Talk:Hasan Piker

Move 9/11 remarks to new controversy section?

I think the paragraph on Piker's 9/11 remarks might be better suited to a "Controversies" section. What do you all think? Leopard of the Snows (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about this but here's my thinking--a controversies section might separate the 9/11 comments from the overview of his career in a meaningful way. If someone is unfamiliar with Piker's work then the incident might seem indicative of his career, whereas if it's in a dedicated Controversies section then there's a little more context that suggests it's not representative of his career. As far as I can tell, however, most other Wikipedia pages just leave controversies under career, but if anyone agrees with my intuition here then we can change it. For now I'm going to leave it as is. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am here once again to discuss this with myself. I've seen on other Wikipedia pages that editors are hesitant to create a "Controversies" section because it potentially encourages future editors to compile all controversial events, so let's just leave the 9/11 comments under "Career" unless Piker has so many varying controversies that he becomes known as a controversial figure and needs a dedicated section. Thank you, myself, for discussing this with me. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your final conclusion here :) I think we're often too quick to jump for a 'controversies' section when it's not warranted. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea of a controversy section should be revisited. I came here looking for it, because all I know about Hasan is his controversies and I wanted a fair & balanced account of them, rather than twitter/twitch/youtube drama. Trumad (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid for scandal sheets. All the major controversies are covered under Career, Twitch. I think this is suitable for now. Onikaburgers (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

How is a controversy determined to be big enough to be worth mentioning in the first place? And why do some pages have entire controversy sections and others do not? Is it just based on the people interested in editing the specific articles or is there some kind of process to it all? Brids17 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Through the application of WP:NOT and WP:POV. Such sections can be problematic per WP:CRITS. --Hipal (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

New York Times citation in Reception subsection

Hello @Hipal

You have reverted twice an addition to this article based on content from WP:NYTIMES, a perennial generally reliable source. You have cited WP:Due, but not specified how the addition contradicts WP:Due. What exactly is your issue with this addition? CeltBrowne (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

The content in question is:

In July 2024 Alex Mahadevan of MediaWise at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies (a nonpartisan nonprofit organization) characterised Piker as someone who "shares as much misinformation as anyone on the right" and cited Piker as an example of the "online chattering class" who do not hold themselves to journalistic ethics in contrast to their peers in traditional media.

References

I agree with you that it should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice as long as we have just the one reference.

Are you going to look for better references?

Is Rachel Janfaza on staff at the NYTimes?

My concern with the reference is that it's rather poor, mostly a bunch of summaries and quotes from young conservatives.

To better understand what is resonating with young conservatives online, The New York Times asked 30 people between the ages of 18 and 30, all of whom identify as right-leaning, about the content they consume and the accounts they follow on social media.

It includes Mahadevan to provide some context for the article, where he briefly mentions Piker as a contrasting media personality who, Mahadevan says, shares a lack of journalistic ethics with the personalities that are mentioned in the article.

It's cherry-picking, with no context about Piker to draw upon. BLP articles require better references. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NYTIMES, content from the New York Times is generally reliable. I don't believe there is a requirement for an additional source when the first source is a generally reliable perennial source such as the NYT. We as Wikipedians generally don't get to "pick and choose" which articles are reliable and which are not from sources which have already been approved or banned on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Whether Janfaza is a staff writer or not does not alter the reliability of the content, as it's still overseen by NYT's editorial staff.

One could make the argument that I would need multiple sources if I were to state as fact in the Wikipedia voice that Piker is someone who shares misinformation, but I have not done this. It's made clear in the addition that this is viewpoint of Mahadevan. One reliable source should be sufficient for citing that very specific view. For example, there is only one source required on Joe Biden#Public image to note David S. Broder's view that Biden is self aware, and only only source required to note James Traub's view that Biden is generous. Again, multiple sources might be needed if these were said in the Wikipedia voice, but that has not been done.

You may not be impressed by the quality of this NYT article, but you cannot revert on the basis that the article is not to your personal standard. NYT and it's articles quality have been determined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to be generally reliable. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The key difference here is that being called self aware or generous are positive, while calling someone a serial spreader of misinformation is a serious accusation and WP:BLP demands more serious review of such content. The comment in the NYT article is a passing reference on a subject that was not the focus of the article with no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Are there other reliable sources that despite Piker as spreading misinformation? If so, the case could be made for inclusion, but if only one reliable source has covered this and only in the brief manner that it did, it would likely be WP:UNDUE. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Patar knight.

