This article was nominated fordeletion on February 3, 2020. The result ofthe discussion wasdelete.
This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofinternet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsocialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofvideo games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofYouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
Living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page isprotected. You must be logged-in to anautoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
Why is it Hasan Piker doesn't have a Controversies section considering he's(BLP violation removed) said "American deserved 9/11" ? Yet Ethan Klein does.
It seems only fair that if Ethan Klein is getting one then SURELY Hasan Piker, who's said things extremely more controversial and radical should get one.HiddenSimply (talk)14:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a lot of the discussion below, I believe that if you add a full Controversies section it will immediately get taken down, even simply mentioning the dog collar issue got a lot of push back.Nordinha (talk)07:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had a question in reference to controversy. How pertinent or objective is adding to someone's page them attending the January 6th Insurrection/attack at the U.S. Capitol?Maakestadj (talk)21:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, the allegations are true and well documented by a pletora of videos. The simple fact that in almost all is stream you can see the dog, stay for hours in a few inch square spot it's hard evidence of mistreating animals behaviour. The controversy around his animal abuse should definitely be put up in his wikipedia page.~2025-34374-73 (talk)16:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should review wikipedia's rules again, it's not enough that it's on video, it has to be notable too. They judge notability by how many sources reported on it.
Personally I think they should also take into account google searches and trends on twitter, I mean once the VP mentions it seems pretty notable.Nordinha (talk)17:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US Vice President being aware of internet drama as a millennial is not some precedent-setting standard of notability. A lot of new contributors seem to mistake Wikipedia forReddit or a similar forum (WP:NOTFORUM), where trends dictate content. Pop media coverage is garbage coverage.Yue🌙21:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hasan is an internet personality, when a scandal like this bursts outside of the streaming bubble and into mainstream coverage that makes it notable. Hasan is pop media, it's not up to you to decide what is "garbage" coverage, only whether it's neutral and notable.Nordinha (talk)21:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a major cleanup happening on Wikipedia because of the Israel-Palestine war. Hasan is someone who talks about this a lot, so he is a controversial figureIMPTRON (talk)02:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Ethan Klein does have one currently, It seems only fair that if Ethan Klein is getting one then SURELY Hasan Piker who's said things extremely more controversial and radical should get one as well.HiddenSimply (talk)14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRITICISM sections are generally unuseful. see that essay. Most of what could be constituted as a controversy section is in the suspensions section.Ethan Klein should not have a controversy section either, its a laundry list of complaints instead of being integrated well into proper encyclopedia sections. That article needs more work honestly.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it's noteworthy, but we should wait until some time passes to add it, when information is more confirmed and longstanding notability can be accurately assessed.GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk)08:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be removed, most of the text isWikipedia:No original research speculating on pikers emotions, his actions off camera,and using unreliable source that creates a tabloid. Even peta didn't make any accusations of abuse. This is a nothing story and not encyclopedic.Malibukenz (talk)16:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be included here, perWP:NOTNEWS - the Wikipedia article on a person does not need to have the latest and greatest sound bites about an individual; instead, it should be focused on the items that make them notable. We have to be especially cautious with the biographies of living people.Denaar (talk)17:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good shout removing it. I've accidentally come across this elsewhere and it seems to be "drama" amongst the terminally online and related to the ongoing spat between supporters of H3H3 and supporters of Hasan and others ever since Israel-Palestine killed a podcast they were apparently doing together.
There doesn't look to be any notable reporting amongst high-quality sources appropriate for BLP, so should be ignored but an eye kept on this talk page for the result of off-wiki canvassing.Rambling Rambler (talk)19:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this controversy caused Pokimane's staff to refuse to upload her recent episode with Hasan, which has directly led to her restructuring her organization, I think that there's justification to either add this to Hasan's page or to create a separate article. Ignoring that this is the most viral moment of Hasan's life so far, there have now been tangible consequences that would be documented on other Wikipedia articles regardless.
Many of the sources for this are poorly validated at the moment, which will make it difficult to stay impartial. I'd recommend focusing less on the incident itself and moreso on reactions, consequences and subsequent actions.Hammer128 (talk)16:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find useful reliable sourcing that others are canceling episodes cuz of this and its worth inclusion. Otherwise no.
Pokimane is currently discussing this on her Twitter, I'd expect to see news articles covering it in a few days max. And I'll admit that it's subjective of me to claim that this is the "most viral moment of Hasan's life", but the memes of him electrocuting dogs with miscellaneous techniques are reaching audiences that he's never touched before. There are people that only know Hasan through, and for, this controversy. There are also people that have never heard of Hasan, but have enjoyed and spread these memes because they thought they were funny.Hammer128 (talk)17:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we aren't urbandictionary or knowyourmeme.regardless, i think its worth inclusion when it is covered by a reliable source... that there are material consequences of being soft-cancelled by other podcasters for this latest drama, and if the consequences are such that a reliable source were to cover it would push it over for me to due for inclusion.if it doesnt get covered by a reliable source, ofc, then it doesnt. (more reliable than twitter or some tabloidy game paper likeWP:DEXERTO)User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that we should use primary sources, only that this information will likely be confirmed by a reputable secondary source in the coming days.Hammer128 (talk)16:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has definitely gained enough controversy that it should be included and that's why it's being discussed here, it's unfair to call the news sites "right-wing" as a reason to remove the entire section when the sources are fine perWP:RSPS examples, whereas real right-wing articles regarding the matter from say the NY Post, Fox, or even Forbes have been excluded to avoid this.User:ZR1748(Talk·Contribs)— Precedingundated comment added04:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* The Australian is noted as a center-right newssheet. I think there has been no rfc on it, but it seems an opinionated source.
* Hollywood reporter might be the strongest source.
*WP:NEWSWEEK has been noted to have had some quality decline according to RSP.
*WP:DEXERTO states not to use it for BLP and that its very tabloidy.
*WP:DAILYDOT also states its highly biased and opinionated. It seems rather tabloidy as well.
