Talk:Steven Crowder

Personal life updates

His dog is going through some health stuff and he mentioned in a video that he was homeless for a time. Is any of that worth adding? Bgrus22 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The dog part that is. The part about him being homeless is worth adding. Though I would like to know what video he said that one in. I know that this contradicts what I said last time but I have been wrong before so why not. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? ~ HAL333 04:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite what crowder has declared, the place he described living in are not in fact in Montreal, but in Longeuil, as was his highschools. There are more english schools in Montreal, so it would make no sense to send him to school elswhere. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/the-louderwithcrowder-team-remembers-where-we-were-on-911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Regional_High_School

left-wing smear

"his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs"

Some might find his jokes offensive, I consider them to be funny. Do not generalize by using such terms.

The accurate line would be "his use of slurs some critics called racist and homophobic" And the term "homophobic" is just dumb. No normal person is afraid of gays, many people simply cant stand them due to personal religious beliefs or the behaviour of gay people which often can be annoying and awkward.

62.226.80.160 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is how reliable sources describe the words used by Crowder. The meaning of the word "homophobia" is, as we say in our article on the topic, "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality [including] contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy". It may have the "phobia" prefix, but it is not a sum-of-parts meaning. — Bilorv (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

the alleged racist language has not been put forward.Quenreerer (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia users think has or hasn't "been put forward." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

source never presents it. just parrots accusations for clicks. show examples of racist speech, and i;ll change my mind. Quenreerer (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You will need consensus to change the longstanding wording here. Simply declaring that it "parrots accusations for clicks" is non-responsive. Your disagreement with reliable sources is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No strong opinion here but I will point out that WP:RACIST says "racist" and "homophobic" are "words to watch" and that such Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Crowder's Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred

Crowder openly expresses Negative Views, Disdain and Hatred towards Islam and Muslims, He uses Stereotypes, Inflammatory Languages and Hasty Generalization about Islam and Muslims and How he describes Islam and Muslims, He describe Islam as "Cancerous Ideology", Muslim Men including Refugees/Migrants as "Mentally Ill", "Deranged Psychopaths", "Women-Hating Nazis" and "Rapists" etc, Muslims as "Godless Devil-Worshipers", "Terrorists", "Rapists", "Anti-American", "Anti-Semite", "Anti-Christian", "Anti-Women", "Murderers", "Sexists" and "They Don't Believe in God and Jesus", He goes on claims that "Muslims killed Jesus" and "Like Raping Women", He even expresses Hatred of, Disdain and Negative views about Prophet Muhammad, uses Inflammatory language by calling Prophet Muhammad a "Pedophile", "Rapist", "Terrorist", "Women-Beater", "Demon-Possessed" and he drew and painted Picture depicting Prophet Muhammad which is Extremely Offensive towards Muslims, He Called Muslim Converts as "Terrorists" and "Rapists" and etc. Crowder Condemns Homophobia when a Muslims commits it which shows his double-standard and I think this is worth adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subwayfan1998 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This talk page isn't a forum. Please give us reliable sources and propose specific, actionable changes. To prevent Wikipedia from being used as a platform for sharing Crowder's views, his own videos are not usable by themselves. We need sources to explain this for us, and then we can summarize what those sources say. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The entry should be deleted per not-a-forum. It's defamatory without sources. Anastrophe (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Crowder doesn't hide his contempt for all of Islam, and it is well documented by other sources spanning over a decade.[1][2][3][4][5][etc.]. Whether or not these are reliable in context, and how to summarize them if they are, is another matter, but that's exactly what talk pages are for. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

So, those sources corroborate every one of the 24+ claims made in that screed? I doubt it. Spewing a litany of grievances isn't article improvement, it's using it as a forum, and particularly here, that's not acceptable. See WP:BLPTALK. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

None of these descriptions of Crowder's words and actions appear remotely close to libel, to my eyes at least. We know he has said and done intentionally offensive things specifically towards Muslims. The details are not necessarily relevant, but that doesn't make them libelous. All of them are entirely plausible and verifiable (verifiable isn't the same as verified, of course). The sources I listed do support some of them, which is why it is plausible, but probably not all. To support each specific point, one would have to pour-through WP:PRIMARY sources, which is really, really not productive, but probably could be done. I agree that this is bordering on WP:NOTFORUM, which I also mentioned, but these issues were brought up specifically as things to include in the article. I am explaining what would is necessary for that to happen, which is coverage in reliable, independent sources, and a large does of context. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere does the policy for BLP talk pages mention libel specifically. You're setting the bar too high. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.", and "be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." Merely tagging onto the end of a lengthy CamelCase screed "I think it should be added to the article" gives absurd license to make unverified claims. "Daffy Duck was a pedophile, a mass murderer, a rapist, a misogynist, a white nationalist, possibly a cross-dresser (in keeping with those times), and participated in medical experimentation on homosexuals at Dachau. I think this should be added to the article". No. Not how it works. Anastrophe (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