I'm not contesting the reliability. I am saying it looks like poor journalism that gives us no encyclopedic context for anything about Piker. It is bothsidesism as well.

Let's focus on the actual concerns: I'd say they are POV (including UNDUE and RECENTISM), BLP, and NOT (especially NOTNEWS).

Piker is not Biden, and WP:OSE. --Hipal (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the editor who was recently edit-warring over the content, without discussion, has been blocked for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, I've gone ahead and reverted. I hope we don't need to be looking for sockpuppetry here. --Hipal (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason why Alex Mahadevan's brief statement [1] shouldn't be included is the same as before, and it still shouldn't be included if other sources don't corroborate it in some way. I've restored my version pending this discussion, given the BLP concerns.

The first cited article, is cited as concurring with Mahadevan's statement, but it doesn't. The part cited about newsfluencers spreading misinformation was not about Piker, but about a potential problem with newfluencers in general if they deviate from journalist norms, and specifically cites two right-wing newsfluencers, Andy Ngo and Avi Yemini as examples of this possibility. This article explicitly had a chance to corroborate Mahadevan's statement by also listing Piker here, but it does not. Nowhere else in the article does it say Piker spreads lies or misinformation. In fact, it often praises him for audience engagement and relatability, none of which is reflected in your summary of the article.

The summary of the second article is also misleading. The article doesn't say that Piker dismisses mainstream news as manufacturing consent and primarily uses social media sources. What the article actually says is that he does incorporate mainstream news coverage, but that he critiques aspects of it such as sourcing, framing, and objectivity as manufacturing consent, which is very different. This article also compares Piker with PSB, which it explicitly describes as avoiding mainstream sources and promoting misinformation. This makes two scholarly articles that critiqued these commentary newfluencers as potentials spreaders of misinformation, but declined to name Piker as such, which is contrary to what Mahdevan said in the article. Your summaries of the articles seems to inaccurately focus on the negatives, while the articles themselves are pretty balanced in noting the lack of some journalistic norms but praising other aspects like relatability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This article, and the "reception" subsection, already covers Piker's reliability. In my edits, I also cited the new sources to the areas discussing his reliability.

This article, which contains a POV tag and several comments here on the talk page calling it unbalanced and in favour of the subject, needs to cover both pros and cons. His reliability is a pro. I am concernred that you've taken what was written for the most part removed the critical elements from it, the Mahadevan quote in particular. There is quite clearly a near-exact overlap in Mahadevan's point about an emerging class of influencers and the Sept 2024 Digital Journalism article about an emerging class of influencers. While the exact wording may be tweaked, simply "blocking" the Mahadevan source is incorrect. We have two sources discussing and concurring on the exact same topic. The focus should be reflecting the content of these sources rather than trying to have one dismissed.

The information about "manufacturing consent" comes from the April Digital Journalism article and states:

While Piker displayed familiarity with journalism mechanics—including sourcing, framing, and objectivity; these practices were critiqued as “mainstream” news’ efforts to “manufacture consent” around elite ideas... a casually-dressed Piker firmly positioned himself outside journalistic traditions.

This is an academic journal stating that while Piker knows what journalistic sourcing, framing, and objectivity are, he hand-waves them as something Journalists do to dupe the audience into buying ideas favouring the elite. This should not be written in a way that downplays it.

From the September article:

However, as discussed above, newsfluencers’ “authentic” style can conflict with traditional journalistic notions of detached objectivity. Newsfluencers’ departure from journalistic norms, as well as their fandoms, have already raised concerns... Like with “citizen” and “alternate” journalistic actors, while newsfluencers have the potential to reach new audiences and report on under-reported topics, being free from newsroom codes of conduct can also enable problematic behaviour.

While Piker is not mentioned in that specific paragraph, he is quite clearly mentioned elsewhere in the article as one of these newsfluencers:

This article conceptualises “newsfluencers”, that emerging figures like Piker are emblematic of...Overall, I argue that newsfluencers reflect endemic problems within the global news industry—such as individualised and insecure work, and a growing partisan and platformatised news culture.

The critique that he is a newsfluencer that struggles with objectivity applies to him too, and this is supported/buttressed by the April article and Mahadevan quote.

I am updating the wording to incorporate your points. I'm going to re-write and I'm going to make it much closer to this exact wording used in the source so that your concerns about accuracy are addressed.