I will also note,WP:ONUS is on inclusion for newly introduced materials, especially in a BLP article. this section was added in the last few hours, and anyone is allowed to do a revert on aWP:BOLD addition, would like to see how this plays out in coverage.Could be open to keeping this in if more sourcing continues. Think Australian and Hollywood Reporter are better sourcing out of all the sourcing that was in there, but want additional to suggestWP:Dueness.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Every week there's a new smear campaign orchestrated by right wing drama-tubers, and just because one or two go viral to the point of it being covered by a few reliable sources. There are a lot of people obsessed with Hasan, but their many attempts to take him down never even scratch the surface of mainstream notability. Like all other such stories about him, this will be forgotten by Monday, as the usual suspects move on to the next viral story. Not to mention the animal abuse claims were already debunked. Wikipedia should not be promoting this slanderous nonsense.46.97.170.26 (talk)08:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it has coverage from reliable sources, that's more than enough no matter how slanderous you think the claims are. Wikipedia mentioning this doesn't mean they'll be seen as 100% fact.Harryhenry1 (talk)13:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again,WP:NOTNEWS. This story is gossip, and will be forgotten in a week, unless it results in long term consequences for the subject, which it won't. If nothing else, just hold it off till further development. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mill.46.97.170.26 (talk)17:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the hill is considered reliable as perWP:THEHILL, but opinion pieces should still be attributed. the rising is considered an opinion piece.In general, the main issue is dueness for me still. This still feels too gossipy to be encyclopediac. The question isn't if there is a piece today, its if this is sustained coverage in a week?User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a sentence or two at most (if there is agreement for inclusion). An entire section is too much. Much of the coverage comes from low-quality sources.Mellk (talk)15:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better sources alone won't be enough. In a week or so, this story will rotate out of the news cycle and will be forgotten, unless there's some major unexpected development. Until then, there is no reason to include it.46.97.170.26 (talk)17:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying my previous comment: To be DUE and get beyond NOTNEWS/NOTGOSSIP, better sources are needed that demonstrate this has some sort of long lasting impact. We must avoid churnalism, yellow/clickbait journalism, or rage-baiting media. --Hipal (talk)17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been cited by dozens of reliable sources. Why are we still discussing whether or not it should be included on his page?IMPTRON (talk)21:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "for this"? We aren't accusing anyone of a crime, it's just simple bad press, so I'm not sure what heightened threshold you're implying here. As the subject is a twitch streamer there's not going to be an abundance of mainstream sources on anything he does, the fact that this has been picked up by several already meets notability requirements in my opinion. If we applied this standard to every source used in the article most of the sources used for positive statements would also not meet the threshold.Ratgomery (talk)22:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional considerations apply to articles published inThe Times of India (TOI) after 1950.TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not usepaid advertorials—which were first published inTOI in 1950 at the earliest—to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware thatTOI may have published at least one AI-generated article.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)22:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an elaboration on what you mean, I am asking for your reasoning. I'm not sure how the RS rating for times of india would apply here which is why I'm asking you, this obviously isn't a paid advertorial.Ratgomery (talk)23:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is because we require high-quality sources for such claims regardingWP:BLP. See for exampleWP:PUBLICFIGURE:If you cannot findmultiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We have a couple good sources but we aren't at a point where it is clear that this must be included.Mellk (talk)23:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very convenient to require an unspecified number of sources for an event that will occupy a maximum of 20 lines. Ah, if only Wikipedia were so demanding in all its articlesIMPTRON (talk)02:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y’all treat Hasan Piker like how Conservapedia treats Donald Trump - a saint who can do absolutely nothing wrong. You’re no better than Conservapedia.49.182.179.167 (talk)09:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
This incident has received substantial attention, meeting Wikipedia's threshold for notability underWP:PUBLICFIGURE andWP:WEIGHT. The controversy became a top trending topic on X (formerly Twitter), is currently among the top autocomplete and search results for Hasan Piker on Google, and has been covered by multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources, includingTimes of India,The Daily Dot,Hello! Magazine, andTribune, and notably,Hollywood Reporter, showing a response fromPETA, a very relevant organization around the subject of animal abuse. While coverage is still developing, the incident clearly meets the criteria for inclusion as a significant controversy involving a high-profile public figure (one of the biggest internet political commentators). Inclusion should be framed neutrally and attributed to sources, consistent withWP:BLP andWP:DUE. This level of public discourse and sourcing is comparable to other internet personality controversies currently covered on Wikipedia, and omitting it risks misrepresenting the public record of the subject's recent activity.Rdio1010 (talk)23:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to make this clearer. I already recognized that some of the sources aren't universally high quality. But I'm basing the point mainly on theHollywood Reporter, which is considered reliable perWP:RSP. Their article directly addresses the controversy and with a response from PETA, which adds more legitimacy. And again, the notoriety of the controversy shouldn't be ignored, the incident should be documented even if it's negative (as perWP:PUBLICFIGURE), but neutrally worded (as perWP:WEIGHT).Rdio1010 (talk)01:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believeWP:WEIGHT means neutrally worded. It means proportional weight should be given to the coverage in secondary sources. For example, if he gets a lot of coverage from secondary sources about Andrew Cuomo name dropping him in the NY mayoral debate, but minimal coverage from one source about his the claim about his dog, then his inclusion in the mayoral debate has more weight than the claim about his dog. In other words, the article should mirror how much high-quality sources cover each topic.Sibshops (talk)12:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searches and virility irrelevant in an encyclopaedia. Nearest to a decent source is Hollywood Reporter with PETA response adding some weight. A sentence or two might be fine, more definitely not.BobFromBrockley (talk)02:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, PETA having an opinion about some viral animal topic is kind of unremarkable though. They've mostly existed by jumping onto controversy and being loud about it. I agree the THR source is the best there is here. I'm not convinced it's due mention on the basis of the extant sourcing though.Simonm223 (talk)12:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue though is that theTHR is largely just reporting gossip claims rather than any factual merit they've added to it.
