Talk:Thunderf00t

Some parts of this arcticle leads to references which do not in any way point the points being pointed out. Have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiiNine (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Writing 32 scientific papers does not notability make. This page was clearly written by some deluded fanboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.2 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because while Mason may not meet the notability guideline as a result of his YouTube activities, he does meet the guideline for academics, as he has published a number of highly cited papers, which include, in addition to those already in the article, the following: [1] and [2] Jinkinson talk to me 03:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

May I ask how he meets the notability guideline for academics since that was one of the reasons for deletion last time? Because it does say "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Plus the sourcing issue that was a problem last time still remains. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Wikipedia's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: [3] Jinkinson talk to me 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in it and less of the unreliable sources and youtube (which should really be removed but since there is a lack of reliable ones, there wouldn't be much to cite everything). Just another question, The citation metrics subsection does say that Google Scholar isn't accurate for measuring the number of citations, could a more accurate verification technique be used to alleviate my concerns? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the American Chemical Society's website is more to your liking--one of Mason's papers has been cited 100 times [4], another 66 times [5], and another 31 times [6]. Is this sufficient to establish notability, in your view? Jinkinson talk to me 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That's better. I have no problems with notability with that but the sourcing is still an issue and does need work. Ie. Richard dawkins.net and youtube are hardly reliable sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Plus I would direct you towards WP:BLOGS regarding the new addition of the ftb section. The sourcing really urgently needs work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have come up when his page was put up for AFD last time. Noting that you participated in that discussion, and that your userpage identifies you as a creationist, I can't help but wonder if you have something personal against Mason, given that he is an outspoken critic of your views, and if this is why you don't seem to want him to have a Wikipedia page. Anyway, Vera said that "the notability of the blogs that talk about him is quite high." However, WP:BLOGS states that anything not affiliated with a newspaper or magazine are "largely" not considered a reliable source, but largely doesn't mean always. Pharyngula the blog is not just any ordinary blog--it actually has independent notability and therefore, I would argue, is a reliable source. The same goes for Patheos, in my opinion. Jinkinson talk to me 16:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What my views are is irrelevant to this. Please don't go onto argumentum ad hominum just because I have concerns about the sourcing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not ad hominum. If your actions are motivated by your religious views, and not for the good of wikipedia, that is a serious issue.Halfhat (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion request

The Third Opinion request made in respect to this edit has been removed because the 3O project (like all forms of mediated dispute resolution here at WP) requires substantial talk page discussion before requesting assistance. While I would ordinarily suggest following my recommendations here when an editor will not discuss, this really seems more like a case for a page protection request. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong emphasis

This seems too focussed on his internet activities to me. There should atleast be more on his research, talk about his notable findings. Don't get me wrong I do think a summary, atleast, of his internet activities is necessary. I think it should be a section instead of being thrown in.Halfhat (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd contest this since his internet activities are what made him notable in the first place. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

But he meets acedemic guidelines for notability. So there should be more on it.Halfhat (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Can we atleast agree to separate internet activities into one section, with a basic summary at the start. And add some info on his research.Halfhat (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We agree. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

'Anti feminist'

Are there any sources describing him as such or is this all WP:OR? Tutelary (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose this New Statesman article describes him as anti-feminist. —ajf (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps anti-feminist isn't the best word to use as you'll find few reputable sources using that specific phrasing, but given the majority of the videos has makes now are about (and against) feminism, it would be reasonable to mention this in the opening paragraph somehow. He would seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of anti-feminist, too. —ajf (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am of the opinion Ajfweb is correct with his information. I would like a second RS to nail it down before we include said language. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I admit this is just my opinion and not directly backed up by sources. But my impression is that Thunderf00t attacks everyone he sees as making dishonest claims — be it media hype about technologies, hoaxes on Kickstarter, religion, or in this case, the claims and actions of certain feminist persons. It does not seem fair to stick the "anti-feminist" label in the lead if he's not actually arguing against the rights for women. Compare that to his stances on religion, for instance, where he's clearly attacking the ideology.

