Jump to content

Talk:Vaush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2804:14d:7e85:4ac4:69da:5e5c:d23c:d5fa (talk) at 00:27, 13 February 2024 (→‎Missing Controversies: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Vaush is a liberal/progressive not a socialist in practice.

All he does is promote the Democratic Party and shill NATO. Gengeros (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 45.59.33.46 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vaush is implied to be a libertarian socialist even in the voice example. He has said it explicitly many times (ex. his Twitter). Therefore, because he considers himself a socialist, he should be referred to as such under WP:BLP:Self-published sources:Using the subject as a self-published source. By no means should he be labelled as a liberal because he has opinions—that are tangentially related to socialism at best—you don't agree with. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He’s definitely a liberal 47.40.177.156 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...Do you have a source to back that up? It's generally frowned-upon to not refer to someone as their self-referential description in the first sentence without a very good reason. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't WP:NPOV trump that? I could be wrong.
It's without a doubt incredibly controversial subject but idk which rule would be prioritized here. IMO the best way to word it would be "refers to himself as a libertarian socialist"
Given he is relatively insignificant I doubt there is much coverage of this controversy from notable sources FloodedYeti (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles flip-flop between assigning political alignments and using "self-described", so if you can find a reliable source that doesn't call him a socialist/leftist or brings that into question, that would be a reasonable compromise. After all, NPOV does take precedent if the self-ascription is controversial enough, but innocent until potentially guilty with a reliable source. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting democratic worker ownership of the means of production makes you a socialist and therefore not a liberal. Being against allowing the republicans to commit genocide and against russia doing imperialism in an illegal invasion of other countries does not make you not a socialist; but rather more of one. Enough Malarkey, Anarcho-Bidenism/Anarcho-NATOism is the future. As also already mentioned, this is not a forum, but a talkpage for improving the article. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This must be the most petitio principii ridden comment I have seen in a while. No wonder it fits nicely with a tendency of taking blatant chauvinists' and imperialists' claims about themselves for granted. So now we have RFE being called freedom loving radio - because they say so, various imperialist interventions being called humanitarian - because their sponsors say so and an ignorant, racist mediocrity being called a socialist - because he says so. By the sorcery of just assuming someone's statement to be truthful, I guess NSDAP should also be considered socialist. 109.165.141.52 (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's handle this logically instead of mudslinging: What exactly makes him NOT a socialist? I'm pretty sure supporting Ukraine has nothing to do with it. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want everyone to take his claim that he is a socialist - at face value - and then for anyone who disagrees to prove a negative... That's not how logic works.
These kind of things show just how messed up this project (WP) is. (Redacted) 109.165.139.119 (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is LITERALLY Wikipedia policy. If you can't tell me why he isn't a socialist and defer to ad hominem, then I see no reason why to change it. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop editing my comments and deleting them from history of this page. It won't change the fact that you are shilling for a creep that has some serious sexual harassment allegations against him. I've saved the talk page and will make it available.
You don't need to lecture me about how this dumpster of a project LITERALLY works - I'm perfectly aware of that. That's why I'm not even trying to edit the article page, but contributing to the talk page, where most people with more than half a brain go to see how much doctored the article is.
You can keep archiving inconvenient comments and deleting them, of course, but sooner or later Vaush is going to become unwashable. 109.165.141.7 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd look at the edit history, you would see that I've done nothing of the sort. Now you've insulted Wikipedia and made baseless accusations against ME as well as Vaush. And...what? You think this is helping your case? No logical editor would think this is helping. I still have seen no significant argument as to why he is not a socialist. This was archived by someone else because this is going nowhere. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "You" from the last paragraph was supposed to include all of you who are trying to hide information, even from the talk page. This was not archived because it is going nowhere, it was completely deleted because it shows this creep in a bad light.
For anyone interested in how the information is being disappeared from this page, talk page, and even history:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231008115130/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaush
https://web.archive.org/web/20231115124116/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaush
Not only is the information about CP, sexual harassment etc. being removed from the article, but any mention of it is completely destroyed from history, with asinine argumentation like "we need reliable sources". Even if you have the proof straight from the horses mouth. 109.165.141.7 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm hearing is that you don't actually care whether Vaush is a socialist because you just want him to be called a pedophile. Classy. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already know he ain't a socialist. The point is that taking for granted the "socialist" self-labeling of a person who supports Western imperialism and liberal parties is irrational. I already said that. (Following that logic, NSDAP should be called socialist)
Everything else is just a cherry on top, caused by the slimy removal of my comments. Which actually motivated me to look deeper into this thing. It's not classy, but hiding the fact is really disturbing. 109.165.141.7 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come back with a reliable source and I'll care. Stop repeating the same tired points. It's not enough. LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second channel (The Vaush Pit)