For now it reminds me of when reliable publications in the UK lose their minds and report on big cat sightings by random people as something they then report on with the assumption of credibility.
This is at best a 4.5 paragraph report of which the majority is using the "some people say" rhetorical device to write down rumours/claims they haven't bothered investigating under the pretence "we're not the ones making the claim".Rambling Rambler (talk)14:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement from PETA is kinda lackluster and doesn't add any weight to the situation. PETA hardly acknowledge the event but just reaffirm their position on collars. I don't think they would have stated anything if the THR didn't reached out, especially because no other "sources" bring up the statement.Malibukenz (talk)14:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes isn't considered a reliable source according to the RS noticeboard and considering how fiercely this page is protected I would expect it would get removed rather quickly.Agnieszka653 (talk)20:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised it's even controversial to add this controversy to the article. Watching the clip from the livestream speaks for itself, tbh. And yeah, there are reputable sources that are reporting on this:Times of India,Forbes.Khuft (talk)22:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kristi Noem's treatment of her dog wasn't better, was it. I don't care about Hasan Piker or his views. Mistreatment of dogs and other animals is not restricted to some political leanings.Khuft (talk)22:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was supporting your statement and support this one, the editors opposing this seem to want to put their agenda over the shock collar abuse and it’s as ridiculous as it is evil.Worldhisotrylover20 (talk)23:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is aspersions. You're attacking the character of an editor without evidence to suggest deliberate bad-faith attempts to prevent inclusion of material. Best you drop it.Rambling Rambler (talk)14:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, though neither the Times of India nor Forbes allege he committed a crime (and nor should we, if that's not in the sources) but they just comment on the online controversy. A controversy which, BTW, has (as I understand) led him to do a response video, so it's not just wikipedians imagining ficitional controversies.Khuft (talk)13:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Kristi Noem dog killing controversy was sparked by her writing in her own autobiography that she did it, this is speculation by unreliable sources, not the sort of thing that should be in aWP:BLP page. Vanilla Wizard💙20:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was streamed live, for everyone to see and make up their own mind. It's not speculation - but sure, until sources that are accepted by this Talk page report on it, we seemingly have to ignore it.Khuft (talk)21:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for everyone to see and make up their own mind. It's not speculation
Nope. I'm a dog owner, I saw the video clip, I know what I saw. If you want to argue about the need for official, recognised sources, fine, do that - I've acknowledged as much (we might disagree on what's recognised in this case, but fine). But don't tell me what my own eyes can see is speculation. In any case, I thinkUser:Afw35 has summarised the situation pretty well below, so I suggest we continue the discussion there.Khuft (talk)18:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters is that there needs to be reliable sources, especially on biographies of living people, doubly especially if the material is contentious. Times of India, Forbes contributors, and social media posts aren't considered unreliable because they are "not accepted by this talk page", but because they'vebeen discussed extensively. Another important factor to keep in mind isdue weight; public figures appear in the news regularly, so how do we determine what's notable enough to put in their biography? A much easier question to answer is: how do we determine whatdoesn't go into a person's biography? Reading through the section below shows that those who feel this material needs to be in the article arereally struggling to find anything resembling a reliable source. That's probably a good sign that it doesn't belong. Vanilla Wizard💙05:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion whether or not he actually shocked his dog. I think this has been covered in multiple reliable sources already, but as we don't know how long this story will pan out for, I left it as a single sentence, which I doubt was controversial to anyone. I did add a single sentence about the controversy and it was promptly removed. "In October 2025, Piker attracted controversy for allegedly using a shock collar on his dog, Kaya, which Piker has denied." I think that is quite neutral, and if more information comes out we can include it in later.LivinAWestLife (talk)19:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a shock collar allegation rises to the level of noteworthy anyways. Wikipedia does not call out every allegation against a public figure. Without a significant change in status, such as a criminal charge or change in status/"canceled" (even that is doubtful), I don't see the value of adding it.12.43.105.10 (talk)20:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the sourcing is mostly news sites that are right-wing" - I'm not sure why that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. If instead of it being called Wikipedia, it was called "Leftist News", then that would made sense.
Hasan claims people are trying to kill him over the issue. Erasing the entry about the collar is very 1984 when the man himself acknowledges that it is vital to his survival.
It was important enough for him to back off from Twitchcon, despite Emiru's claims that content creators are contractually obliged to attend.
It looks like youtube is blocked so I can't easily link to Emiru's statements. However, if interested, the latest video discussing it is at _USuIpVAqAw?si=PQt1lE5XW7569R_9 and there are several previous ones.
Is Emiru lying? That's a big deal.Twitch could sue her to the ground, and would be highly motivated to as a counter to her possible legal action over their poor security and refusal to allow her own preferred bodyguard.
If she's telling the truth, then Hasan is choosing to stay away from Twitchcon regardless of the contract penalties. WHY? He says the collar issue is sufficient reason for him to fear for his life.
If Hasan is stabbed tomorrow - and Emiru claims her attacker had a knife - then it might have been relevant to include why people had a motive, even if the motive was based on incorrect information, just as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was.
It seems to me that people are trying to slant the article here by refusing all but left wing sources, and erasing any material that might make a prominent neo-communist look bad - even when the man himself is saying that the issue is dominating his life.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2001:8003:3463:6701:D573:3101:423E:14DF (talk)06:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! JD Vance came out to talk repeatedly about his couch? Claimed that the hoax was threatening his life?? Broke a contract that could result him being sued over his couch?
Because that's what you need to make a parallel here.
