Talk:Vaush

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)

He openly described himself as a Libertarian which is described on his page, while not all Libertarians are communists (there are non-communist socialists after all), Ian has also describes himself as a Communist EnbyEditor (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave left-wing infighting off Wikipedia. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This Page is an Abomination

This is the biggest example of the failures of wikipedia I've ever seen.

Every time someone tries to add anything relating to Vaush's many, many controversies, they get told by Vaush fans it 'not a reliable source' or that you can't use twitter and youtube. Why do I know these are Vaush fans? Because, meanwhile, NUMEROUS basic facts about Vaush's life and opinion are cited USING twitter and youtube. It's clear several obsessive Vaush fans are monitoring this wikipedia page closely. They don't CARE about 'reliable sources' or wikipedia rules, they simply care about covering up Vaush's controversies.

It's incredibly creepy, gross, and cult-like, and an actual admin of some sort needs to step in to clarify why twitter and youtube seem to be fine for certain aspects of Vaush's life and actions, but not others. Letdown101 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, actual admin here. If there are things you think should be removed (for not having reliable sources) or added (supported by reliable sources) please feel free to suggest them here. Regarding your "but there are primary sources" concern, per WP:PRIMARY they can used in certain circumstances; if you think they are being used improperly, again, please point out specifics and they can be looked at for possible removal. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple uninvolved editors have previously rejected the sourcing for the addition of controversies, here and elsewhere. Wikipedia has processes to allow for the prevention of stonewalling changes by editors frequent to an article. Reliable sources are the overarching dictum here, not the protection of a controversial livestreamer. Our policy on self-published sources is clear, but not immediately obvious to readers. SWinxy (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

How is citing, for example, Vaush revealing his p*rn collection live on stream not a reliable source when it happened live on his own stream, while if Vaush says that he grew up in Beverly Hills (source 5), that's allowed to be sourced? The former might be more 'controversial', but they're both taken from basically the same exact source. 64.56.94.74 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A primary source such as a screencap from a Youtube channel does nothing to establish due weight. Growing up in BH is a mundane biographical detail and obviously not a similar situation. VQuakr (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and Youtube are okay for uncontroversial self-descriptions. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. From that article, Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. The same applies to youtube, as another "Generally Unreliable source".

Does that include Vaush himself apologizing for sexual harassment in a youtube video? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. You do not have any evidence that the editors you are referring to do not care about reliable sources nor wikipedia rules, nor that they are vaush fans.

There being numerous uncontroversial self-descriptions citing twitter or Youtube is not proof that the editors in question are vaush fans, I'm not sure what you mean. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

An audit of sources

I did another overview of the sources on the current Wikipedia page and found some interesting points I thought I should mention. These are all secondary sources.

Reference 12 appears to just be a recounting of Reference 11, and I don't mean that it's two different outlets covering the same thing. Reference 19 is from the same outlet as 12 and appears to be doing the same thing as before, except with Reference 18. I don't think Tubefilter is necessairally unreliable. I just don't think it's particuarally useful.

Reference 22 has some issues. The source is an article by The Focus, which covers a debate between Kochinski and Charlie Kirk. Firstly, I'm unsure as to the reliablity of The Focus, as thier website is scant of information. The article also appears to peel much of its basic information from Wikitubia. I only say that because it matches a past version of Vaush's Wikitubia from the time of the article's publishment. This page uses it twice, first with a claim about Kochinski being an "anti-fascist". This is also mentioned by the Reuters article next to it. The second time the article is used, it appears to be talking about how Kochinski is a "big fan of democracy." That information doesn't appear to come from Wikitubia, however, the article doesn't give a source for that claim. The only potential good use for this source is showing Kochinski's assocation with Kirk, but it's not being employed this way on the page right now.

Reference 26 is an article by Jezebel about the arrest of Andrew Tate. It accusses Kochinski of misogony and joking about sexual harassment. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure these reference numbers are right? These don't look right when I look at that version of the page. Shapeyness (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I used the wrong verison of the page. Will fix right now. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed reference 26, seems like it is not very reliable. For 11/12 and 18/19, don't see any harm in keeping both in each case (reference 12 was actually published before 11 as well btw). Shapeyness (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I can't believe I didn't notice that with the dates. Like I said, I felt that fact should still be brought up, but yeah, I see no particular harm in keeping both.

On another note, what makes the Jezebel article unreliable? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops sorry I meant reference 22. Shapeyness (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Source for discussion

If poor web design and worse spelling was a crime, they should be arrested, but they do make some of the problematic claims in their own voice, so this + the context video should do? FortunateSons (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a very suspicious source. 'YouTuber' isn't even spelled correctly and gets his last name wrong, despite the reader's comment spelling it right. How does that happen. There's no issue with the first six paragraphs, until it turns into a weird screed for the final three paragraphs. Glancing at other parts of the site makes me think it's some sort of astroturfing thing. No, it shouldn't be added. SWinxy (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if I had to guess, there was a journalist and an editor/executive/some other person working on that, or perhaps someone wanted it pushed out before a deadline. That would explain the spelling mistakes, or it was caused by the age of the journalist, local news can be of mixed quality.

There is decent readership (or least decent clicks) and a somewhat old history, so I don’t think it’s astroturfing (or it’s very stealthy). FortunateSons (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

controversies

Listen, I'm not a particular Vaush hater, or lover for that matter, I just regularly watch his content on youtube and I agree with most of it. However, I'll have to agree with Letdown101's comments in this page. I mean, how can there possibly be no reference of his recent "folder incident", and all the controversy generated by it? He even addressed it himself so I don't see how come you can't have a section regarding that and his response to it. And mind you, I'm not even much bothered by that incident but you can't deny it was a huge controversy that spilled a lot of ink, so to speak.Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe if you actually read the responses to the various threads upstream from here, you will get all of the answers to your questions. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So it's business as usual. Got it. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's business as usual to be stringent about sourcing for living people. If it was a huge thing, WaPo or the NYT would probably have covered it. SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol, you've got to be kidding with that argument. Is all of the rest of the information about him in his page gathered from newspapers? Like I said, i'm not even that much invested in this subject but it seems @Letdown101 is on to something.Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)