Jump to content

Talk:Gus Johnson (comedian)

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Skipple (talk | contribs) at 13:42, 5 June 2024 (→Should the large amount of subscribers that he's lost be mentioned?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube URL incorrect.

[edit]

I have made various attempts to correct this. Each time my edits have been reverted. Please look closely before undoing changes. 111.69.80.197 (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original title should change to "Gus Johnson (YouTuber)"

[edit]

The title should be switched to Gus Johnson (YouTuber) instead of Gus Johnson (comedian), because it would make a lot more sense, and according to Google, Gus Johnson isn't considered a comedian anymore; he's not labeled "YouTuber" instead. Lil' Jimmy Da Crinja Ninja (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Johnson Call out.

[edit]

Gus Johnson has been fighting to get the GusJohson twitter handle for years. He has just now officially challenged Gus Johnson (Sportscaster) to a pig related sport to obtain the twitter handle. This is important in the world of Gus Johnson. As this has be a key talking point of Gus Johnson's life.

155.68.141.226 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)J[reply]

[1]

  • This video doesn't show notability, and it not from a secondary source. If this receives coverage outside of Johnson's own channel, or if it escalates beyond a single humorous video, it may be worthy of inclusion, but at the time it seems clear that it is not worth including. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Recently, Gus has gotten into controversy. In AbelinaSabrina's (Gus' ex-girlfriend) Pregnancy and Rhinoplasty videos, she alludes to Gus being an emotionally abusive/manipulative boyfriend. I feel like we should include this in the article.

--RTYL5 (talk) 2:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

[2] Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). [3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaGwSRDdptA
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIXuo4fclcw
  3. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/gusjohnson/comments/qdidmr/sabrinas_video_my_pregnancy_nearly_killed_me/
YouTube and Reddit are not reliable sources (WP:RSP). The only news organization whose name I recognize that has reported on Johnson's situation is Newsweek with this article. It was used to source information on an earlier version of this page. The trouble is, since 2013 Newsweek has been considered generally unreliable given its move towards clickbait journalism (WP:NEWSWEEK). Because this is a WP:BLP, we ought to be especially averse to using it. So with the current state of things, we can't include this information because no reliable sources have reported on it. Tkbrett (✉) 13:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost identical reporting (YouTuber-related controversy, spread on Reddit, "reported" in Newsweek) to Dan Avidan's controversy, which has remained on his Wikipedia page for months. I agree that Newsweek is not reliable, especially in these cases where they report on internet hearsay just to be able to get the article out before anyone else, but there should be some consistency/consensus in the handling of these. Harrisonisdead (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is well established at WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Tkbrett (✉) 00:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really contentious? He immediately acknowledged and apologized for it on Twitter. Seems settled to a WP outsider. 173.79.241.74 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every IP that has tried to add content regarding this to the article has titled its subsection "Controversy", as is the title most blogs and articles give the topic. "Contenious" and "controversy" are synonymous. If this isn't a contentious topic, I'm not sure what else would be. Tkbrett (✉) 13:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the incident has been referred to as controversial is not because of any actual contention but rather over people's reactions. It's generally agreed upon that Gus admitted to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CE80:D930:75C0:D75C:DFFB:BF44 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t make much sense. Either it’s a contentious issue, or it isn’t, and all of the blog and click bait coverage describes it as such. Even considering WP:BLP, the more fundamental issue is that there is no reliable secondary source coverage on this controversy. Any IP editor that has tried to add content regarding it to the article has resorted to citing the Newsweek piece, blogs, or by conducting original research and directly citing Twitter and YouTube. None of that is up to regular Wiki standards, let alone a WP:BLP. Tkbrett (✉) 23:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are citations of his and Sabrina's social media pages considered original research? If we don't assert anything they don't already state, then it should be allowed. Turingtestfailed (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To establish whether information is notable enough for inclusion on a Wiki page, we use secondary sources. If you cite a primary source, then you are determining on your own that the information is notable enough to warrant inclusion. This is the original research part, which ought to be avoided. Further refer to WP:SOCIALMEDIA here, which provides very strict guidelines for when it is acceptable to cite a self-published source like Twitter. Tkbrett (✉) 15:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reputable source that covered this controversy: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/abelina-sabrina-gus-johnson-pregnancy-abuse-youtube/ GiveMeADream (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it as WP:UNDUE. Not sufficiently supportive during pregnancy doesn't warrant a paragraph on his article. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what world is ignoring someone you supposedly love while they’re in incredible incredible pain just “not supportive enough”?
Regardless, I feel we should include this in the Personal Life section, and while maybe not deserving of an entire section, it definitely should be included in the page for a large YouTuber with 3 million subscribers. Lacrimosum (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like your own opinion regarding what counts as abuse, not what a considerable amount of the (former) viewership of Johnson considered. I really do not see the link between your opinion and WP:UNDUE 21stCenturySloth (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone working for Gus is omitting all mentions of the abuse allegations.

[edit]

Title 86.146.96.219 (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my most recent edit, I can assure you I have no conflict of interest with the subject. I would suggest reviewing the discussion that has occurred earlier on this talk page. As Tkbrett stated: The standard is well established at WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." - Skipple ☎ 17:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New to Wikipedia. It seems like you're saying that the contentious material ("abuse allegations") is "unsourced or poorly sourced."
Is that correct?
If that is correct then I am confused because GiveMeaDream posted a reputable source about this. 2601:152:800:4450:D460:F23:25EE:F31D (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Dot per WP:RS/PS. [The Daily Dot] is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact... Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. - Skipple ☎ 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about your opinion on this article from mashable [1].
Per WP:RS/PS , mashable may be considered reputable on a case by case basis if the article talks about a subject that fits in it's typical focus (pop culture in this case) and if the article is not sponsored (Which the one I linked isn't).
From my understanding, this article could be considered reliable. 21stCenturySloth (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the large amount of subscribers that he's lost be mentioned?

[edit]

Since Sabrina made her allegations in late 2021, as of May 2024 he's lost nearly 500,000 subscribers (per socialblade) and will fall below 3 million within the next couple of months if this trend continues. Is this something that should be noted in the career or personal life section? Jamesifer (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure at all, I wonder if WP:BLP has resources regarding this, especially since I don't think any secondary source has talked about that specific point. --21stCenturySloth (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In it's current presentation this would certainly fall under WP:OR. I agree with 21stCenturySloth that secondary source analysis would be needed. - Skipple ☎ 13:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gus_Johnson_(comedian)&oldid=1227396878"