I repeat: Franz Ferdinand's assassin might have been misinformed, but his motive was pretty important. Erasing that from history has consequences. If Hasan is killed over this, then will it be mentioned, or will it be dismissed as too "Right Wing"?— Precedingunsigned comment added by2001:8003:3463:6701:D573:3101:423E:14DF (talk)08:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a crystal ball. We can only base information in the article on what we know now, and the truth of the matter is that reliable secondary sources that aren't straightWP:BLPGOSSIP and aren't just parroting Hasan (read: TMZ) stopped covering the matter about a week ago, which itself was about a week from the inciting clip.Maybe Hasan will get killed over this.Maybe every single academic journal article about Hasan published in a year will mention this incident. But then again,maybe absolutely none of that will happen, ormaybe Hasan Piker will make an 8 hour entire stream with him just going through the shock collar accusations. Should we base current editorial decisions on any of these what-ifs? Of course not.
We do not base editorial decisions based on one (or even multiple) editor's personal opinions. You personally may think Hasan getting death threats makes this signifcant enough to include; I don't think it does, and I can cite Wikipedia policy for my position. Unless you can do the same and do more than OR, then we're going nowhere.Based5290 :3 (talk)09:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section should be reduced to a few sentences per suspension, at a minimum. I'm assuming there's a reference in there that actually notes the history of suspensions, rather than being just clickbait journalism. --Hipal (talk)15:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to go would be to have a few sentences about the things that have made mainstream news sources--like the two mentioned above and then a sentence or two for anything minor--if the dog collar controversy results in a suspension for instance (I do not think it will) but just as an example that's a bullet point. But for something like the incident with Rick Scott or the Jewish Museum shooting I think those should be expanded on.Agnieszka653 (talk)14:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the references for first suspension listed: The Intelligencer ref is written by a freelancer and doesn't mention the suspensions. Highsnobiety is a poor if not unreliable source.WP:KOTAKU pre 2023 is a poor source. TheWrap is fine. The Intelligencer and Highsnobiety refs were written years after the event. The Highsnobiety ref is an interview. --Hipal (talk)19:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying, these are POV issues when there's more content than DUE, details not in the references used, cherry-picking information rather than summarizing sources, using poor sources to emphasize points not in the high-quality sources, etc. Confusing clickbait journalism with BLP-quality sources creates POV problems. --Hipal (talk)21:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something I think should be addressed is that no one is making an argument for why it needs to be there.
He's not notable for his suspensions. As in it's, "Oh Hasan Piker, the left wing political twitch streamer." not "Oh Hasan Piker, the guy who was briefly suspended multiple times on twitch." The article should reflect his notability in secondary sources.
The suspension section seems like an outlier. It is the only article among streamers that has a dedicated section for suspensions.
This is what I have been saying all along. It's not that there is any information about his suspensions that's the problem - it is that these suspensions are kind of out there free-floating rather than being tied to his views / career / etc. more broadly.Simonm223 (talk)13:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and it can be seen in the sources: It's the poorer sources that mention the suspensions.
I've removed the poor sources from the content about the first suspension, removed lengthy quotes, removed tangential content, and removed unverified content. It still needs to be reviewed to make sure it's actually summarizing the relevant content from TheWrap reference, using the other sources to fill in important details, if needed. --Hipal (talk)01:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that UNDUE states,Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. --Hipal (talk)16:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about you start explaning why you removed this part to begin with?During a Twitch stream in August 2019, Piker mocked U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw, a SEAL Team 3 veteran who served in Afghanistan, for his support of American military interventionism overseas. Piker said of Crenshaw, "What the fuck is wrong with this dude? Didn't he go to war and like, literally lose his eye because some mujahideen, a brave fucking soldier, fucked his eye-hole with their dick?", adding that Crenshaw "deserved" his fate. It's sourced and relevant, these comments partly led to his suspensionFMSky (talk)01:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already identified the poor and unreliable sources. Is there something I can clarify?
If we need more and better sources (I think we do), then we should be writing content that summarizes them, not keeping problematic content based upon problematic sources.
Looking over the five proposed sources, they are just more poor sources, similar to what we've been discussing and rejecting concerning the dog collar incident. --Hipal (talk)15:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. PleaseWP:FOC. How do you think it might help? I found it poor, like the five above, like those being rejected about the dog collar. --Hipal (talk)15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it to TheWrap, not that I'm impressed with it as a source that demonstrates encyclopedic value and context. The 9/11 comment has received some lasting mention: ever so briefly in the GQ ref, and as a part of a smear campaign in the NY mayoral race. --Hipal (talk)01:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the "cracker" content, if it's DUE at all. I'll look for more references. Does anyone have full access to the New Media and Society article to see how they frame the overall incident? --Hipal (talk)16:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed it completely. I don't think we can cover it properly without the context that he was discussing the use of the word after two of his moderators were banned for using it. --Hipal (talk)17:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem: additions without concern of their reliability. This is the same problem as with the dog collar issue. --Hipal (talk)17:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And quality. BLPrequires high quality sources. Even when a publisher might be ok (not that all of those are, as RSP shows), an article from an ok publisher may not be fit for a BLP in general (again, as RSP shows), and articles from good publishers may still be poor and unfit for BLP use. Again, the dog collar discussions cover most all of this. --Hipal (talk)17:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post, NBC News refs (I was in the process of adding it), and New Media & Society seem usable. NOTNEWS still applies even to those. I didn't find anything else. The Business Insider, Vice, Newsweek, and The Gamer articles should not be used. --Hipal (talk)18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The Gamer ref: The actual article isn't bad, though the RSN discussions on the publisher are mixed, andWP:VG/RS does not apply to BLP, where the quality demands are higher as shown many times over at WP:RSP. Note that it does not support the current content. --Hipal (talk)00:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly disagree about "not news". This is an event that led to a suspension - omitting it from a section titled "Suspensions" is nonsensicalFMSky (talk)18:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should not be a section called "suspensions" at all. Even if the material is due it's a lampshade for a "controversy" section. This material, where due, should be incorporated into views or careers. @FMSky please justify cordoning off this random collection of flash-in-the-pan bits of social media silliness into a dedicated section.Simonm223 (talk)18:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should not be a section called "suspensions" at all. And why is that? I prefer it over a "controversy" section. Cause this type of sections actually leads to somthing we all despise - every little irrelevant nontroversy being addedFMSky (talk)18:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Agreed on the need to remove "Suspensions", as multiple other editors have already identified. As is, it's a way to give undue emphasis on what he did rather than working from the best sources, summarizing them properly, and focusing on the impact to Piker's life. No one is suggesting a "Controversy" section.