An appropriate inquiry would be something like "Crowder has made an assortment of statements that could be characterized as anti-muslim. I think this should be covered in the article if there are reliable sources to back it up." At best, that should be substituted over editor Subwayfan1998's contentions, until such time as they are verified and considered appropriate to add to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You said It's defamatory without sources. Libel is the relevant form of "defamation". I am attempting to explain why I think your concerns about this being defamation are prohibitively restrictive. None of these unsourced actions were attributed to Crowder, they are things he has accused others of doing, and this seems very comfortably within his wheelhouse. These are not extraordinary claims, in context. What is being said is that Crowder accuses other people of these things, and what we should be discussing is if and how to include this. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfell for bringing up the sources and explaining, those sources that you backed up proven that Crowder has made an assortment of statements that is Islamophobic and anti-muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subwayfan1998 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

-The line quoted below should be moved down into the 'Investigation by YouTube' category. If you refer to other Wikipedia pages they almost always place more controversial subjects lower on the page.

"In June 2019, Crowder's YouTube videos were investigated over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs to describe journalist Carlos Maza.[3] The channel was not suspended, with YouTube saying, "the videos as posted don't violate our policies" while also demonetizing the account.[4][5]"

-The line below is biased and should be removed. If you search Crowder and his memes online you'll see that the majority of posts are actually in favor of his humor and openly support him, not parody him. The only source you have for referencing the line is biased media website The Daily Dot.

"After Crowder uploaded it on his Twitter account on February 18, 2018, the photograph quickly became a means for others to change the signs about different situations, often mocking and parodying Crowder.[26]" Chrisstevens84 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources, not memes and unverified information; we rely on reliable sources (which is not the same as sources free from bias, as there is no such thing). Our policy WP:LEAD states that the lead of the article should summarise the body of the article with due weight in accordance to how much reliable secondary source coverage there is on each topic. There is significant coverage of the investigation into Crowder, with the "Investigation by YouTube" section containing 10 sources, all to different websites (including Fox News and the Washington Post). — Bilorv (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"considerable criticism", like "many", is a loaded and POV turn of words that make it look like that's the POV of most

We need to be careful in articles about living people. Calling his jokes "homophobic" is a POV. Putting him in a "discrimination against LGBT" category is actually rather left-field and random. And using an editorial from the post to frame like the majority of people wanted him kicked off YouTube doesn't look NPOV, when Cruz's opinion in the next sentence would also state he was in the majority, and Crowder would say his demonetization drew "considerable criticism" because he'd say he's in the majority at least as much as Maza would. J390 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Those characterizations are supported by the cited sources, which discuss criticism of Crowder's statements and do not support the claim that Crowder is "in the majority at least as much as Maza". I also don't see any editorial from the Washington Post cited in the article. You may want to review the sources cited in the section about this topic, as well as previous discussions on this talk page about that section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

But other sources, including Crowder's own, could easily reverse the narrative on how Youtube's being criticized here and say his demonetization drew "considerable criticism", which is POV on a living persons page. At least the editorial could be quoted directly instead of stated like a fact with loaded language. There's also no reason he's in a "discrimination against LGBT" category. J390 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As has already been said in the article's archives, any attempt to interpret Crowder's "own sources" would be WP:OR, and he's not reliable anyway. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If Crowder's sources are WP:OR, then so are Maza's. Which is fair, both are certainly biased as the two players in this feud, and his own weren't used. So let's take first and second person sources off the table as we have been doing. But just as said article that was linked is a third party coming down on Crowder and YouTube for not banning him on Maza's behalf, there are other third parties who came down for Crowder in this feud who would say his demonetization drew "considerable criticism". Then there's YouTube that would say they did nothing wrong. Wikipedia stresses both care on articles about living persons and NPOV. Go to the top of this article, it has a tab stating content must be written from a neutral POV. J390 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources can be used with attribution, but deciding which primary sources to use, and which to omit, should be determined by outside perspectives. Any (non-trivial) interpretation of primary sources must come from secondary sources. Presenting this as "both sides" is misguided for multiple reasons. Further, we go by actual sources, not hypothetical gossip. There are plenty of "third parties" for any position you care to name. Per WP:FRINGE, we are only interested in those perspectives if they are contextualized by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not "fringe" sources critical of his demonetization though, that's the thing. It's many mainstream sources. Criticizing YouTube for not demonetizing him is not the only "mainstream" or "non-fringe" position, some would call it fringe in fact. If this article has to be biased using "both sides" as a justification to come down on only one side, then I guess every single political article will be. That's the precedent. Which goes against our policy on neutrality. J390 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What reliable secondary sources contradict the information currently in the "Investigation by YouTube" section? The current sources overwhelming refer to Crowder using racist and homophobic abuse/slurs towards Maza. No editorials, opinion articles, or articles written by Maza are used in the section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I know that, and the article is correct in not citing Maza's or Crowder's own commentary on it, but the sources listed are on Maza's side of the feud. I just think if it's there for NPOV the article should cite the that article said that in quotes, like Ted Cruz's weighing in was what he said directly in the sentence after. J390 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are news articles, which include the Washington Times and Fox News. Wikipedia article can make statements based on what reliable sources say, and the Washington Post is a reliable source, with the other sources supporting it as well. That is not the same level as a statement by Ted Cruz. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible article bias

