Talk:Thunderf00t/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Talk

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

Yeah, it would be nice to cover that, to show that he's not just making videos about feminists. But additions need to satisfy WP:V (WP:BLP), and I don't think there are any secondary sources talking about this. If anyone could find some, that would be great. -- intgr [talk] 19:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as an RS, but the only comment I've seen about it was him talking to Ray Comfort, if I remember correctly he was a bit vague, and something to do with capture the flag, I'll need to look it up though. HalfHat 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If my recollection is right, he played games where he was commonly the flag runner. Which requires speed obviously. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:58, 14 October 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)

"blatant misogynist" -- Nothing in anything I have seen in Dr. Mason's scientific research publications, interviews, YouTube channel posts, blogs et al. appear to be in any way "anti woman." If you know of suitable references and/or citations which might support your claim, and if you feel that the extant biography article would benefit from such references, you are invited to update the article. Keep in mind WP:ALIVE however. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy outreach

Also Dr. Mason has done some work in astronomy outreach, popularizing some of that science in many ways. I wonder if there might be a short blerb added, perhaps in external links, which covers his astronomy hobbies which might be informative and relevant. Damotclese (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to his criticism of feminists -- removed

The proposed addition of the sentence which started with Due to his criticism of feminists was removed by another editor however I would like to point out that such a claim is wrong and libelous. A review of the scientist's commentary on feminism indicates he is addressing the ideology, not people who harbor said ideologies. For the extant article, it is important to refrain from making actionable claims inasmuch as this is a biography of a living person. So if you would, think before you update the page. Damotclese (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Phil Mason of Jewish Descent?

Is there research about whether or not Phil Mason of Jewish descent, either parent or any grandparents? Just curious, because he seems to go after people who make claims against established Jewish positions history. DopeyBoB (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

He does not "go after people." In his YouTube reviews of a variety of subjects he covers ideologies which are unscientific while the vast majority of his research and social commentary is science. Supposition that he "goes after people" is unwarranted and verging upon libel which Wikipedia guideline does not permit. Damotclese (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand clearly that WP is not a forum, and I am not looking to turn WP into a forum either. I noticed numerous articles about people on Wikipedia discuss their parental and familial origins, eveen sometimes when those origins include religion. I understand it is a sensitive topic, but I have seen some articles where it became a hot topic about whether or not to mention whether someone was of certain origin or not. And I was curious if there was information about this concerning Phil Mason. He looks to have clearly Judaic / Hebraic physical facial features (Phil Mason looks genetically identical to one of my Jewish friends), so I was curious if he was of Jewish Descent or not. To recap many WP articles mention peoples ancestry and this is why I was curious about it. So the question stands, is there research about whether or not Phil Mason is of Jewish descent, either parent or any grandparents? Should I presume silence, reticence and evasion on the matter means Yes under the surface? DopeyBoB (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters, so long as it's unsourced. GAB^Hello! 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone answer the question? I should I just take that as a possible yes?DopeyBoB (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Let's not have another round of potentially libelous speculation. Please focus on remaining polite and professional without any more libelous claims and speculation. Dr. Mason has been generous in allowing editors to self-correct many outrageous statements made about him here, let's not add outrageous bullshit that will waste his time having to correct -- or comment on. Damotclese (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not think mentioning someone's roots is libelous. On the other hand, it is not relevant for this article either.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole point is it's completely speculative. "He looks Jewish" alone is not grounds to label him as such. GAB^Hello! 20:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The motive of the editor even speculating that the biography should mention some un-evidenced Jewish heritage left me wondering why the editor would suggest such a thing. The fact that Dr. Mason has videos denouncing the criminal activities of some high-profile Arab Muslims (as well as criminal activities of Christians, Creationists, and "solar roads" et al.) left me wondering if the proposed "Jewish" allegation was an effort to stoke the traditional divide, yet more efforts to paint the extant biography with personal attack.

I'm not a fan of this particular scientist, I unsubscribed from his YouTube channel years ago when he diverged from solid science since I don't have time for social commentary, so I don't have a "dog in the race" here other than as a long-time editor. I'll un-watch this biography since I can see other editors are making sure the biography isn't being updated with unfounded claims. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Freethought Blogs

I removed the drama about Freethought Blogs. It depends on primary sources, and, even worse, makes poorly-sourced accusations against Mason. This is against WP:BLP, one of our core policies, and must not be re-inserted without better sourcing. That he was briefly a Freethought blogger could probably be added back somewhere, but the drama-heavy stuff needs better sourcing. In particular, we can't publish PZ Myers' accusation here until it's picked up by a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If I remove the PZ Myers accusation about the hacking, would it be okay then? Perhaps just a simple line about how he left Freethought Blogs with a link from them saying because of his behavior and his claim that he was removed because of his stance on Feminism? Or would the links still not be good enough because they are primary sources? As far as I know, no newspapers covered the story. So would it be best to just drop? I'm pretty new to wiki editing. SammyTrujillo (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that, in addition to verifiability, Wikipedia generally uses reliable sources like newspaper stories to determine what's worth including. Mason has supporters and detractors in the mainstream media, and his online activities generally draw some degree of coverage. If nobody comments on this, then it's probably not worth mentioning here. But maybe including a little bit about his involvement would be OK. This talk page is usually somewhat lively, so maybe someone else will comment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose including anything on freethoughblogs without secondary coverage. Brustopher (talk) 11:53, 21 December 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)