If you re-edit what I write, please incorporate my points as I have done for you. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to revert this again (while trying to address some of your concerns) per WP:BLPREMOVE, since accusing someone of spreading misinformation is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which does not seem to be backed by the sources here. Please let this discussion play out.

I also want to note that per WP:FALSEBALANCE, neutrality doesn't require equal amounts of positive and negative coverage, only that it should be roughly proportional to how the subject is treated in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly fine and it is well-sectioned. The talk sections below this one have largely resulted in negative material being removed as overblown. I am taking down the tag and would encourage you to retag individual sections that you think are unbalanced and start new, focused talk page discussion(s).

Your interpretation of these sources appears to be an inappropriate WP:SYNTHESIS to reach the conclusion that Piker spreads misinformation. Yes, all three sources consider Piker to be a newsfluencer, and all three sources consider society's increasing reliance on newsfluencer to be potentially problematic because of the risk of misinformation among other factors. However, only Mahadevan actually accuses Piker of spreading misinformation himself, and his reasoning is never explained. By contrast, the articles go much deeper into Piker's content style, explicitly describe other influencers in their articles as promoting misinformation, but do not reach that conclusion for Piker. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be deferring to peer-reviewed scholarship in this case.

In respect to manufacturing consent, telling their audience about the concept is not equivalent to spreading misinformation without something more. Clearly, the authors did not think so either, because they describe how Piker contrasts with these norms in a section you cut out from your quotation:

Piker deployed an unapologetic ideological viewpoint and rhetorical style in which he referred to elderly senators as “vampires” and Trump supporters as “hogs.”

Being biased or crude is not the same as spreading misinformation. By contrast, the other newsfluencer is described in harsher terms:

Though PSB replicated some mainstream news norms, they opposed legacy institutions,...[t]heir website stated that mainstream media’s "[f]omenting racial hatred is not 'news' but irresponsible and reckless"...PSB differentiated itself from what it perceived as “corrupt” occupational ideologies to validate its “true” journalism.

And throughout the article, the authors make it clear that while Piker criticizes news, he still relies on them, while PSB are just conspiracy newsfluencers:

Piker incorporates news into broader content creation vs pro-QAnon 24/7 “news” station Patriots’ Soapbox (PSB) features an ideological subculture’s grassroots-driven newsmaking., and [Piker's] broadcasts rely on existing journalistic coverage and followers to source the content vs. Proudly “politically incorrect,” PSB offered hyper-partisan current events commentary, moderated by a rotating cast of “anchors.” Eventually banned from multiple platforms.... In any case, my revision already included the fact that Piker critiques media for manufacturing consent.

In respect to the September article, the part that you cut out in your first quote is important because it explicitly lists newsfluencers accused of spreading misinformation but not Piker:

...Other actors, for instance far-right newsfluencers such as Andy Ngo in the U.S. and Avi Yemini in Australia...have been accused of spreading mis- and disinformation around vaccines and other topics (Maurice 2019)—indicating that the amorphous spaces that newsfluencers occupy and the ambiguous identities they embody could be vectors of mis- and disinformation. Like with “citizen” and “alternate” journalistic actors...

The rest of the paper doesn't accuse Piker of misinformation, only noting that he openly admits his bias, which helps him relate to his audience and monetize his work:

Other less traditionally journalistic newsfluencers openly embrace comedic or opinionated self-brands: Piker and FriendlyJordies are known for their humorous sensibility, clear political stance, and memetic literacy and And as we can see from the Piker example, this relational and “authentic” labour is practiced by newsfluencers, where “authenticity” is generated by connecting with users in real-time and cultivating a “real” image through transparency (in Piker’s case, showing his messy tabs during long election live streams).).

My revision already noted that Piker was unapologetically ideological. This contrast is the whole point of the paper as shown in the part you cut from your quotation:

...and platformatised news culture. However, they also have the potential to make journalism more accessible and relevant to young audiences, as well as provide new revenue streams for freelancers.