I believe there is bias with the wording in the article. Particularly when it comes to describing his supposed "racist and homophobic slurs" as fact. Since there is dispute between editors regarding whether or not his words were actually racist or homophobic, I believe we should word the article in a way that does not incite bias to one side or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmolken (talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Our personal opinions are irrelevant - what matters are the cited reliable sources which say that they were "racist and homophobic slurs." By foundational policy, Wikipedia articles are based on what is published in reliable sources, not on your or my personal opinions. Therefore, this phrase will not be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There are many sources which suggest otherwise. There is no reason to write the article to say that he used racist and homophobic slurs as a fact, since many sources can't agree with this statement and it's a matter of one's own personal opinion. I think you could say however, that his comments were regarded by many to be racist and homophobic. Dmolken (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is an issue that isn't going to be resolved any time soon. Mainstream media outlets (which are the ones that are traditionally associated with reliability) do tend to lean left, while alternative media outlets (which are often seen as unreliable) tend to lean right. Unless either this balance changes, or Wikipedia's policies on sources change, neither of which is likely to happen any time soon, then bias on articles like this are inevitable. There will never be an on-site consensus on the issue as one side will always point to the fact that Crowder has said things like "Mr. Lispy Queer from Vox", while the other will point to the fact that these comments are made tongue-in-cheek, and that it may be misleading to present these quotes, and descriptions of them, in an isolated text form. While I do agree that the wording of the article is somewhat biased, I also agree that there's not really anything that can be done about that at this time. Alex the weeb (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Dmolken makes a point. I've made an edit to address that point. I've also slightly altered the section heading for this thread. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't know how else you interpret: '"Mr. Lispy queer", an "angry little queer", and a "gay Mexican", and mocked him with a stereotypical gay voice, sometimes while wearing a t-shirt with Che Guevara on it that said "Socialism is for f*gs [sic]"'. In any case, we use RS. I reverted. O3000 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant here, Bus stop. Can you cite reliable sources which describe the statements as anything other than racist and homophobic? If not, then there is no significant factual dispute among reliable sources, and in such cases, Wikipedia states facts as facts. It would be a violation of policy to present these uncontested factual statements as mere opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and your personal opinion is irrelevant too. That's why you can't use "racist and homophobic" as it is as opinion, not a fact. Also I don't understand why pretty much all of these "reliable" sources happen to all be left-leaning. There should be more variety in the sources that the article uses. That way we can make sure that Wikipedia stays unbiased. Dmolken (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have a problem with venerable sources like The Washington Post, take it to WP:RSN. This is not the correct venue. (With apologies to RSN folk.) O3000 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on this talk page and there remains no consensus and no reliable sources to support any sort of downplaying of what reliable sources widely describe as racist and homophobic slurs. "Left-leaning" is in the eye of the beholder and tells us more about an editor's motivation than it does the news sources which have wide consensus to be treated as reliable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Calling him a Canadian-American sounds like he's a Canadian born American immigrant, but on the other hand American-Canadian sounds like he's American born and currently and primarily presides in Canada, and on yet another hand, just calling him an American detracts from the importance of his upbringing in the heavily left-wing culture of Canada.

Have you all had this discussion before? My first instinct is to say to leave it, but I thought I'd take a stab at a fix anyway. BattyMRaps (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall this having come up before. See MOS:LEADBIO, specifically MOS:CONTEXTBIO. The goal of the first paragraph is just to briefly indicate who someone is and why they are noteworthy. The lead isn't the place to go into detail about his upbringing, so any connection to Canada's left-wing culture would need to be made by reliable sources. I have no specific opinion on the arrangement of these terms, but merely mentioning one nation would be misleading. That is, unless we have some reason to think his tweet on his citizenship isn't accurate, in which case he should be described as American, since that is the main location he is notable. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously we have no reason to question him when he says he's from Canada though. J390 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Nahum The Historian (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) I'd like to correct the affiliation of Crowder in this article, his ideology could be better described as Liberal Conservativism since he has Libertarian Economic Views but also understands there's an important social tissue made by religion which he respects, therefore, is also Conservative.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)