Talk:Destiny (streamer)

Start over

Much of this article has to go; there's too much gossip. It's very poorly sourced. I recommend a rewrite using these sources: [1] [2] [3]. I believe these make him pass WP:GNG and don't fall under WP:BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Which parts are too gossipy? Triggeredbytriggered (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Destiny streamer.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikibox Photo

The current photo, along with several previous ones all appear to be copyrighted material being uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by Orbwok. Other than this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Destiny_hangout_2019.jpg photo, is there anything else we can restore it to that doesn't look as poor quality? ~ AlbertOfPrussia ^talk 21:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: I sent an email to Steven Bonnell II and asked if he would be able to upload an image under a Creative Commons license to Wikimedia which he has done here. I have since added it to the wikibox photo as the current photo is likely to be deleted imminently as it was uploaded without the consent of the author. ~ AlbertOfPrussia ^talk 00:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• UJauNk6.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Gene Pool

Minor note but I don't think Jontron expressed concerns about Mexicans entering the "genepool." He mentioned it in the context of assimilation, as a "positive" thing for lack of a better adjective. He did make a weird statement that went something like: "Then why are the crime rates for blacks similar across Africa as well?" and when he was asked why he thought black people commit more crime in the US he didn't want to answer and said something like "Now you're trying to get me" and "I don't want to get into it because it's a raunchy topic". I think mentioning that is more important than mentioning the gene pool comment. Is this what the talk page is for? I always feel weird creating new sections on talk pages. Dapperedavid (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is better to include the gene pool comment as it shows the kinds of ideas he was arguing much more succinctly. While I personally would agree it's true that the Africa comment basically proves without a doubt that he's racist or at least that the ideas he was arguing have racist foundations and conclusions, it's takes several logical steps to get to that point, and I don't think it really makes sense to go into that much detail. The article would have to say something like "He drew comparisons between the crime rates in Africa and those of black people in the US. Given the fact that the only connection between these two groups is their race, he must have been arguing that race determines disposition to crime." It wouldn't really fit IMO. Also yes, you are using the talk page correctly. Finnigami (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

removal of content

I've removed unsourced and self-sourced content. Please do not re-add without including a reliable independent source; instead, start a discussion here. —valereee (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. I believe you may have removed some content in error. A WP:SELFSOURCE can be used for uncontroversial personal information. For example, you removed information about Bonell's first streaming job at Justin.tv which cited his blog. You also removed information about his early career which cited his YouTube video.

When you have a moment, please restore any content that was removed but was properly cited to a self-source. As a reminder, here are the criteria for when self-sources may be used:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

– Anne drew 14:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, if no one has ever mentioned that he started at Justin.tv but him, then the information probably isn't important to understanding the subject. If he's the only one talking about it, we shouldn't be including it. If literally no reliable source thinks it's worth mentioning, it probably isn't. The article was primarily content sourced to links to his own videos. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really believe information about a twitch streamer's early streaming career is unimportant? I disagree with that.

If literally no reliable source thinks it's worth mentioning, it probably isn't.

If that was an actual an Wikipedia policy and not just your personal opinion, self sources wouldn't be allowed at all. Self sources are permitted because sometimes there is important information that isn't mentioned by third-party sources. – Anne drew 20:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to adding back the first streaming job, as that falls in the same place as dob, place of birth, education details. But "any content that was removed but was properly cited to a self-source" -- we'd have to go through each item, I think. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored some of the content that was verified with self-sources. I restored and updated the Twitch follower and view stats as well. Please take a moment to review my changes and let me know if you have any concerns. – Anne drew 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I had removed the liquipedia source because I couldn't find where it said he came in fourth? We definitely cannot source 'he's been credited with turning people blah blah' to his blog, and other source for that is a broken link? Twitch follower and view stats at minimum need a source, and preferably some sort of context to show whether those stats are even meaningful, like his social blade ranking. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

*Are we sure this guy's even notable? I'm not seeing anything in the sources that would represent significant coverage, more just mentions? Has he been profiled anywhere? —valereee (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Wired source does it. —valereee (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias in section talking about “mowing down” protestors

It reads as if Bonnell actively called for violence against protestors, when that absolutely was not the case. This reads as being written by someone who dislikes Bonnell and wants to take a quote out of context to make him look bad. Georgariou (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the section, as it was also added without a source. Anything added to the page should have a source and be relevant to the section it is being added to. (Bonnell has people who do not like him all over the Internet — this page is very vulnerable to vandalism) Georgariou (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to make this section more accurate, an added an additional source which includes the clip itself. Finnigami (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also even the source doesn't say "BLM protesters". Gannicus123 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 26 2020 Rewrite