I propose that https://www.youtube.com/@TheVaushPit be added to the infobox as it seems to be a significantly sized channel used to divvy up the volume of content uploaded to the "main channel" as opposed to a minor channel used for occasional extra content or for uploading past livestream vod content as many other creators' secondary channels are. Lord Beesus (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is notable enough to be added - there aren't many/any sources that discuss it (See WP:YTLINKS). Shapeyness (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly just mean under the YouTube section of the infobox at "channels", "subscribers" and "total views". I would argue that the reason there aren't sources discussing the channel specifically is because of the nature of the channel as merely a way of dividing up the massive amount of content he produces. Generally speaking, nobody writes articles on specific channels run by YouTubers, they just write about the YouTuber themselves. It might also be worth mentioning that the channel has more subscribers than the twitch channel has followers. A twitch account which is now essentially obsolete and remains in the infobox anyway. The Vaush Pit however is a relevant and steadily growing channel that is significant to Vaush's YouTube presence. Lord Beesus (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry just to clarify, I'm not just opposing coverage in the article, but also inclusion in the infobox, due to lack of coverage and WP:YTLINKS where there was a consensus "Secondary channels should not be linked to in the infobox, unless covered by reliable sources". Shapeyness (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no mention of his sexual harassment controversy

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

You must provide reliable sources of this if we are even to discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWv33d5jyKY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_1nOZoYyRs
This is just the two videos I saw when searching "Vaush sexual harassment" on YouTube.
The first is him acknowledging the scandal, the second is another user's investigation. There are many of these videos. 24.98.136.4 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos are not reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. Please see WP:BLPRS SKAG123 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The instance, where there were reciprical sextings which never went onto being irl stuff is in no way in line with sexual harassment. He was angry following a break up, that is normal. Not to mention that vaush constantly repeats the actkons were bad personally but not sexual assault which id agree with (https://x.com/VaushV/status/1489660079691341825?s=20)
Going through every one who does say he did commit sexual harrasment, theres a common element. None of them show chat logs, none of them accurately describe or know what happened, and many, such as bad empanada, are known for frequently spreading misinformation about people (and acknowledging they actively lie about people they dont like by tefering to them as pedophiles as in the case of badempanada). This query deserves no real attention and I'd hazard to say the original poster has little to no knowledge of the real events that occured. Varjagen (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets even by the person, are not reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:RS for acceptable sources. SKAG123 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

past fundraisers

should vaush's past fundraisers for Ukraine, planned parenthood, and Palestine be mentioned? I would argue they are very notable accomplishments. Phoub327 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I don't recall any RS mentioning it. SWinxy (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found sources on the Palestine Children's Relief Fund article and added them here. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaush and Ana Kasparian

Vaush has had quite a squabble with Ana Kasparian over trans rights, I think we should get some sources to briefly describe it on this page. StrongALPHA (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly Drama Alert. Their falling-out doesn't mean much, nor would an WP:RS care. SWinxy (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

missing info

vaush has a third channel https://www.youtube.com/@vaushvibes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerzorpaglorp99 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be owned by him. In any event, adding a third channel to the infobox would be too much. SWinxy (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Controversies

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

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

100% a controversy section is way overdue 2804:14D:7E85:4AC4:69DA:5E5C:D23C:D5FA (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaush&oldid=1206737057"