The material that you picked out would be useful if you wanted to write an article on newsfluencers, but it is a BLP violation to include material about potential negative characteristics of a class that Piker belongs to when no scholarly sources attributes them to him and the only source that does doesn't explain it. For example, if there was a scholarly article about influencer scandals that discussed the DaddyOFive child neglect, James Charles's flirting with minors, and Andrew Tate's charges on rape and human trafficking to conclude that influencers can wield their power to abuse children and engage in potential sex crimes, it would obviously be inappropriate to include that conclusion on the article of any other influencer mentioned in the article if their scandal was not sexual and did not involve children. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The Messenger article / ADL

@FMSky: the proper source for what you seem to be trying to add to the article is the defunct The Messenger website, not MSN who just republishes everything that they have rights to. The article seems to be saved to web.archive.org despite the website being defunct. The article seems to be grasping at straws repeatedly, saying that Piker said that the murders ‘can be justified’ while also saying repeatedly that he did not agree with that. The addition of this content to this article then seems to be extremely biased and, for the lack of better wording, unjustified. ADL is also not a reliable source for Israel-Palestine conflict coverage per WP:ADLAS, so their reprinting of it should not be included unless deemed explicitly relevant. stjn 17:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I also disagree with the notion that every single paragraph in the description of Twitch career needs to have a subheading if ‘controversies and temporary bans’ are not included in the subheading. It seems like that is motivated mostly by antipathy towards Piker from FMSky and nothing else. The subsection has 6 paragraphs, 3 are about ‘controversies’ and 2 out of 3 are about ‘bans’. The table of contents does not necessarily need to include every single thing Piker has done that someone considered to be wrong, this is literally already in the article. stjn 17:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to hide his controversies under a wall of text. The article has neutrality problems as it is and your edits aren't helping --FMSky (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem now is that the Twitch section essentially can’t be expanded without adding some additional meaningless subheading like current Usage of the word "cracker" or Collaboration with U.S. representatives (when it was just with AOC). The fact that Piker is the subject of controversies can be mentioned in the lead if there are sources that mention him as such (as I think there might be). Having it be describing literally his entire Twitch career is just unnecessary.

The current version of the article mostly suffers from sourcing problems and inclusion of details that aren’t covered by RS. The non-inclusion of random Twitter drama is not a ‘neutrality problem’. stjn 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We can also go back to how the page originally looked before the sections were changed (1) and have the controversies is a seperate section. I don't know which version is better --FMSky (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

FMSky Definitely not controversies separately; it often risks undue weight on biographies and potentially makes them appear more negative than neutral. WP:CSECTION describes why much better than I can. If readers still prefer it separately, we could combine some of his controversies with the Reception section to create a bigger Public Image one. Otherwise, we should instead interweave his controversies into his career section so it'll flow comprehensively, like a story of his life. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Fan's POV?

I've been checking this article sporadically since the Fan-POV tag came on, but I'm genuinely wondering what exactly about this article seems fancrufty here. It's probably changed a lot since the tag was added, but I read the article several times and I haven't seen much in the way of info only fans would mostly care about - and this is coming from someone who doesn't watch him. Maybe the "'abi' meaning 'elder brother'" part which is unsourced. Maybe the "Hank Pecker" mention, but even that's reliably sourced (per WP:VG/S), and it seems to be a factual statement about his videos - which readers would reasonably expect on a person who makes web content. Maybe some of the sources seem unreliable or are primary, but they could be replaced with better ones instead of outright deleted. And some of the quotes he said may be overly detailed, but minor trims would be fine here. Overall, I'm not seeing much in this article that would warrant this tag. Maybe it was valid when it was first placed in August, but I don't think it applies anymore. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a great deal of back-and-forth between what appears to be fan vs anti-fan pov.

Skimming without looking carefully at the refs to determine proper weight:

The "Early life and education" section appears overly detailed. Same with "Dispute with Dan Crenshaw, 9/11 comments, and temporary ban", "Usage of the word "cracker"", "Other ventures", and "Fundraisers".

There are a number of references that look questionable for BLP information. --Hipal (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it would be a bit heated. You had me on the "Dan Crenshaw" and "Cracker" sections. Do they really merit individual headers? I think the Other Ventures and Fundraisers sections seem appropriate though - at least comparing similar e-celeb articles - but I agree some of the sources may need replacement. Overall I feel it needs copy edits and better interweaving, but I was expecting a lot worse. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The neutrality is definitely off. The fact that the coverage on I/P doesn't include his remarks on the Houthis and that he is labeled as a progressive is amusing. Daseyn (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

@Hipal can you clarify specifically what about the article is violating WP:NPOV? It would be good to get some discussion going so that we can actually attempt to fix it. Horep (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you reviewed this talk page? --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal Hi, can you be more specific? I have read through the talk page of course, but many of these are months or years old. If you want to say that the article's neutrality is disputed, you should indicate what you are disputing. Horep (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

[2] seems specific. Do you believe all those problems have been addressed at this point? --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be from generally reliable sources, such as The Verge, Washington Post, Kotaku. Can you pinpoint a specific sentence you think is inappropriate? Horep (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out three publishers doesn't address any of my concerns at all, nor does it address my question to you. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Questionable summaries

I have noticed some issues with how this article summarizes controversies and I think it could be due to there being limited news media sources covering them. While I understand neutrality is important, the Houthi pirate controversy wasn't because Hasan interviewed the person, and this summary is misleading.