This page was solidly sourced and mostly factually accurate, but horrendously written and full of information that does not meet Wikipedia's basic notability guidelines. I've done a complete re-write of the entire page to make it properly readable, and I've also removed all material that has not received significant coverage and all references to persons who have not received significant coverage, while adding material that has. I also read through and double-checked all the sources to ensure this article is properly referenced, plus I ensured the article obeys the neutrality standards of an encyclopedia. As for the Kyle Rittenhouse comments, I've included a (nearly) complete quotation because each source that mentions the incident does, and I believe it is necessary context. In addition, any attempt to summarize his statements so far seems to sound biased in favor of or against Bonnell, so I believe including the remarks as well as Twitch's stated reasons for termination will suffice. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This new rewrite looks great. I would also mention in the political views section that Bonnell has self-identified as a social Democrat, and that in terms of American politics he would consider himself far-left (as opposed to online politics). When introducing himself to a new group, he describes him as “a social democrat if you ask people on the right, a neoliberal if you ask people on the left. Yeah, I live somewhere in there. Pretty far left in terms of social and economic issues”. At 1:57:53 in the same video, he addresses people who don’t consider him left-leaning, saying he completely disagrees and that it’s “stupid” to think he isn’t far left in American politics. This is just one of many videos of him describing as far left in American politics, and defending those viewpoints, while still being pro-capitalism. I think focusing on the single quote where it seems to imply he pretends to be farther left than he is is not representative of his political views. Georgariou (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That one sentence you singled out was actually a later edit not written by me. I've reverted that addition and re-instated where I quote Bonnell as calling himself a social democrat, because I agree, it's pretty integral to understanding his views. I think citing that he is a social democrat is necessary, but anything having to do with whether he's considered far-left in America is not. Thank you for the positive feedback on the rewrite and be on the look out for any more edits from others. Given the quality of many of the changes over the last few weeks I might suggest upping the protection on this page. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thevoidzz:, please stop changing Bonnell's birth date unless you have a source. Also, please do not add information that has not been coverted by secondary sources or is uncontroversial common knowledge. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows:I have not added any information for which I do not possess direct and explicit sources on the matter, something which can be readily verified by looking the references thereby provided. Maybe you could be more specific so I can tell exactly what you mean. About the birth date, I'll look Up some sources on it. Good day Thevoidzz (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As Bonnell is an incredibly controversial figure online, his page seems to constantly have subpar edits that reek of bias in favor of or against him. If it’s possible to up the protection on this page I’d probably recommend it. Georgariou (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Georgariu: You wrote that : "I think focusing on the single quote where it seems to imply he pretends to be farther left than he is is not representative of his political views". You give no reason as to why this is "not representative of his political views", which is strange because the quote is from Bonnell himself, so what exactly is this quote lacking for it to be "representative of his political views"? Also, the quote does not "seem to imply" anything, it is rather a straightforward explicit admission of his views and portrayal of his views. I fail to understand why this only "seems to imply", rather than confirm or unequivocally state what he thinks on the subject. Please clarify. Be well.

@Thevoidzz: I actually didn't write that (the user @Georgariou: signed that comment at the end of their paragraph). However, I'm happy to address your concern. It's important to remember that not everything a person has ever said is indicative of their broader views, nor are individual statements by the person necessarily worth including on their Wikipedia page. A Wikipedia page is supposed to be a repository of notable information about a notable subject; if no secondary sources have mentioned something, that's a first sign that it may not be suitable for Wikipedia. In my and Georgariou's view, the quote you included (about Bonnell acting as if he is further left than he is) is simply not important for understanding him as a subject. I have included published secondary sources about how others perceive him and about how Bonnell perceives himself. Something that is important is that he is well-known for advocating social democratic politics, so I have re-instated that sentence fragment in the introduction. I've left in his self-identification as a "classical liberal" in because you provided a source and I think that his staunch support for capitalism is important for understanding Bonnell's political views. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows: Hello, sorry for the mix up. Anyways, you did not address a single of the points I raised, but ok. 1)Please tell me why some of the references included which are not a secondary source but rather youtube videos from Bonnell himself, do meet your criteria, but the quote I put in the text does not. 2) Exactly which is your criteria for what is "important to understand him as a subject"?, 3) How could a direct quote from the person himself not be "important to understand him as a subject"?

@Thevoidzz: I will try to be more clear. For your first and third questions, again, just because a person said something doesn't mean it needs to be included in an encyclopedia article about them. The issue was not that you were using a primary source to cite his political views, it's that you were trying to include something which no secondary sources have deemed important and which the current consensus of this page deems unimportant for understanding Bonnell as a subject. If Bonnell's political positions have received significant coverage, then detailing those positions in a dedicated section with primary sources may be acceptable. In addition, understanding Bonnell's political stances is clearly important, as he is an active and notable political commentator, but understanding that he presents himself as more left-wing to attract a certain audience is not. In addition, quotations should be used sparingly, and only where wholly necessary, such as in the Rittenhouse comments, where any summary would seem biased. As for your second question, please start with Wikipedia:Notability and Help:Your first article. These are not my criteria, but the criteria of an encyclopedia, which is a specific type of knowledge resource. Also, when using talk pages on Wikipedia, please sign your comments with four tildes (~), so your Wikipedia signature will appear like this: Leopard of the Snows (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As a follow up — if we could take any quote from any of Bonnell’s hundreds of hours of YouTube’s videos, we could paint him as a staunch socialist, a far-right extremist, and anywhere in between. Just because we can does not mean it’s relevant, nor does it make it true. The goal of Wikipedia isn’t to compile all of his quotes, the goal is to portray what is relevant about the individual being written about. One off-hand quote where Bonnell says he attempts to appeal to people farther left than he is is probably not important enough to include in an encyclopedia article about him. The views in this article should be representative of his entire body of work. What I (and others editing this article) have chosen to include are what are important to understand Bonnell and what other secondary sources have reported on him. Him stating he attempts to appeal to an audience more left-leaning than he is does not fall under this. (Someone else correct me if I’m wrong here) Georgariou (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A note regarding recent and future edits

Hello, everyone. A few days ago I wrote a substantial re-write of this page because I found it to be of very poor quality. Since then I have noticed that as Bonnell is a controversial online figure, many of the edits to his page have been of poor quality. As a community, we have a responsibility to keep this page clear, accurate, and unbiased. I don't want to have to babysit this page, so here are some guidelines for considering whether your addition to this page is beneficial or detrimental:

1) Your additions must be sourced. If something in Bonnell's career or personal life hasn't been covered by secondary sources, then it is not worth adding to an encyclopedia article about him, period. (This applies to recent edits regarding Bonnell's coverage of Pokimane.)