I think it's more accurate to describe him as "critic of prominent feminists" rather than "anti-feminist". -- intgr [talk] 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I'd agree with you there. While he claims not to be against feminism, only "feminism" as he calls people, it's not clear what parts of feminism he does support, if any, that are actually in any way not mainstream, commonly-accepted views. Even if he's not against "all" feminism, he seems to be against a lot of it. For those reasons, I'd say it's a fitting descriptor. —ajf (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I boldly went and changed the lead to how I would phrase it: "He has produced numerous videos, some about science and others criticising religion, certain feminists and technology hype.", edit it into oblivion if you disagree. :)

Just curious: "he claims not to be against feminism" — did he say that anywhere publicly? -- intgr [talk] 22:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to ignore this debate, but descriptions of his online activities should be cited to a reliable source rather than dependent on original analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

True enough. I had a look at the sources and so far we have two relevant sources that seem reliable. This one only says "Popular YouTuber and Anita Sarkeesian critic Thunderf00t" whithout mentioning feminism at all.

The second one is titled "on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique", but it seems he's not directly referring to Thunderf00t. It talks about lots of different avenues of criticism and only mentions Thunderf00t in the second half of the article, starting out with someone's "hate email that cites the work of thunderf00t". Direct descriptions of Thunderf00t don't go any further than "He's a prominent YouTube capital-A Atheist, who mainly focuses on Dawkins- or Hitchens-type criticism of organised religion, but with a sideshow channel devoted also to debunking prominent feminists." -- intgr [talk] 19:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to get annoying, and now I'm beginning to wish that I had continued to ignore this debate. However, the New Statesman source does not state anything of the kind (ie, "certain feminists, but not all feminists"). The word "certain" does not even appear in the article. I'm thinking maybe we should just go back to the old consensus version before the bold change, which is nothing but original research. I don't know how we got from "prominent feminists" to "certain feminists". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"we should just go back to the old consensus version" - Fine by me. :) -- intgr [talk] 01:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you go to Phil's YouTube page, the intro video, the purpose of which is to provide a brief description to your channel, is titled "How Feminism Poisons EVERYTHING" (emphasis his). So yes, I think "anti-feminist" is a fair description. Maybe I'm being naive; the standard here seems to be "unless someone else says it about you, it isn't verifiable." The tamale (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice the article lacks an obvious and quick way to get to the thunderf00t channel, despite referring to it multiple times. That seems intentional. In any case, I did go to his channel and note that you misquoted it. That video puts "feminism" in single quotes (and it has been that way since original posting) and he has stated that his reason for doing that is that he is attacking a particular ideology that calls itself feminism, but which does not represent all feminists. Thunderf00t supports gender equality, and feminists who support that view. 24.57.218.21 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have watched many, many Thunderf00t videos and have never heard him state anything resembling this. Did I miss something, or does he state it somewhere in a blog? A source for this assessment would be appreciated.68.185.167.132 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

To continue, regarding the use of quotes around feminism, "Yeah, 'Feminism' is in quotes there for good reason." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR7F_I 24.57.218.21 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

External links have been added and in no way was this intentionally left out. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. The omission was not intentional, but I suppose it was symptomatic of bias. I apologize for the error and appreciate the input.The tamale (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to this point about "Anti-Feminism", I must say that the blanket term's definition on Wikipedia just terrible. "Antifeminism may include beliefs such as general hostility towards women's rights, the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated, or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men." The Reason I highlight this is that if you look at the definition, this means that Anti-Feminism ranges from: Misogyny as the worst element of Anti-Feminism; Asserting that Feminism does harm to men; Believing that the fundamental claims they make are wrong; then believing that the claims are merely exaggerated. This means an anti-Feminist can range from someone whom is a Misogynist, to moderate critic. Even a lot of women who call themselves Feminists could be labeled under such a dreadfully definition. I think the vagary of such a term is deliberately meant to have the effect of being a slanderous term, which people associate with the worst end of the spectrum, rather than just criticism. For this reason, if the Term Anti-Feminist is to be used - which it could be - I would say a clarification would be needed afterwards. I think "Anti 3rd Wave Feminis(t/m)" would be appropriate as that describes his position exactly. 84.13.110.141 (talk) 01:08, 02 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be a good addition to him for the research section

http://www.nature.com/news/sodium-s-explosive-secrets-revealed-1.16771 I'd write something myself but I don't think I'd do a particularly good job. I'll have a go if no one else is willing. HalfHat 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems like the better choice of source. http://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2161.epdf?referrer_access_token=q4tryh-QAlfJzOrSLMEBa9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PivizcYhbeEeedGtf_JDb9_jGU2Nb3sPLqPi0hS5MQCPNp1Wf9RJT6EkH6_lVuHP2ypP9e2lwsTYn6QLm7CLxA HalfHat 09:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A Dispute about Neutrality