Re: NOTNEWS. Without better sources, especially ones that show some historical importance or other broad context, this seems a clear NOTNEWS situation. --Hipal (talk)18:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And quality. BLP requires high quality sources. Even when a publisher might be ok (not that all of those are, as RSP shows), an article from an ok publisher may not be fit for a BLP in general (again, as RSP shows), and articles from good publishers may still be poor and unfit for BLP use. Again, the dog collar discussions cover most all of this. - i dont know how to read this generously except as dismissing large portions of coverage about hasan piker from reliable sourcing. i'm not engaging with hypotheticals unless you point out exactly whats wrong with sourcing.The Intelligencer ref is written by a freelancer and doesn't mention the suspensions. this seems wrong as well, and was what I thought had been done here.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)00:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSkyIn answer to why this material, where due, should be broken up, it's becauseit is just a very threadbare lampshade over a controversies section. And after the BLP violation that was removed I am somewhat concerned about your commitment to neutrality here.Simonm223 (talk)21:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with keeping mentions of suspensions. I just think they should be reduced to at most a paragraph not put into their own section. He's much more notable for his coverage of theGaza war yet that's a smaller section and comes later in the article.Sibshops (talk)23:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Just to brainstorm, how about removing the whole section "Twitch" entirely? It's just the platform he streams on. It feels likeHasan Piker#Career wants to be chronological, but the suspensions section sort of breaks that chronology. Maybe we can model it likeJoe Rogan. There's no sectionSpotify for him. We can then add the content which was removed from the Twitch section chronologically.Sibshops (talk)00:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'm actually in slight favor of keeping suspension section. There is a lot of sourced material, that seems to be combined together, and there is not much logical grouping otherwise. I agree with simon it feels a bit like aWP:CSECTION, but I think also it seems undue to remove the fact that hasan piker seems to be suspended on a somewhat regular basis from the service, and so often as well. at the end of the day, this is the logical grouping, its not a coattrack for every thing hasan piker has done, its all his suspensions.if there was another logical grouping that made better sense, might make sense. my second alternative is probs removing the section header but leaving all the material in the article, like simon says.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcgaylor check out this area of the talk page: [[3]] and read over the draft. I think the way the suspensions are incorporated here actually work well. I also want the suspensions kept on the page--so I was initially skeptical and I do think more has to be added but I don't think it's a bad first attempt.Agnieszka653 (talk)17:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're making good progress in addressing these problems. Thank you Cortador, Agnieszka653, Bluethricecreamman, FMSky, Simonm223, Sibshops and Based5290 for participating (I hope I didn't overlook anyone). There's more to do. The rewrite of the article chronologically will be a great help. --Hipal (talk)16:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Literally nothing about the section is non-neutral. The opposite is the case actually, there are important details being left out, such as the Dan Crewshaw feudFMSky (talk)16:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shock collar will eventually be added on as JD Vance has now said something about it--I think it's just a matter of time of waiting for "sources that are deemed green" and appropriate for BLP become available. I'd give it a few more days.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dog caller content is unrelated. I don't know why it got brought up.
Let me preface this by saying I am a long time subscriber of Hasan and it brings me no pleasure to write this.
Since the original storm of controversy a few days ago regarding the shock collar incident, a trove of clips have been discovered contextualizing and effectively substantiating the fact that Hasan administered a shock to his dog in order to keep her in frame.
Clips have included actual footage of the shock collar remote, numerous other instances of Hasan getting upset when his dog gets up to stretch and leaving frame to do so, other streamers confirming it's a shock collar, and videos of Hasan acknowledging he uses a shock collar as well as a video of him yanking on his dog's tail.
This story has garnered an immense amount of attention, including many hundreds of thousands of Reddit upvotes across at least five damning viral clips. YouTube videos discussing the topic gave millions of views. As we all know, the Internet does not take animal abuse lightly, and this event has hugely damaged Hasan's reputation. It is therefore absolutely relevant and necessary to include it on this page.
Again, I'm not a hater. I was a subscriber. This story is not fabricated in any way and has been well substantiated now. We need to acknowledge and document the truth here. Warts and all.Afw35 (talk)06:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find severalreliable sources stating and/or proving that Hasan used a shock collarand there's no reliable sources making an opposing claim, then go right ahead. Please note that random social media users do not count.Based5290 :3 (talk)06:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I started a new thread on this talk page is because the other one covering this topic has essentially been neutered…baseless claims of AI writing, claims that the story is blown up or fabricated, and dismissal of multiple citations that are generally approved sources for living biographies.
If I have time tonight I will take the time to write something even-handed and properly cited. Other users in the thread above have already done the work of providing multiple quality sources.