2) If you wish to add to the political views section, primary sources may be acceptable, but please only edit this section if it is absolutely necessary for understanding Bonnell objectively as a subject, not so that the page is more favorable to him. Additions that are not indicative of his body of work will be reverted, and alterations made to correct descriptions of his positions will also be reverted. If you believe there is a mistake or a necessarily more accurate description of Bonnell's political views, please discuss any proposed changes here first so that we may reach a consensus. This includes recent changes such as to "transgender rights" to "LGBT rights," which is less specific, and "universal healthcare" to "public option," which is more specific but less accurate to Bonnell's body of work.

3) Please do not edit this page if you cannot write to the standard of an encyclopedia. Many recent edits have had extremely sloppy grammar and/or disorganized citations. Some have been extremely wordy. If you cannot write clearly and concisely about sourced information, do not edit this page. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thecornerwiki: I wanted to discuss why I reverted most of your recent edits (some of them for a second time). First, writing "a Liberal" is unclear and vague, as well as not a specific description of Bonnell's views compared with "hardcore capitalist and classical liberal," which are both things he's said about himself and specific and indicative of his broader views. On "universal healthcare," we are looking for a description of Bonnell's body of work, not a list of specific policy proposals. While it is true he is in favor of a public option, his work has generally been in favor of universal health coverage as a principle. I've kept in your addition of "fascism" under things he is against, although I noticed you removed the citations for these debates. I assume this was a mistake, but please do take greater care when editing Wikipedia not to erase the relevant work of others. In this same vein, please be conscious of your grammar when editing, especially of commas and capitalizations. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Open relationship

Multiple different users have edited the Personal Life section to specify that Bonnell is in an open relationship. I've undone these edits previously, but I'm going to leave them as of now, since 1) many different users seem to think it's relevant and necessary, and 2) I suppose it's more specific as well as well-known information. Open to other's input on this. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows: Strangely enough the fact that he is in an open relationship does end up being relevant to a lot of his Twitch and Youtube content (see 1 2 3, and tangentially in things like 4 and 5 for examples), so I think it should be included. (Also, I added a better source) Volteer1 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• The citation that points to this youtube video supports the passage. At 5:45 into the video, Bonnell clearly states he is in an open relationship with his girlfriend. As to whether it's relevant or not; we state the relationship status of lots of BLPs on the project. Being in an open relationship is just one potential status of many. I don't think we shouldn't be mentioning it without some clear reason why it shouldn't be mentioned anymore than we mention relationship status (other than open) in other BLPs. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Steven "Destiny" bonnell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mark Gudgel

A recent edit added this quote from Mark Gudgel: "Bonnell’s incitement of violence runs contrary to everything I believe and have dedicated my career to as a public servant and educator over the past 17 years." Should we include this? I wonder if it's necessary context, and whether it's drawing attention away from Bonnell and onto Gudgel's response. For some context about my perspective, when I wrote the section on Bonnell's debate with Jon Jafari, I specifically did not include any direct quotes from Jafari because I felt it would have diverted attention from what was relevant to Bonnell, and felt that the language used to describe the comments by other outlets would suffice. Jafari, however, 1) has his own Wikipedia page where that information belongs, whereas Gudgel doesn't, and 2) received substantially more coverage for his comments. I'm leaning against including this Gudgel quote but want to hear from others. I'm also changing the name of 'Political views' to 'Political views and activism' because of the way this section has expanded since I first wrote it. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The section heading change makes obvious sense. Regarding how to write about breaking ties with Gudgel, I think I'd prefer to just use the secondary source (and not the Facebook link) and summarise what happened as the source does. Here's how the article summarises the incident: The relationship began to draw criticism last month over an expletive-laden clip from one of Bonnell’s livestreams from the summer... Gudgel condemned that statement last week and severed ties with Bonnell. Gudgel has been advocating for racial equity and police oversight as part of his campaign. “Bonnell’s incitement of violence runs contrary to everything I believe and have dedicated my career to as a public servant and educator over the past 17 years,” Gudgel wrote on social media I think the reason for the quote (and why the article used it) is to explain why Bonnell's statements caused Gudgel to cut ties with him, rather than just being information about Gudgel himself specifically. So tldr my preference would be to remove the "reprehensible statements" Facebook quote (it's unfortunately not in the article...) and just use the secondary source, though I'm open to suggestions of other ways of summarising that article. As a side note there's probably more from that article that we could add, but I'm not sure how long this section deserves to be. Volteer1 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'm still personally not convinced we need the quote, but this is minor and certainly not something I feel strongly about. I've made an edit based on what you've said here. If others want to chime in we can always keep editing, but I'm happy with this. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How to upload a photo of Bonnell (or anyone)

Hello all, Leopard of the Snows here again. We've been through a number of photos of Bonnell the past few months because none of them were uploaded according to Wikipedia's copyright policy. This page seems to attract a lot of new Wikipedians, so let's use this post as a place for learning how to get permission for photos and clear them with the fine folks at Wikimedia commons:

• First, skim Wikipedia:Copyrights. You'll find that Fair Use is not acceptable on Wikipedia. For this page, this means that screenshots of streams are not allowed, because you do not own the copyright on the stream.
• Second, skim Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which will explain the process of asking a copyright holder to waive the copyright on their work. You email Bonnell with a photo/screenshot of him and ask that he release the image to a creative commons license. For help wording an email in which you ask him to do so, skim Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
• Third, you upload the photo to Wikimedia commons and tag the photo with {{OTRS pending}}, which signals to everyone that it is awaiting copyright approval.
• Fourth, you ask Bonnell to fill in the form found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries (which you'll politely send to him so he can simply fill in the blanks himself) and tell him to reply that form both to you and to [permissions-commons@wikimedia.org]. A link to the photo in the Wikimedia commons will be in the form, so within a few days it will be approved by the permissions folks and it won't be removed from Wikipedia.
• Last, if this is an image to be used on a page, you may now edit the info box template to include your new no-copyright photo.