The main criticism was the manner in which Hasan conducted the interview, such as how he didn't challenge the interviewee, asked inane questions (like whether he had watched One Piece), and afterwards said that he believes the Houthis are doing what Lufi (the heroic pirate protagonist of One Piece) would do. Hasan later dismissed these criticisms by: a) claiming the interviewee was just a random Yemeni teenager (there is prior streaming footage of Hasan acknowledging the interviewee was a Houthi pirate), and b) misrepresenting the criticism as it being just because he interviewed the person (which is obviously not valid criticism).

While it is not reasonable to fit all of this into that specific summary, the summary as it appears now is not an accurate description of what actually occurred, making the criticisms appear less reasonable.

The next issue is in regards to Ukraine. Hasan wasn't criticized for wrongly predicting that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, he was criticized for displaying arrogance in these opinions, claiming the invasion of Crimea was completely justifiable, and saying that Putin's imperialism isn't comparable to Hitler because "Hitler wasn't bad because he invaded Austria, it was bad because he was killing Jews." As well, putting Hasan's apology in the Reaction section is questionable, as it isn't summarizing a reaction but showing how Hasan (the subject) responded to a reaction, a reaction that is not described.

Not saying that all this detail needs to be summarized, but the summaries of these controversies should at least accurately show what the actual criticisms were. 64.228.236.152 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, reliable sources are required for these claims.

Though in particular, I have to raise doubt that any reliable source would seriously write an article about anyone "displaying arrogance". LaughingManiac (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That's kinda the point, there aren't reliable sources for most of these controversies because they are mostly restricted to social media. Journalists don't generally write about Twitch streamers. 64.228.236.152 (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the above, only content that is verifiable can be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to share social media outrage or a discussion forum. This is especially true for BLP, who must use high-quality sources to avoid legal problems.

I'll also add (in line with the BLPN discussion in progress) that the standards here are even higher, since part of the changes you're proposing are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is a contentious topic and has specific restrictions; namely, users who wish to edit in this topic area must be extended confirmed - which means that the account should have existed for at least 30 days and made at least 500 edits - and changes concerning the topic area may only be implemented through edit requests.

I'll put this very straightforwardly: unless you can make a formal edit request, with reliable sources supporting the changes you want made, I'm afraid that you're out of luck here and should find better uses of your time. LaughingManiac (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to emphasise what LaughingManiac has said, the Houthi stuff seems to clearly relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict so should be discussed in a separate thread where only EC editors should participate. As for the rest, unless there are sources then there's nothing for us to talk about anymore. Clearly journalists do talk about Twitch streamers, because the article already has quite a number of reliable media sources about Piker during since Twitch career. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent accusations of antisemitism

I feel like this article should include the recent accusations of antisemitism discussed in the media sources here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/twitch-faces-criticism-israel-gaza-war-content-rcna178663

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/12/04/att-jpmorgan-reportedly-stop-advertising-on-twitch-what-to-know-about-the-platforms-antisemitism-controversy/

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/05/tech/twitch-controversy-israel-palestine/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-04/jpmorgan-at-t-pull-twitch-ads-after-antisemitism-allegations Colon221 (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this guy has also previously stated its OK to murder Israeli infants https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hasan-piker-popular-left-wing-streamer-argues-murder-of-israeli-babies-can-be-justified-because-they-are-settlers/ar-AA1j6dKZ --FMSky (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

that link is dead and msn is a news aggregator. would like to see the original bews story Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12686373/hasan-piker-young-turks-hamas-baby-settlers.html but none of the mainstream sites, who are mostly left-wing to left-wing extremist, have reported about --FMSky (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

daily mail is deprecated anyways. WP:DAILYMAIL

the other sources above from colon221 are more appropriate to describe the controversy. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Answered and placed the info in. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)