The issue is that Newsweek for instance that I cited isn't green anymore it's yellow. I have tried adding sources from the New York Times in the past but because it's "opinion" ie an interview with Piker in the opinion section I have received warnings about using "unvetted" or weak sources. If the dog collar accusation isn't on a source that bright blinking green and not in a "questionable" part of a paper (like opinion) it will get removed. The Piker page is armed to the teeth with people protecting his reputation.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnieszka653 how do we escalate this? This is suppression of truth and it's antithetical to this organization's purpose.Afw35 (talk)18:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should argue that the Newsweek piece is solid enough--maybe it isn't green but essentially that this has gone from tabloid gossip to a newsworthy piece--maybe add a controversies section? I am not a Piker fan--and I actually initially argued that the shock collar situation was not page worthy--but considering how it has snowballed over the last couple of days things change. I think adding a controversy section with some other events (making it balanced) and lumping the dog collar in with that is the best approach. That way it isn't a stand alone thing giving it undue weight.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a Controversies-type section would best encapsulate it - and a Newsweek article should suffice to report on this controversy (i.e. it's not "proof" of the allegation, but it just states that there is an allegation, and that Hasan Piker has replied to that allegation.)Khuft (talk)18:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So for example, if I or someone invest the time to write this up, and it gets immediately reverted and eliminated, what then do we do?Afw35 (talk)19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We contest it--but just be prepared for that possibility. I know that Hipal wants to minimize the suspensions section--make it not as prominent--we could always barter? Roll controversies and suspensions into one section. This would also take care of the Piker-pirate-Houthis terror situation since that can be lumped into controversies as well.Agnieszka653 (talk)19:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afw35 I think that's part of the problem here 'lot's of Reddit sleuths have been doing things'... and then several Tabloids have been doing 'not the best work' (even for them) to summarize and investigate this, for a person who is important, but also not super important, flamed on by other similar people and all that in the context of WP:BLP. It takes a lot of professionalism to write something substantiated in the article in that context, and we've not seen a lot of that so far, in part because the sources for it are so trash. —TheDJ (talk •contribs)09:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mention the Reddit posts as a source, but rather as a way to indicate the scale of the situation's notoriety. When a Reddit post surpasses one hundred thousand votes it's pretty unusual and therefore an indicator of widespread awareness.Afw35 (talk)14:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda funny to see how WP is no longer even pretending to be unbiased and hide behind bureaucracy hoping that people will just give up/forget.Sławobóg (talk)14:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people are pretending. If claims without a reliable source were allowed it would open a floodgate of misinformation.Sibshops (talk)16:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue that's grating with people is that the "claims" are pretty obvious for most people, but instead of editors jointly looking for ways to source this in an appropriate way, incl. HP's response to the allegations, the controversy as a whole is dismissed by many people here as "claims" or "speculation".Khuft (talk)18:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:BLPBALANCE is an issue if we just state (with sources - see e.g below) that there is a controversy, and that he has countered them. Also, this controversy certainly rises above the level of "gossip"... we're not talking about him changing the colour of his fingernails.Khuft (talk)19:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is trending on a website, does not make it notable. I say this mostly based on the lack of existence of suitable sources that address the topic directly and in detail. There are many unreliable sources and original research in regard to this topic. It doesn't meetWP:NOTEMalibukenz (talk)19:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a tabloid magazine. It doesn't rely on gossip, spin doctors, or internet "sleuths" as credible evidence. Indeed, there is little credible evidence for most of the allegations of abuse. We should not care what a Twitch streamer says about this. We should not care what a populat reddit post says about it. We should care about what verifiable, credible sources say about it.DashJB1999 (talk)09:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editor here who saw this on ANI. Given that the Hollywood Reporter and Newsweek has reported on this issue with more articles likely to come in the next week or so, I think two to three sentences detailing the controversy is due weight for inclusion on the page. No more than that as expanding on it would be lending too much weight to the controversy.PHShanghai | they/them (talk)14:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Given that ... more articles [are] likely to come in the next week or so ..."
The Newsweek and Hollywood Reporter articles already exist though. My point being; the story has already been reported by reliable sources. This at least merits some form on inclusion on the article; how much weight though can be discussed later as the story evolves.PHShanghai | they/them (talk)00:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"including many hundreds of thousands of Reddit upvotes" ...like are we being serious right now? This "controversy" is a nothing-burger being obviously pushed by certain communities online. I have my disagreements with Piker, personally, but none of the mainstream news outlets ever covered this. Notable and influential figures in politics have not denounced Piker or even acknowledged this supposed scandal. It's limited to online hubs such as Twitch and Reddit, not reality.Kokaynegeesus (talk)06:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't get more mainstream than TMZ, which is yellow on the perennial sources page, and which has become one of the most prominent news sources in the country, despite their origins as a gossip tabloid. That article has a direct interview with Hasan himself where he acknowledges the severity of this controversy and its backlash. I know it won't pass muster for Hasan's protectors here, but it just goes to show.
"This is what a hater would write." Sure, find any way you want to dismiss the claims. The truth is that I was a listener and borderline a fan, and seeing him do this felt like betrayal.
I'm not sure what is and what is not appropriate for a talk page but my feelings on Hasan are basically that there is a dearth of young, incisive, left leaning political voices in our country today. Hasan has great political takes and is a very effective communicator of progressive ideas. Seeing him administer an electrical shock to his dog because she was moving out of frame for his stream straight up enraged me. It's not just that it was strange and cruel, it was that the act revealed something dark and sinister about someone who really needs to be above reproach…for the good of our political climate
Go back and watch the clip. His dog gets up to stretch and he's immediately frustrated, complaining that his dog is acting like a "baby" because she got up from her bed. Hasan the commands his dog to return to its bed, he reaches for something on his desk and the dog screams.
Forget about the shock collar and just answer for me one thing about the moment before the shock: why would Hasan get frustrated that his dog got up from its bed to stretch?Afw35 (talk)04:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be asking editors to give weight to content based upon personal biases and poor sources (WP:TMZ). That's inappropriate. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk)16:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what about the following source, from a Spanish newspaper:abc.es? It's not on the list of accepted sources, but that's likely because that list focuses on English language sources. The Wikipedia article on that newspaper calls it "one of Spain's three newspapers of record" (ABC (newspaper)).Khuft (talk)19:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I was just replying to your comment above. See there for my comment on gossip. To me, your point sounds pretty much like wiki-lawyering. Of course they wouldn't name individual people since the controversy has involved countless people making those allegations. And they do cite PETA at the end of the article.Khuft (talk)19:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PETA isn't making the claim, however. They just issued a general statement of not to use shock collars. Since the claim is still coming from anonymous or unreliable sources, it's still gossip.Sibshops (talk)19:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's wiki-lawyering to ask for the person or source for the claim.