If this sound complicated, I promise it's not--it's just a bit annoying. Skim those Wikipedia how-to articles and you'll figure it out. To save yourself and the person you're emailing some time, ask them to release the copyright and include the email template in the same email, so they can send it off and move on. Hope this helps someone. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-Binary?

@GWPabst1931 can you provide a source (primary is fine I think) that shows Bonnell is non-binary and that Bonnell uses they/them pronouns? Leopard of the Snows (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows There is a recent youtube video where they talk about it briefly, but I cannot link it here due to youtube links being blacklisted

@GWPabst1931 If Bonnell confirms again and definitively then we can list an identity under 'personal life' as some editors have done in the recent past. Also, many non-binary people continue to go by he/him so before changing pronouns again we should primary source that change here (on the talk page) first. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@GWPabst1931 My mistake, just looked at the primary source which was recently linked on the article. Disregard my future tense above. In that video Bonnell says he still uses he/him. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@GWPabst1931 @Leopard of the Snows The YouTube link referenced only shows Steven saying that he is non-binary, however it does not say anything about his preferred he/him pronouns. I have heard that this is true, but I don't know a source on it. If anyone could update that that would be great.

Astral Shepherd undoing of my edits

@Astral_Shepherd Hey, I'm unsure why my edits were removed? (1) Destiny is polyamorous and he is in a polyamorous relationship. Why is that removed? It even says it on his website "Melina is currently my fiancée. We met in New Zealand when she was 20 years old and I was 30 years old. Melina and I are currently in an open/poly relationship. We treat each other as primary partners, though we may pursue other sexual/romantic relationships as well." source: https://positions.destiny.gg/docs/personal (2) Why was Vaush removed as an associated act? Vaush and Destiny have and many debates on multiple occasions so it seems fitting. However, I couldn't find exactly what constitutes as an "associated act" so maybe I'm just misinformed. DreamlessGlare (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Astral_Shepherd I reverted your "redundancy" removal of destiny being poly. I can't understand why it would be removed. Destiny being poly is an important thing to note and destiny being in a poly relationship too is important to note as he could be poly but choose to not be in a poly relationship for various reasons. DreamlessGlare (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DreamlessGlare Hi, happy to explain the edits. Overall, your edits didn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability, which, broadly, require secondary sources to have reported on them. This means that both Bonnell's polyamory and Vaush are, generally speaking, not worthy of being included in this Wikipedia page. Vaush does not even have his own page because there has never been a feature written about him, and no feature about Bonnell (to my knowledge) mentions him. First, the matter of Bonnell being polyamorous seems to be redundant given we included that he is in an open relationship in the same sentence. There's actually some discussion on this page about including that, since the specific matter of the relationship being open/polyamorous is non-notable. Second, as I said, Vaush is non-notable. If we include a person who has never been written about in-depth by a journalist, why not include a list of every person Bonnell has ever interacted with? We should keep the "associated acts" to people who've been reported on by secondary sources as being involved with Bonnell. Astral Shepherd (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DreamlessGlare Just to be more specific on the polyamory point, I think it is redundant to say he is in an open relationship and polyamorous, expecially given that neither are notable by Wikipedia's standards. If you can include a primary source to say he is polyamorous (which, correct me if I am wrong, I believe is more specific than 'in an open relationship') then cite it and replace 'open relationship' with 'polyamorous,' but I do not think we need both. Feel free to disagree if there is some difference between the two terms that necessitates including both, but since we are limited to primary sources on this we need to be extra judicious in what we consider necessary to understand Bonnell as a subject. Astral Shepherd (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Astral_Shepherd Hey sorry about the late response. Thanks for explaining your views on both topics, makes a lot of sense. As for the poly thing, I think you're right actually. Poly is a form of open relationship. But poly seems more descriptive imo, but that's fine too. I just feel that being poly is fairly significant to Steven that it deserves to exist on this page (if we could find the right source for it). DreamlessGlare (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

link rot / unreliable or dead source

A lot of this article cites one source: a Wired article (https://www.wired.com/story/twitch-politics-online-debate/) which now requires a paid subscription to view. This needs to be addressed as this is effectively now a dead link. Rather than add [citation needed] to nearly every claim in this article, I'll just leave this note and ask whomever maintains this article to figure this out so this article complies with Wikipedia's Link Rot and Reliability policies. Asaturn (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Bisexual person or bisexual man?

Back and forth on this article people have been replacing the "bisexual person" category with "bisexual man" and vice versa. So which is it? The implication is that it would be "people" because he's claimed to be non-binary in the past, but this has been removed from the article. It could be sourced again, and have an argument going for it, but for the most part, I think it should be bisexual man. Although he has claimed to be non-binary, he still goes by male pronouns most all of the time. Thoughts? ― Levi_OP^Talk 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-fascist?

Re this diff by LittleJerry: our policy on categories says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. and A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. If this category is to be included, we should have reliable sources referenced in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It supported in the article mentioning this debates with the alt-right and white nationalism. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

First, "arguing with fascists" does not make somebody an "anti-fascist" (many anti-fascists oppose giving fascists a platform - see No platform). Second, please re-read the policy above (I've added a link): we need independent reliable sources to commonly and consistently use this identification (and YouTube is not a reliable independent source - see WP:RSPYT). If RSs do do so, finding them should be easy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Infrared Channel Not Notable?

