This link is to the Nov 7 recap episode, re-covering all of the information he leaked. Nov 6 is available behind paywalls, for example on spotify. And, of course, the 3 photos of the manifesto which he leaked, are searchable on google. ArmandTreshi (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Another fun fact. Wikipedia doesn't base content on contributor's personal opinions or analysis. Read WP:NOTFORUM, WP:OR and WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)This seems to all fall foul of WP:SYNTH. It is not our job to interpret or spin this in ways that Reliable Sources have not. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC) That 'final fun fact' was not fun, and was barely a fact, so let's hope it was at least final. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC) I don't see any reputable sources in the above discussion or in the removed section of the article that suggests this is "obviously noteworthy." Its removal was correct. Elspea756 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Yup. The photos might possibly merit mentioning in the Nashville shooting article, but given the lack of substantive commentary on Crowder's role in this, I can't see any particular merit in including it here. Even articles on bona-fide journalists don't cover every minor story they break, and trying to make this out as some sort of exercise in 'whistleblowing' is absurd. No whistles were blown. No evidence of wrongdoing (beyond a police officer possibly improperly releasing evidence while a court case is ongoing) has been presented. If Crowder wants to represent himself as a whistleblower, he can. Wikipedia is under no obligation to take any notice of such self-serving claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Agreed. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting Crowder's publicity stunts. That he plastered a gigantic watermark on the photos, which is stylistically similar to the trashiest of clickbait and tabloids, demonstrates that it was a publicity stunt intended primarily or exclusively to promote his own brand. There is nothing at all about this which is whistle-blowing. There is no actionable change that would come from releasing this information, and no group or individual is being held accountable by releasing this (except, ironically, by demonstrating the incompetence of the police department which allowed this to happen). Crowder has failed to demonstrate, by his own behavior, any concern for the well-being of the living victims of this crime. By contrast, Wikipedia, at least, does have policies regarding living people and specifically regarding crime and victims, and part of those policies prompt us to have the basic decency not to sensationalize these crimes, nor to recklessly perpetuate such sensationalism. As with so many of Crowder's publicity stunts that get discussed on this talk page, if there is any encyclopedic value to mentioning it here , I haven't seen it. These flimsy sources are insufficient. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC) The two links in my very first reply, CNN and the Tennessean. They are the coverage of Crowder's role in this, cited by the Nashville shooting wiki. The new link I just provided to the Tennessean, reporting on a police internal investigation, sparked by the incident of Steven Crowder obtaining unreleased documents. To be clear, the specific "whistle that was blown" was the previously unreleased detail that the shooter had racial motivations; and the ability to read their writing directly, giving the public an insight to their mental state. No details of their motivation was known or released. This is the detail that was being withheld, and was released by Crowder. A detail which I did not believe was relevant in the main article, but is true. May I also please add this small detail - I am keenly aware that this page is controversial, and obviously has individuals who have decided to protect it. I suspected I would be rebuked, and I was correct! I am no vandal, troll, associated with Crowder, or other. I saw this obvious lacking detail, and figured that I could easily improve by adding. I have a personal fascination with espionage and whistleblowing, and its modern form (steganography and internet privacy, privacy in healthcare, reporting harassment in the workplace, called reporting, to dead-drops). In one respect, what the leaker did is considered domestic espionage. The Federal government certainly investigated. Crowder is certainly now under complete surveillance. And yet, somehow, his sources are still protected. It is baffling! I figured this would be a fun project, and it turns out, I was correct. :) Will give this a rest for a few days, see what else shakes loose, and revisit. I can foresee a future where Crowder is arrested and jailed, for refusing to give up his sources, if he keeps trying to behave like a whistleblower. Would that then be worthy of adding to this page? Lol, Thanks! ArmandTreshi (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Jared Monroe

Should there be any mention of Crowder's dispute with his former employee Jared Monroe? Monroe recently published a video accusing Crowder of "legal abuse" and other allegations.

https://www.mediaite.com/media/ex-steven-crowder-staffer-claims-hes-being-legally-abused-after-quitting-toxic-and-abusive-show/ AstralNomad (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No. None of these people are relevant and it's debatable whether this page should exist at all. AcademicPerfection (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)