This article is obviously heavily edited by neo-atheists, as there is no mention of the epistemological criticisms of his claims, his worldview, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.218.118 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can point out reliable sources that address these topics, we can certainly discuss adding them. Or you could be bold and add them yourself. You have to watch out for original research, though. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only summarizes what other sources have already said. The kinds of sources that we can use are newspapers, magazines, academic papers, etc. Blogs are generally not usable, but there are exceptions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism - notability

"Ian Steadman of the New Statesman criticized his videos about popular YouTube feminists, including Anita Sarkeesian.". I don't think this article is notable enough to be here. It doesn't even have any comments under it. After Google search, it is linked mainly on Reddit(specifically /r/TrueReddit), and there it received about 120 votes(both up and down). Which isn't very... notable. Rest of top-10 links are some random blogs without any audience, with exception of Cory Doctrow's one. Esinity (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't even make sense: Mason's Twitter account was temporarily suspended on 19 September 2014 ... Mason stated that his criticism of Sarkeesian caused the suspension due to a flagging campaign.[13][14] The account was later reinstated." How can the suspension be "caused" by his criticism, and that the same time be "due to a flagging campaign." It may be the product of many hands, but the sentence is now broken. Perhaps it should say that: "Mason stated that a flagging campaign over his criticism of Sarkeesian caused the suspension." But the incident is trivial (suspension of Twitter account? Really?) and should be scrubbed. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to article content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it. So anyone can write an opinion on any subject(in this case, criticizing Thunderf00t), and then it can be linked here? Without significant reception, audience, regardless of it's quality? Esinity (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No, not quite. It has to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. That means that it has to come from a source that has editorial control. Since Steadman is a professional journalist and his article was published in a magazine, it qualifies. There are other tests, too, most of which are listed in WP:BLP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Esinity (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The drama over the suspended Twitter account does seem like it's rather poorly sourced, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree. Due to their potential real-world impact on people, the standards for sourcing to a BLP are necessarily (and correctly) very high. Sourcing needs to be rock-solid prior to inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Boing Boing

Is Boing Boing really a reliable source for criticism of a living person? It seems kind of weak to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. That should probably be removed. It would be nice to find a more reliable source that actually explained the points raised by that article, but that's not it. Grayfell (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It looks like a {{WP:BLP]]-violation.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Brexit

This edit reverted an edit about his stance on Brexit (which seems to have been a big part of his online activity in recent weeks) with the reason that there are no secondary sources. I don't know how this is supposed to work here and obviously the thing is in quite a bit of flux, but notably some of the supporters of that Sargon of Akkad person (who seems to be well known in certain circles) who used to agree with Mason on most things are very angry at him for his anti-Brexit stance and have expressed that via youtube comments and downvotes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Youtube personalities typically do many videos over a steady pace, any given examples could be interpreted as arbitrary, or chosen to just highlight/undermine a particular point of view. To prevent this and to steer Wikipedia towards WP:NPOV, independent, reliable sources commenting about Mason's position on the Brexit, or about the debates between him and the other guy, would be needed. The videos themselves are not usable alone, since this article cannot be a catalog of all of the many hundreds of videos he's put out. If this is encyclopedically significant, an outside source will comment on it. If Sargon were considered independently notable himself (consensus was against this), a case could be made for mentioning it, but even then, outside sources would be much, much better for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible his article could simply mention his opposition to the Brexit without mentioning Sargon of Akkad? Perhaps something like "During June 2016, Mason posted multiple videos explaining his opposition to the United Kingdom withdrawing its membership from the European Union"? Tech12 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but I don't know the rules on that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to have a WP:RS before commenting. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Third-wave feminism