An edit which previously referred to Haz from Infrared's interaction with Double D Destiny was reverted as not being notable. This is typical nonsense by Wikipedia hall monitors. But if we look at the material reality of the current situation, we can see that the Infrared channel is continuously growing and will soon be one of the most notable on the YouTube and Twitch platforms. Infrahaz (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! First off, you reverted my reversion by calling it "vandalism", this can put a mark on someones reputation, and is putting out a fallacy that is not true. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to gain a better understanding on what vandalism is.

Anyways, this was one small incident, of one person insulting Destiny. I highly doubt this has enough of a long-term effect be placed on the article. Media outlets have covered Destiny before, as evident by his references, this falls very short of the precedent set by the incidents covered in the rest of the article. This is miniscule compared to all of the rest of the issues, where they mostly are not sourced from a single YouTube video. This YouTube video in question, is from a channel which has 33k subscribers, and 16k views on the specific video. It's not exactly a viral video, and the world does not seem to be responding to this en masse. You claim that "growing and will soon be one of the most notable on the YouTube and Twitch platforms", lets not use original research that we formulated ourselves for a argument. Instead, we can look at cold hard facts, which is that the Infared YouTube channel has 14k subscribers, which is miniscule to Destiny's following to be blunt. I am certain that Destiny has had this same caliber of insult, from many creators, large and small. But it's hardly groundbreaking, which is why I don't think it deserves to be in this article. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

On another note, you seem to have a serious POV issue with this, based on your username. I am concerned that you may be "Haz" from Infrared. If this is the case, I am afraid your edit could have serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. I would suggest you don't write content relating to yourself if this is the case. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your bean counting and semantics don't change the material reality of the fact that the Infrared channel is becoming one of the most discussed in the online politics world. What a feeble attempt to save Gynecomastia Steven's reputation. Infrahaz (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You likely have a serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue based on your username. I have no hope of reaching Wikipedia:Consensus with you about this subject. I'm going to recommend you step away from this discussion based on your likely COI. I am not planning on further continuing this discussion. Regards - Sea Cow (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Cozy.tv Refideas

I haven't seen any reliable third party sources talk about Destiny's Cozy.tv channel, but I did find both of these primary sources. Beyond notability concerns, adding this info to the article might be run afoul of WP:BLP, as being associated with Cozy.tv could reasonably be considered defamatory. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

banned from Twitch

Destiny was banned from Twitch for transphobia as well as for repeated violations of hate speech (using the N word). Maybe this should be reflected in the article? His ban is permanent. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@69.127.80.46 We do not know the reason for the ban. It would be speculation to affirm a definitive answer and against the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality. Joacom14 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

List of games played

I think it would be useful to include full list of games Destiny plays in body of the article as opposed to sidebar. Sidebar is not very good for that because of the limited space. People could help identify them and add any missing entries. For one, I am looking for the game that he plays in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kobOnhKYHvQ If you know what it is, please tell me. 149.156.124.14 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Irresponsible edits

Enny43, if you would like to include allegations that Destiny is involved in the weaponization of both his audience, and Kiwi Farms in order to abuse a transgender streamer, then you need to wait until evidence emerges. One streamer claiming this happened while not having a single reliable source corroborating the accusations themselves is not evidence. Adding claims of targeted harassment to someone's Wikipedia article as soon as they are made, and before any evidence has come to light, is very irresponsible, and ripe for spreading misinformation. I hope you understand why I wish your edit to be reverted. Slybirdz (wowee) 23:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not attempt to compile evidence. We do not wait for evidence to emerge, instead we summarize reliable sources. These are the two cited sources:

• Gach, Ethan (July 21, 2022). "Trans Streamer Keffals Says Twitch Banned Her For 'Openly Talking' About Abuse She Receives". Kotaku. Retrieved July 25, 2022.
• Wolens, Joshua (July 22, 2022). "Trans Twitch streamer claims she was banned for showing examples of abuse". PC Gamer. Retrieved July 25, 2022.

An argument can be made that this is premature or undue weight, but this, too is decided by reliable sources instead of by editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Grayfell why is the PC Gamer source relevant for this article in regards to Keffals? There is no mention of Destiny at all. The only relevant source for these edits is the Kotaku one.

The allegations mentioned in that article are on the back of speculation on what Keffals' stream was going to be about before it happened, with no reference to where these allegations are coming from, or any reporting on any response from Destiny himself. The source doesn't seem to be very reliable, in that sense. No mention of who is making the allegation, and it is arguably on the back of speculation of what a stream was going to be about. There are no other sources mentioning allegations at all, unless I can see otherwise.

