Talk:Vaush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft talk:Vaush)

Second channel (The Vaush Pit)[edit]

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]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no mention of his sexual harassment controversy[edit]

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]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE
these are all HIS OWN videos, this is enough proof, unlock the article 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dude's on the left, therefore WP:BLP actually applies to him.
You clearly don't know how things work here. 202.27.212.13 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

past fundraisers[edit]

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]

Missing Controversies[edit]

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]
Any controversies need to be supported by reliable sources, given due weight for a WP:BLP. It's not that his controversies have been suspiciously omitted, it's that they haven't made news. SWinxy (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sky blue, they are literally just fqctual. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal.” Can’t we just use his own videos as the source? 2804:7F0:A085:D6A8:1070:F2D0:4D38:DA8D (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if it was Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder… 177.41.193.135 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that reliable sources will cover L0LIGATE, if they haven't already. But it's best to avoid a WP:CSECTION, so I'd recommend adding a summary of that scandal to #Personal life. El_C 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Letdown101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lib twitter will do it's darndest to keep these off the page despite Vaush's myriad statements concerning these topics. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:B4F2:4445:DFBC:C11E (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing controversy and why did his school change[edit]

I recall seeing polytech as his education and why are mentions of loli, horse, and sexual harassment and political controversy not mentioned. 2601:1C2:1B7F:6C30:7061:202D:339F:7B40 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sources means no content, as it has always been. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need a source to prove that the sky is blue. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we need sources for someone's education and any controversies they may have been involved in. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jIMjqpKBE 159.205.82.38 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said independent reliable sources. If no one is writing articles about this issue, it is not an issue we include in the article. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But again that's literally an indisputable fact that he did move schools. 173.79.40.205 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then you should be able to find a source that corroborates it. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDSKY Googleguy007 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple videos and discord messages of VAUSH HIMSELF saying he finds horses sexually attractive, thinks child porn should be legal to possess, and thinks sexual relationships with children are okay. How is this not proof enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCFQuui2iIY 2605:A601:AC1D:F000:B49E:BFDF:5B07:320C (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need independent (and reliable) sources for verification; if someone says something and no one cares, it is not a controversy, similar to how if a tree falls in a forest (etc). Primefac (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing controversial opinion[edit]

Vaush expressed his support for making possession of child pornography legal on his own stream. He said: “I have yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument as to why possession of child pornography should be illegal.”

Sources:

  1. Vaush on rationalwiki.org
  2. article on thepostmillennial.com
  3. Vaush Opens Porn Folder On Stream (knowyourmeme.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias197 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. clips from his streams, posted on YouTube
  5. thread on r/VaushV subreddit
  6. article on eviemagazine.com
  7. article on nationalcybersecurity.com
  8. article on xkilllakillfan69x.wordpress.com