For example, a source would look like this:
American Journalist, Taylor Lorenz, investigated the shock collar controversy and found no creditable evidence a shock was administered.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaAlBfNnJY (Note: that since this is self-published it doesn't meet the wikipedia editoral standards. I'm just using it as an example.)Sibshops (talk)14:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Lorenz has also repeatedly called Hasan Piker "hot" and gushed about him on air--clearly she has a few biases in Piker's favor. In addition she was pushed out of two major newspapers for bullying teenagers online and emotionally manipulating interview subjects. She is not an ethically sound source or journalist.Agnieszka653 (talk)15:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that self-published material isn't a reliable source. I'm just saying that even if it comes from a reliable source, if it is gossip, it's not worthy of inclusion.Sibshops (talk)15:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, continue to defend him. The fact that pro-HP youtubers are rushing to publishing debunking videos just shows this is indeed a controversy that goes beyond gossip. Anyway, the original qualm was that no reputable enough media had reported the controversy. I shared one that did, ABC in Spain. Now you are moving the goalpost - sorry, but that's post-truth type behaviour I'm more used to seeing on other sides of the political spectrum.Khuft (talk)18:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sibshops is either arguing in bad faith or doesn't understand what gossip means. This isn't hearsay or rumor, it's an event documented on video and now well substantiated and contextualized by other clips and evidence, as well as widely reported on by legitimate news sites. By this user's logic you could have a video of Hasan punching his dog in the face and it would be "gossip." Absolutely ridiculous line of argumentation.Afw35 (talk)19:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the best you can find is opinion articles and a news article from a Spanish newspaper of unknowns provenance it's probably not due inclusion. At all.Simonm223 (talk)21:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afw35: So where are all of the reliable sources that show these allegations are substantiated? You gotta provide solid sources with journalistic integrity, because there is a high bar for inclusion of gossipy things on a BLP.172.58.10.83 (talk)22:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill is literally a greenlisted site on the perennial sources page. However, despite my strong moral convictions I've given up on this topic as it's become clear to me there are exists a team of dedicated users who will destroy any additions that document this very real controversy.Afw35 (talk)03:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To validate your frustration, I totally get that. Like in cryptocurrency wiki pages, there is so much more crypto-supporting sources than crypto-critical sources, and in my opinion, the supporting sources feel like they are advocating for crypto instead of being impartial. So because of this the wikipage feels like it's partial, too. But there's nothing to be done, it's sort of just part of the inherent limitation of verifiability on wikipedia.Sibshops (talk)18:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather strange that there is 0 mention of the alleged dog shocking incident, even if the person in question denies it, given the amount of reputable media coverage on this topic.Triplefour (talk)
That's because no one bothered to make a RfC about it until now. When IPs and new accounts keeps engaging in edit warring and complaining on the talk page all that accomplished is to get both protected
Hipal has repeatedly removed sourced information from this article over the course of the last year without establishing any kind of consent on the talk page (quite the contrary). The vast majority of the removed information can be described as shining a negative light on Piker. The user clearly has an axe to grind and this is a case ofWP:TE andWP:DE.They recently began scrubbing the article of information regarding Piker's multitude of suspensions. I'd be glad if someone with more credentials than me could revert the edits until Hipal manages to establish consent, before I, as a mere IP user, revert the changes and kick off an edit war.91.97.138.139 (talk)18:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a new strategy...also he did start a talk page about getting rid of the section about suspension. I am advocating for a controversies section. I think that's the way to go. Ethan Klein has one--so should Hasan Piker.Agnieszka653 (talk)15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the suspensions have a significant impact on his biography then their inclusion should be organic. If they have not then they should not be included. This is anoverview of the life of a living person. We don't dig into every minor picadillo. 16:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Simonm223 (talk)16:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I meant. What I am saying is that criticism should be included in sections related to the biographical topics the criticism is related to. So, ex, suspensions would be covered under a section like "career" rather than being ghettoized.Simonm223 (talk)00:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding my thoughts that it's quite odd that this singular user "Hipal" seems to think they're the gatekeeper of this article, removing multiple additions in a seemingly attempt to sterilise any potential negatively perceived additions. Is this what Wikipedia is for? Repeatedly removing content under the guise of a consensus that seemingly doesn't exist?Triplefour (talk)
PleaseWP:AGF.@Hipal: In the interest of fulfilling FOC, I will say that both theIntelligencer and theNational Review mention his feud with Crenshaw several years after the incident. While I agree with the removal of theKotaku source (that's a gaming site) and giving it a bit less weight than the "America deserved 9/11" stuff, I think total removal is a bit much.Based5290 :3 (talk)23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Intelligencer ref is still in. It's an interview, so not something very good for us to work from in determining what is DUE and encyclopedic.
I'd hoped there would be a usable source for the 9/11 content from the NY mayoral race coverage, but I've yet to find it. Regardless, it seems DUE. The Crenshaw content has received much more pushback against inclusion, and from the sources looks too much like Piker just being provocative to get publicity. --Hipal (talk)23:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Customs and Border Patrol questioning section removed
The section was removed as NOTNEWS. Maybe that's correct. I see coverage of the incident by AP, CBS, BBC, Chicago Sun-Times, NYTimes, The Hill, WaPo, The Guardian, NBC, People, and many lesser publishers. I can't find reporting about it more than a week out from the incident. If such content should be removed per NOTNEWS, do we have consensus to remove all content from this article that has similar or worse coverage when the coverage is restrained to a short timeframe? -Hipal (talk)01:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would obviously have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. And in case of the suspensions, they happened over the span of years and are directly relevant to his career so it makes even less sense to remove themFMSky (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)FMSky (talk)01:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section has been restored. Apparently some think that much coverage tips the scales. I agree that substantially lesser coverage tips to removal. --Hipal (talk)16:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restored again, with AP and NYTimes added as refs. Do we need more refs? It seems overly long, to heavy on Pikers own statements. --Hipal (talk)20:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt fit anywhere tbh. And it also doesnt add anything. "He was detained. He says it was because of his views, others say its a routine control". Who cares - removeFMSky (talk)20:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? "...AP, CBS, BBC, Chicago Sun-Times, NYTimes, The Hill, WaPo, The Guardian, NBC, People, and many lesser publishers." --Hipal (talk)20:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rough draft, but what are people's thoughts on a Career section rewrite to be chronological instead of a bucket of topics? I didn't remove or shorten any of the text mentioning suspensions.