It doesn't seem impartial if one article can mention (speculate?) allegations, and for as long as no one else decides to write an article mentioning the allegations, those allegations can remain front and centre without any challenge. If I write an article making allegations against you, and there are no other sources corroborating it or commenting on them, is it impartial to mention the allegations made in that case, until another article is written about it? I don't think so. 202.65.91.28 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We don't make editorial decisions based on what we think reliable sources should be publishing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku article does not give any scrutiny to the allegation. Effectively, it is as reliable as Keffals' own claims. I would not say Kotaku is unreliable, but that the article in itself does not have very high reliability. Youngrubby (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't dismiss sources because editors personally disagree with an arbitrary level of "scrutiny" apparently unmet in their reporting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kotaku article simply refers to Keffals' accusation. How does that lend any scrutiny? Youngrubby (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We're now having the same conversation in two places on this talk page. Please refer below to my comment beginning "Once again, this does not align with policy." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That post does refer to different articles. Those include numerous other references rather than one simple report, thereby providing a higher level of scrutiny. It is fine to include those, however the Kotaku article does not examine Keffals' report at all. Is that level of scrutiny (none at all) really arbitrary? Does this not somewhat clash with the policy around what counts as a reliable source under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources ? Youngrubby (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure I've been understanding you correctly—are you arguing that the content is fine to include, but just that the Kotaku source ought not to be used for it? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both Gach, Ethan (July 21, 2022) and Wolens, Joshua (July 22, 2022) with regards to reliability. Some of the other sources seem to go further into the matter, so I think it is fine to include those as reliable. Regarding guidelines on whether to include this for celebrities I am not sure. Youngrubby (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy to add the other sources in addition to the two sources described above if that helps assuage your concerns, though I maintain that we don't dismiss sources because editors personally disagree with an arbitrary level of "scrutiny" apparently unmet in their reporting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So to get this straight for me, would you say the Kotaku article is reliable because Kotaku is reliable? Because I am trying to see the distinction and whether it matters. Youngrubby (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely do make those decisions. As you said, Wikipedia's role requires us to determine the reliability of sources. We must make the decision what is a reliable source and what is not a reliable source. For instance, WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

We do discuss the reliability of publications, yes. Kotaku is a widely-used source on Wikipedia that is generally considered to be reliable. But if all it took to dispute a given ref on Wikipedia was one editor going "I don't think they did a good enough job with this specific article", we'd have no usable references left. If you want to go begin another discussion about Kotaku's reliability, be my guest. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you do not need to blacklist an entire publication in order to question the reliability of a singular article which has no research into a claim except for reusing the original allegation. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Instead of edit warring to remove sourced content, can those of you repeatedly removing the content pertaining to Keffals please explain your reasoning? 2600:1700:31f4:2140:fd81:8871:b432:474, Grenvilledodge. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes.

Firstly, I did not remove "content pertaining to Keffals". I removed 1,000 bites of text which was to "Avoid passive voice". If you wanted to add "content pertaining to Keffals" and wanted editors to consider "content pertaining to Keffals", then you should have labeled it as such.

Secondly, I looked into your source and looked to see if it met the standards for allegations of biographies of living persons, which says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article[...]If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Here is the entirety of sourcing for the allegation against Bonnell: "According to Sorrenti, the Twitch ban was for “repeated hateful slurs or symbols.” She said the slurs existed in a thumbnail for the livestream, and depicted past comments made about her. Before the channel was suspended, the planned Twitch stream was seemingly going to be about how controversial political streamer Steven “Destiny” Bonnell was allegedly weaponizing his own fans and users on the hate forum Kiwi Farms to heap harassment on her. She is now re-editing that stream to appear on YouTube."

So this source is simply a restatement of one singular person who is the person making the accusation. There is no difference from citing this article and citing them saying this on their own platform. It is not noteworthy because as your own source says, the person making the allegation is anticipating uploading the evidence for their allegation--why is this in an encyclopedia when you can wait until that evidence is presented? It is not well documented, because it is simply saying what their accusation is. The fact that a website will say what somebody claims does not make that claim any more substantiated. There are not multiple source and there are no third-party sources because, again, this source is literally just reporting what their claim is.

For these two reasons, I will undo the edit made again for violation of biographies of living persons. Grenvilledodge (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the WP:ABF claims about my edit summary, please see my explanation in my most recent edit summary or User talk:GorillaWarfare#Misleading edit on Stephen Bonnell: I'm glad you at least recognize what happened with the edit conflict due to rapid edits to the page—I clicked save after resolving the conflict without fixing the summary, which can't be edited after the fact. You might check out WP:AGF rather than leaping to "maliciously, purposefully misleading" and threats to report vandalism—it's a pretty common issue with MediaWiki software.

I'm not sure why you are claiming there aren't multiple RS to support the claim; the original editor supported it with both Kotaku and PC Gamer sources, and there are other sources available that refer to their clash, such as:

• The Mary Sue
• Dexterto
• SVG
• The Gamer
• Washington Post (briefer mention without detail on the conflict)

Given that the section was properly worded to attribute the claims to Keffals, it seems perfectly reasonable to include it. The suggestion that There is no difference from citing this article and citing them saying this on their own platform. is plainly untrue.

Regarding off-wiki canvassing, looks like this large account kicked it off also mentioned this dispute. (Note: this was responding to a now-deleted comment).) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You are citing multiple sources that are reciting the same claim by the same interested party. You are not citing multiple sources substantiating the claim or multiple parties reciting the claim.

The Mary Sue: "The worst part? The ban was handed out moments before a tell-all stream where she would go into the harassment she received from another streamer known as Destiny, “who lied about me and weaponized a hate forum [Kiwifarms] that is implicated in multiple suicides against me in an attempt to ruin my life.” Destiny has since been permanently banned from the platform, but the harassment of Keffals continues, as she reports that her “account got mass reported before [she] even started,” thereby silencing her callout stream. She also reported that harassers spurred on by Destiny followed her onto her YouTube stream and forced her to turn the chat off." This is no different than somebody publishing an article with somebody's tweet on it: there is no research, no reporting into the claim, etc.

Dexterto: "However, just before she was meant to go live to talk about “how Destiny lied about me and weaponized a hate forum [Kiwifarms] that is implicated in multiple suicides against me in an attempt to ruin my life”, her Twitch account was banned. Keffals originally stated: “My account got mass reported before I even started and I am banned from Twitch.” She then went on to continue streaming on YouTube, going through the details of alleged targeted harassment from Destiny and his community." Same thing, same quotes.