I've removed the phrase "third wave feminism" from the article, because it's poorly supported by reliable sources. It's become sort of fashionable as a descriptor among anti-feminists and such, but is seldom emphasized by neutral sources as applying to the feminists they criticize. Anita Sarkeesian's article only mentions it as a category, for example, so its use as a majorly defining trait is loaded. To characterize Mason as criticizing third-wave feminism, we could attribute that point to him directly, which sets a bad precedent for prolific self-publishers like him, or find a reliable, neutral source which supports that point above and beyond just saying he's anti-feminist. This opinion article in The Federalist is pretty weak for this, since it's not presented as neutral, and it's only using 'third-wave' in passing as part of a larger point that he's critical of feminism. "Third-wave feminism" should not be used as a code-word for "SJW" in an encyclopedia. That's a bad habit which reflects a poor understanding of the history of feminism, to say the least. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You may oppose the use of the term "Third-wave feminism," but that is how the source describes it. Thus, it passes WP:VERIFY. If you know it better than the source: fine. But that is not important for Wikipedia. Sources, however, are. If you find anything better than the article in The Federalist, please use it. Until then, I do not see any problem with the use of the “third-wave”-term. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The source also dismisses the lot as SJWs. It's an opinion piece and a single opinion should not be used to present subjective statements as facts, nor should it be used to highlight specific aspects as though they were non-contrversial. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ehhh. The whole thing seems kind of like social media drama to me. But if we can't come to any kind of consensus here, we could hold an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe a RFC would be a good idea. WP:NEWSBLOG says that blogs may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but that we have to use them with caution, because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. It also tells us that exceptionals claim would require exceptional sources, and I doubt if the claim here is 'exceptional.' Anyway, if we go for a RFC, we can bring the New Statesman-article into the discussion as well. After all, that certainly was an opinion-piece, but then with a very negative view on Mason's work as video-producer. You cannot say that only opinion pieces are acceptable when they support your own view. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to comment sooner, but I lost internet. I have removed the New Statesman line. I should've looked at it more closely when it was removed earlier, and that was a mistake on my part.

I don't think calling Sarkeesian a third-wave feminist is exceptional, but it doesn't have to be exceptional to be loaded when evaluated in context. Highlighting this aspect doesn't seem neutral. This is a subtle but important point. Third-wave feminism is an academic term with a specific meaning that is not necessarily germane to this article. As an encyclopedia article, this should use the academic definition, and if we're using other definitions, we should use attribution or explain what we're talking about. I could go into why I think there is a mismatch, but the important part is that nothing is really lost by using the simpler language of just saying "feminism". Specifying "third-wave" on the other hand may lead to confusion or misinterpretation. Is that worth a RFC? If so, go for it, but regardless of what I think, I doubt it's going to go anywhere without a better source making that connection. Grayfell (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree this issue is not worth a RfC. Maybe we can insert something about Gamergate, which was one of the main reasons for Mason to start videos on feminism/third-wave feminism. However, I believe that will be something for later, and I'll wait for someone else to pick that up. But for now, I think it is fine. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Temporary Twitter suspension

Regarding these edits: This section is mentioned above at #Criticism - notability, but as the last comment was 2016, I'll start a new section.

Mason's speculation about other people's motives is not relevant to anything without a reliable source explaining why it's relevant. Therefor, his youtube comments about his short-lived 2014 twitter suspension must be handled carefully, and nothing in this article should include vague insinuations about other people's nefarious intentions without a clear reason supported by reliable sources.

So what are the currently cited sources about this event? The first is a polemic opinion from the Federalist which is mainly about a separate issue. The only relevant part is this sentence: "In 2014, he was suspended from Twitter for allegedly using abusive language toward Sarkeesian and other third-wave feminists."[11] The surrounding context isn't much better. This is a brief, trivial mention. Beyond this, the article is extremely questionable as a valid source for any factual information in a BLP (per WP:BLPRS). Everything from this source used here should either be completely non-controversial, or it should also be supported by a more reliable source, or should be clearly attributed and included for an obvious reason ("according to Denise C. McAllister writing for the The Federalist" for example).

The brightsideofnews.com source redirected to an article with the same name, date, and author at vrworld.com. The article's about page doesn't explain this, but it does say VR World achieves this success by cross-pollinating & bringing together different industry sectors in a common goal in order to achieve maximum ROI and drive the market adoption for our partners. This peculiar history and vapid promotional language undercut the source's legitimacy. The source is a post on a churnalism site with a completely unknown history and a stated goal of advocacy for VR industry. This isn't useful, either.

Being suspended from Twitter for short period of time is not significant simply because it happened. Since there are no usable sources explaining why it would be significant, I'm removing this section. Please provide usable sources before restoring. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the Watson computer

The article states:

Mason has used his online persona to critically examine a range of topics, including proposals to build roads surfaced with glass solar panels and the Watson computer.

I can't find any reference to any criticism of the latter, nor do I remember ever seeing such video, as a long time viewer of his videos. Is this a possible mix-up with his many videos mentioning the feminist Rebecca Watson? I'm removing that claim, and replacing it with atmospheric water generators, a subject which he has criticized at length, while I'm at it. --Nitro2k01 (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No he has done several videos destroying the poor idea and the worse implementation that are utter failures. The videos are 4-8 years old.

Quote:

on his own and with some fellow technical worker Which is it 69.203.220.23 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticizing Feminism?

NO he doesnt do that, Hence why there is no ref for it! He exposes the feminist extremists whos claims and actions have nothing to do with feminism (and are usually anti male) EG You hate women because of the way you are sitting!

Just because Anna is female and that is her way of getting money from fools and she does not do what she stated she would do for the "donation" often and the material she produces is extremely poor quality.....

Balance and fairness would god! (Cant wait for the claim im a sexist!) --Femanistfantastic (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked through the article, and there is no mention in the article body text of his criticism of feminism, so I removed it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)