I have recently come to a disagreement with user NinjaRobotPirate and I hope that we can work it out here on the talk page. The subject of the dispute is my claim that in the context of the article "More recently, Mason has made videos critical of modern feminism and its proponents, notably Anita Sarkeesian." would be preferable to "Mason's criticism of YouTube feminists, including Anita Sarkeesian, has attracted criticism; Ian Steadman of The New Statesman wrote, "His videos are often masterclasses in substituting smug for substance, with his Sarkeesian critiques particularly good examples."" My reasoning is that the sentence I reject has two problems, and my substitute fixes both. First, it, at least as it is now in the context of this article, is in violation of Wikipedia's policy which requires that articles be written from a neutral point of view. It presents a controversial opinion as the only opinion. It supports this, and this is the second thing wrong with it, by using weasel words. "Mason's criticism of YouTube Feminists ... has attracted criticism." Attracted criticism from whom? In what volume, ratio to positive response, and degree of severity? As I see it, my replacement sentence fixes both problems while still introducing the elements of the sentence which did not violate Wikipedia rules, in order to preserve the flow of the paragraph, which was a concern which was brought up by user The C of E before I came up with the edit I am arguing in favor of now. Briefly, I should respond to the criticism of this reasoning that have been leveled by NinjaRobotPirate. His first criticism was "Removal of a citation, whitewashing criticism." The citation was removed because it was used to cite the element that I removed. The allegation of "whitewashing criticism" just seems like inflammatory rhetoric. My reasoning behind removing the elements that I did is not to "whitewash criticism," but to provide a neutral substitute to a biased part of an article. If the criticism violates Wikipedia's rules, then it should be removed or changed. The fact that it's criticism doesn't give it any special privilege. His second criticism was "It's a direct quote. Stop removing it." The fact that a quote was used in the sentence doesn't change anything, since I'm saying that it is a violation of neutrality, not unverifiable. I hope that we are able to come to an agreement on this matter and improve the article. Thank you for you time and considering my opinions.66.211.238.179 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean what you think it means. We go by what has been said in reliable sources and we do not hide facts. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is in line with neutrality guidelines, in particular WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But the guidelines prescribe what an article is allowed to say, not that there's a requirement to keep that quote.

This source certainly needs to stay, as it's one of the few good reliable sources we have on Sarkeesian criticism. But this particular quote stinks of editorializing, I am not very fond of it either. Even though the removals have not been well substantiated, several other editors have also attempted to remove it: [7] [8] [9] [10] -- intgr [talk] 11:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are allowed to be biased. If a journalist has criticized someone, we report that they have done so; we don't simply remove their criticism and replace it with "he made some videos". Maintaining a neutral point of view means that we report what the articles says in neutral terms, which this Wikipedia article does. If I remember correctly, I was the one who added this line. I can say that there's no editorializing, as I've never seen a video by Phil Mason, and I have no opinions on him. And, yes, I've had to restore that quotation a few times when SPAs came in to remove it. This is fairly regular occurrence on any biographical article, and especially on biographies of popular YouTube celebrities (which also attract more vandalism and libel than usual). If people want to rewrite it say something like: "Ian Steadman of The New Statesman criticized his videos about popular YouTube feminists." that's OK. I kind of prefer the previous version, but I'm tired of constantly arguing with everyone about everything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article is very lenient on this blatant misogynist. "He has produced numerous science communication and social issue videos focused on his views about politics, religion, and feminism.", while technically true, it sounds like whitewashing and puffery. I think he's primarily known to the public for making anti-feminist videos, and this should be in the lead. I'm gonna be bold and do some edits to the article, but I'm willing to discuss them here. --Slimy goop (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Slimy goop: You seem to be new here, so I'll try to explain a few things. Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia are protected by policy against unsourced (or poorly-sourced) negative material. We must avoid defamatory statements to the best of our ability, and you're not really starting off very well, having already called someone a "blatant misogynist". You need to watch what you say about biographical subjects, both in the article and on the talk page. Second, about the neutrality of the article, this article has had rather contentious discussions here on the talk page, and the current version is the result of those discussions. I'm a bit worried that you seem to have strongly negative opinions on this person. Keep in mind that we can't add negative material to a biography simply because we think it's relevant; it must be cited to a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Article misses debunking videos & name origin

I'd edit it myself if I was groggy with flu or whatever. Tf00t has debunked things like "solar freakin roadways" and hoverboards. Distinct from his own science, and political videos.

Also, his pseduonym and bunny logo and "fear the bunny" slogan seem to come from some Monty Python thing. Would be nice to have that.

24.57.218.21 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)