SVG: "On July 18, trans Twitch streamer Clara "Keffals" Sorrenti posted on Twitter that she had been banned from Twitch after being raided by a large group of viewers — allegedly fans of controversial streamer Destiny — who proceeded to hurl hate speech in her direction and mass report her." This source literally says there's an allegation and doesn't even say from who.

The Gamer: "Earlier this week, Sorrenti revealed what seem to be chatlogs which appear to show Bonnell planning to falsely report her channel over the thumbnail in question." This might be a good source! It isn't just regurgitating what the alleger says... except when you go to the chatlogs, it links to the alleger's own tweet.

Washington Post: "Sorrenti has openly clashed with Destiny, another politics-focused streamer who was recently banned from Twitch, and Tim Pool, a right-wing YouTuber." This is not a source for anything in the edit being made.

It is important to understand what the point of sourcing is. A source does not in and of itself constitute a section on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia isn't a Google search list and everything with the words "Stephen Bonnell", "Destiny", and "Keffals" is not an inherently reliable source, or third-party source, or significant to add. For instance, Mary Sue reports says "We promote, watchdog, extoll, and celebrate diversity, inclusion, and women’s representation in all of these areas (and more!) and work to make geekdom safe and open for everyone." The fact that an allegation is run by a second party does not mean it is well documented: across the relevant sources you gave, there is two quotes from the alleger and then their tweets linked. Two quotes does not make a claim well-documented, whether it's two quotes from Twitter or two quotes from an article relying on two quotes from Twitter. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the PC Gamer source supports the contentious claim about weaponizing KiwiFarms? I have rewritten my comment below. Given the new sources provided, it appears notable enough that Keffals made the claim about Destiny - it shoud be clear, however, that the claim is a claim by Keffals, not a true-fact in Wikipedia's voice. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"...looks like this large account kicked it off"

And what might this be? 2001:14BA:3E5:5000:14F5:73B7:9ED9:2E67 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional evidence that this discussion is being canvassed? I'm not sure what your point is here, I was not trying to make a "they started it" sort of allegation here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying it *really* came off as a "they started it" sort of thing. 2001:14BA:3E5:5000:14F5:73B7:9ED9:2E67 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of arguing that would be (it makes no difference in a content dispute), but I've edited my above comment lest others interpret it that way. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 2001:14BA:3E5:5000:14F5:73B7:9ED9:2E67 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the statement "trans activist streamer Keffals alleged in a livestream that Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass her," is insufficiently notable vis the article "Destiny (streamer)," to include here. I note further that the statement "According to Keffals, Twitch banned her for 28 days as a result of the stream in which she made the allegations, which she said was because she showed examples of the abuse that had been directed at her," has nothing to do with "Destiny (streamer)," and is using this article as a WP:COATRACK to include irrelevent information (referring specifically to the section "All About George," where XYZ is Destiny, and George Washington is Keffal's ban.)

Focusing on my first, more debatable point, I would consider the statement "Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass," to be contentious. As such, if it were included clean, per BLP, it should be removed if it "relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." In this case, however, it's not stated as fact, but rather coatracked in because it is true that Keffals did in, fact, say the thing. I believe it is essentially a BLP violation to include "according to source A person X said Y about person Z" when the saying of the thing is not notable enough to be documented by multiple high-quality sources, when Y is deeply contentious, and when source A does not state that Y is, in fact, true.

Having done additional research, it appears that Destiny denies the statement made - calling it "false" and essentially linking to this article here, noting additionally, that "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance.".

Note - I was made aware of this discussion off of wikipedia by a side that would almost certainly prefer I take the other opinion here. (the twitter feed of @enny43, which I follow because of the righteous crusade to get rid of KiwiFarms from the clearweb). I note for the record that "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I considered removing the second statement as well (regarding Keffals' ban) for the same reason, so I think that's fine to do. But I disagree that the statement hasn't been documented by multiple RS. Are there RS that cover Destiny's denial (or even describe that Twitter account as belonging to him)? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Time order in replies here is confusing - I agree it is well documented with the additional sources you provided above. I do not see good third-party sourcing for the denial. Having reviewed, the source certainly claims to be Destiny (streamer) (the linked tweet says "harassing me"). I think it generally passes BLP:SPS to use the tweet as a denial of the accusation. Perhaps someone with a large twitter platform who I also follow twice on twitter because of their impeciable Web3 coverage could reach out to Destiny to confirm? Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to contact Destiny even if I wanted to, but I also don't think an editor saying "I promise Destiny told me this unverified account belongs to him" would be adequate. Has he made the denial somewhere else (stream maybe)? Otherwise I don't think it can be included without a secondary source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't watch twitch streams. Given the prominence of this talk page, one assumes he'll make the denial publically and verifiably somewhere shortly and then we can include it - I see he has a reddit account, a youtube account, facebook account, an instagram account, a website, a discord server, and like you said, a stream. He is, of course, welcome to comment on this talk page and point to a location where the denial was made publicly. I am concerned about including the claim without the denial when we likley believe the denial is real and expect it to be verifiable sooner rather than later. Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Me neither. A denial can be added if and when a suitably verifiable one is made, but I don't think we should omit content because we expect it might later be verifiably denied... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem excluding the Twitter account - it's quite clearly him, but apparently, according to his stream chat which I'm struggling with, he's not able to admit it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's the first I've heard of the account so I can't really evaluate if it's quite clearly him or not, but it makes me nervous to attribute statements to a social media account that can't be verified to belong to an individual. That he's not able to admit it likely refers to the fact that he's been banned from Twitter—if it is him behind the account, he'd be ban evading and could potentially be banned again. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I am just as nervous to leave a statement up stating that the subject has done a bad thing up according so someone they dislike, when we believe that they have denied doing the bad thing. Are you also concerned about that aspect, or am I talking to myself here? Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat, but I have no idea how we can include the rebuttal when we can't verify the account even belongs to him, it just seems to. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Has any source stated they reached out to Bonnell for a counterclaim? Because if yes and he hasn't responded, then okay, and if they haven't, then I question their reliability. They are not presenting the allegation in an unbiased manner. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be coming up with completely arbitrary arguments to discount a source. Per my above comment, We don't make editorial decisions based on what we think reliable sources should be publishing, we reflect what is published in the sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I am questioning they are reliable sources. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, based on arbitrary arguments that boil down to "I don't like it". There are lots of sources used in Wikipedia that say things I disagree with or that engage in reporting that I would do differently if I were them; that doesn't make them unreliable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith. Please feel free to reply when you want to respond to what I said. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Bonnell's own tweet would be on the same grounds of substantiation as Keffals's because they are both going off of the primary source. The fact that Bonnell does not have their rebuttal cited in articles which are quoting Keffals is not evidence against the RS for Bonnell's refuting, it is evidence against the RS of the sources you're providing.