The video also features many of the controversial opinions and testimonies that he shared. Matthias197 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per WP:USERG, use of unofficial social media accounts is not allowed, as anyone can post anything they want and dub or manipulate audio. Please find a reliable source for your claim. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources contains community consensus on sources. QuietCicada chirp 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, you should remove 99% of the Wikipedia's biographies of internet personalities. That means, that anyone can say anything on the internet without any responsibility whatsoever, because it could have been user-generated content. These are clips from his own streams. That also means that every source that links to a video, could possibly be a user-generated content, thus fake.
I am reactivating the request. Matthias197 (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As I said above, if no one is writing articles about this issue, it is not an issue we include in the article. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided missing reliable sources that support the change. There have been many articles written on this issue, so we should address it in the Wikipedia article.
Missing sources added, and request reactivated. Matthias197 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Of these sources 4 are user-generated, and the other 2 are obscure and have never been discussed on wikipedia. They certainly don't look reliable to me - I can't even load the homepage of national cyber security without getting a database error.
If this hasn't been covered by reliable sources then it isn't notable enough to be included. Jamedeus (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in my opinion, the first source is the most reliable. The arguments are supported by many independent sources. It is a reliable source. It is also a wiki powered by MediaWiki. Matthias197 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policies we keep linking before reopening your request. Other wikis are not reliable sources, not even this one is. Jamedeus (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the policy, but I have never seen a source that follows this policy.
I have a feeling that you are all just protecting some degenerate and weaponizing some policy against me and other people that demand that change to be made. Other wikis should be considered a reliable resource considering the fact that they are also supported by many sources.
If we were to follow these bullshit policies meticulously, then I don't even know what source fits the definition of reliable source. Because everything is user-generated. Is any source reliable? Matthias197 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting close to personal attacks now which don't go over well on Wikipedia. I've never even heard of this guy before, I'm just responding to edit requests that pop up on the list. I would have no problem adding this if you were linking to sources from this list. Plenty of sources are reliable, you can learn why here. Jamedeus (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the reliable resources are not writing about this issue, because Google censors any mention of CSAM. Sources should be analyzed on an individual basis, not just because the platform is seen as unreliable. This is not real journalism. This is not a personal attack.
This is protecting an individual that is clearly in the wrong. He has always been surrounded by controversies, and this Wikipedia page mentions exactly 0 of them. Matthias197 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The internet is vast, you may like Wikitubia better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: As multiple editors have pointed out, these are not reliable sources for a biography of a living person. RationalWiki, KYM, /r/VaushV are all user-generated. Post Millennial is unreliable (WP:POSTMIL). Evie Magazine may end up being OK, but I'd suggest going to WP:RSN to ask. The "National Cyber Security" and the random WordPress sites both have no signs of reliability. Reliability is required for BLPs. Your follow-up comments suggest this request is not done in good faith. SWinxy (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters. Every source might be considered user-generated, that does not mean that we should remove every single source from the entire English Wikipedia. Matthias197 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of our policies regarding sourcing. Until you understand that, and our policies, this will not go anywhere. Without a reliable source your request will be denied. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evie looks like a semi-erotic magazine that wants people to think they're buying Elle. Could be good for some WP:ABOUTSELF anyway, but that it should be given some WP:PROPORTION is not that obvious. Still, it's not unthinkable to add something based on that source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a variant on Cosmo... Primefac (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that the Evie article does include a recanting (of sorts) from Vaush, also implying that it might not be an ongoing issue. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that, no, Evie is a terrible source. I commented on RSN, but TL;DR they published an article today by the same author that goes against the widespread scientific consensus on the difference between gender and sex. Sent shivers down my spine. SWinxy (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You not liking a certain article that they have written is irrelevant to if the source is good or not.
Friedbyrd (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others, Reddit threads and similar post are not reliable sources. Only the Post Millennial and Evie Magazine articles would be valid if any.
Friedbyrd (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Neutrality and Missing Events[edit]

Many of the sources of this article come from left-leaning news sites that share Vaush's point of view. The article also calls right-wing content "radicalization".

Many of his controversies aren't mentioned. Vaush has been outed in the past for sexual harassment, advocacy in favour of child pornography, racism, anti-antisemitism, and his possession of lolicon and beastiality. Cimmaron1 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read every other damn thread on this talk page. Without WP:RS we cannot add content. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) Letdown101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving you these two articles for you to personally assess the reliability of those sources. Not for Wikipedia to assess, just you personally. —Maximum Walruses (Talk) 16:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He opened a folder of CSAM and bestiality images on stream, and then proceeded to attempt to explain why he had them for the next week. How is that not proof? Do you intend on replying to Maximum Walruses? 120.154.136.100 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's pretty open about his love for horses, it's literally his twitter profile 86.9.5.164 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing controversies[edit]

Vaush has many missing controversies, all of which have been pointed out numerous times in this thread. How about instead of complaining of a ‘lack of sources’ the Wikipedia editors actually start doing some editing and researching? That way you can at least pretend you aren’t trying to keep this page clean from (Redacted) rumours for some bizarre reason. 120.154.136.100 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of those who want to add the sources to find the sources. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024[edit]

Has obsession with having sex with horses. Calls everyone Nazis. 146.168.42.180 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaush&oldid=1222086751"