Consider WP:UBO. "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." This is a contentious claim and the editor presenting the section is only relying on outside citations (not to substantiate the allegation but to substantiate that the claim is being made). We are walking into problems of bias where the fact that somebody can have their allegation quoted in articles is being conflated with the reliability of said allegation. It calls into question the reliability of these outside sources that they are quoting verbatim tweets from the alleger and not quoting the tweets of the alleged. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this does not align with policy. Reliable sources deciding to cover a claim absolutely distinguishes that claim from other tweets as far as suitability for inclusion. To clarify: the content that we are discussing adding is something along the lines of On July 18, 2022, trans activist streamer Keffals alleged in a livestream that Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass her. We are reporting that Keffals has made this allegation; we are not putting into wikivoice that Bonnell weaponized his audience (which I would oppose doing with the given sourcing). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Which sources are you saying are reliable? (adding with edit) In the case that you simply want to add that somebody has made an allegation, refer to the COATRACK conversation. An encyclopedia entry, for instance, Donald Trump should not be a laundry list of every single allegation and claim about Donald Trump. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above (the one with the bulleted list). Five sources describe the allegation, plus another referring more vaguely to the dispute. That is a large number of sources for the level of coverage Destiny tends to enjoy. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Do you believe all five of these sources present the allegation responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone? Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting guidance on the tone of Wikipedia articles to suggest it applies to the tone of sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, my apologies for misreading.

The Overview on reliable sources says "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So do these five sources meet those criteria? Because I would say The Mary Sue's About page has already been mentioned as being purposefully biased, I think even you are agreeing that the Washington Post article doesn't say anything about this accusation, and the other three sources are all just saying what Keffals said as a quote or linked to their tweets. None of them seem to have even reached out to Bonnell for a response. I question the fact-checking nature of articles which are providing only one side of an accusation. Just because a source is published does not mean it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and even if they have that reputation, it does not translate to every single piece put out by that source. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the text we are discussing adding here is that Keffals alleges that Destiny did this. We are not stating as fact that Destiny encouraged his fans to harass her. The sources listed here both verify that she made this allegation, and provide the evidence that this is noteworthy. We're going in circles here with you trying to discount the sources based on your belief that they didn't contact Destiny. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Without taking a position on whether the "keffals" allegations are substantiated, the quotes don't belong in the career section. If anywhere, they belong in a separate "controversies" or "conflicts with other live streamers" section like we see on other celebrity wikis. The allegations are not a significant milestone or event in his career. 58.234.106.98 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point.

You might be able to give context since you talked about celebrity wikis: for a claim like this, is this something that could live on the Keffals page but not here? For instance, if there is somebody who makes a claim of impropriety against a politician or celebrity but there isn't further substantiation, I could see that existing on the alleger's but not alleged's page. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding the allegations to the wiki for keffals. if the allegations aren't significant enough to be on her page, then they don't belong on this one at all. 58.234.106.98 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question is could they be significant enough to be on their page but not this one? I think the COATRACK argument comes in here and I'm leaning on saying yes. Grenvilledodge (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reasonable to add to Keffals' page as well, I think, but I do think it ought to be included here. It seems reasonable for it to go in the "Career" section given that's the section that discusses his streaming (which is his career). It shouldn't go into a "controversies" section, and I don't think there's enough content to warrant a separate "conflicts with other streamers" section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to use the logic that everything that discusses Bonnell's streaming is a part of his career section, the entire "Political views and activism" needs to be absorbed into his career page. Grenvilledodge (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Potentially, but that seems like a separate discussion unless you are suggesting the material about Keffals ought to go into that section instead? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, haven't read through all of this, but just wanted to point out that some of the sources listed above are not really reliable for serious allegations. Dexerto and SVG are terrible, low-quality sources that are probably not useful for anything here on Wikipedia. The Mary Sue is listed at WP:RSP which states that there is no consensus on its reliability and it is generally only used for reviews and attributed opinions, not statements of fact. The Gamer is probably ok for game-related content but I'm worried it probably doesn't reach the higher bar of reliability required for controversial claims in BLPs. The Washington Post is a reliable source and would definitely be good enough if paired with some other sources, but it doesn't mention the specific claim about Kiwi Farms that is being disputed. Kotaku is also reliable and does mention the specific claim so that's good, but per WP:PUBLICFIGURE multiple sources are required for allegations like this. Are there any other sources on this? I had a quick look but couldn't find any. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikibox photo

Should be changed to something that doesn't have a weird filter applied to it. DeKrypT (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of a freely-licensed alternative that could be used? It seems to be the best available option compared to its alternatives. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)