I prefer this version... (btw, since you aren'tWP:XC yet, you're not supposed to edit anything related to Palestine/Israel. so not sure how that would work in this situation.)Rainsage (talk)01:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't make the edit. Someone else would have to split up the large Twitch category to separate sections.
2018–present: Twitch
To:
Early Twitch career and crossover from TYT (2018–2019)
Breakout and election-cycle coverage (2020)
Platform growth and moderation debates (2021–2022)
Gaza-war coverage and advertiser backlash (2023–2025)
I think you did a good job of adding the controversies into the body. It flows well. Only one I think you should probably add that I didn't see was the interview with the Yemeni Pirate. That did generate a lot of coverage and backlash. But I like how you included Rick Scott, the Capital Jewish Museum, and 9/11 comments. If this is how the suspensions and controversies are going to be covered conceptually I think it's good.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imo this is notable enough for the leadPiker was born to Turkish parents in New Brunswick, New Jersey, but grew up in Istanbul and was raised as a Muslim.. Could be inserted in front of "Piker started streaming on [...]"FMSky (talk)15:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's a general consensus against birth information in the lede beyond date of birth. Including it is a common problem. --Hipal (talk)16:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple and common problem, so it may have never been discussed at any depth in years (and overwhelmed by more relevant discussions of general inclusion of religious upbringing), rather it's just deleted outright whenever encountered. SeeWP:LEDE,WP:MOSLEDE, andMOS:BLPLEAD. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC) --Hipal (talk)17:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I have read a lot about Piker @FMSky from what I know it is disingenuous to label Piker as a "Muslim" because in multiple interviews he has described himself as "Culturally Muslim" essentially non-practicing but raised around the religion--so probably cannot put that in the lead. I think the more relevant info about his family is that he has a Turkish background and was raised wealthy--his father is the dormer vice president of Sabinci Holding.Agnieszka653 (talk)00:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussions, putting any mention of the suspensions in the lede shouldn't be considered.
Generally, self-descriptions are UNDUE and SOAP without proper context and high-quality, clearly independent, references. Putting self-descriptions in the lede is almost never DUE. Instead, third-party descriptions should be used, though even then,WP:LABEL problems need to be avoided. --Hipal (talk)23:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Its more than due at this point, even PETA was chimed in. I propose something like this.
Piker faced heavy backlash across social media in October 2025, after a viral clip appeared to show him using ashock collar on his dog during a livestream. In the clip, the dog can be seen yelping immediately after Piker reaches for something on his desk. Piker denied the claims, arguing that the collar was a vibrational collar that contained anApple Airtag.[1][2][3] It also drew criticism fromPETA, which argued that "positive reinforcement is a far more effective training method and doesn’t betray our animal companions’ trust in us."[4]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been previous discussion on this topic but I don’t see a clear consensus against inclusion. Given that, I am proposing that this content be included in the article for consideration.
This is not about determining whether the alleged abuse occurred as perWP:BLP andWP:V. The topic has received notable attention in the media and from the public and completely excluding it may failWP:DUE.
Regarding sources: Some editors have raised concerns about outlets such as The Times of India or Forbes. However multiple sources covering this topic fall under generally reliable perWP:RS and theperennial sources list. Complex is not listed as unreliable and is cited in many BLPs. For example:
•IShowSpeed uses 6 Complex sources, including for controversies
Additionally The Hollywood Reporter is considered generally reliable on theperennial sources list.
The Hill is also considered to be "generally reliable for American politics" as per theperennial sources list, they have a piece on this situation as well:
Therefore, I propose the following neutral wording be added, or something similar:
In 2025, Piker faced controversy after a clip of his dog Kaya yelping after leaving her bed was spread online, with accusations of Piker using a shock collar on the pet[1]. Piker responded to the claims stating "they’re claiming the most well-trained and the most spoiled, best-kept-after dog on the planet is actually being abused by me, apparently. Because I gave her the place command while she was getting off [the bed] and then she yelped."[2]
Alternatively, a briefer inclusion of the overall controversy is another viable avenue while still meeting BLP sourcing and notability requirements, and avoiding any BLPCRIME trepidations:
“In 2025, Piker faced controversy over the treatment of his dog, which he denied.[3]"
This wording attributes all claims, uses neutral language/framing and includes Piker’s response and avoids stating any allegation as fact which is consistent withWP:BLP andWP:BLPCRIME.
Additional media coverage for notability (not for sourcing):
* It's hard to include online accusations, neutrally. It seems to meet theWP:BLPGOSSIP criteria since there isn't a source for the claim and it hasn't been verified.
* And like you mentioned withWP:BLPCRIME Material that makes accusations of a crime like animal abuse can't be included unless convicted. There's no way to neutrally frame criminal accusations.Sibshops (talk)14:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources for my claim, which is this is a notable event worthy of inclusion. I'm arguing for the inclusion of the controversy itself not arguing for or against the merit of the alleged abuse. I provided multiple outlets including those accepted under Wikipedia's rules including those acceptable under BLP standards like The Hollywood Reporter, Complex and The Hill.
The NPR article you linked not mentioning this topic does not negate the existence or significance of coverage from other reliable outlets.WP:DUE is determined by the full scope of sourcing not subsequent reporting from a singular source.
Reporting that a controversy occurred while including Piker’s denial is not the same as directly making or repeating an accusation blindly. What is against BLPCRIME to include a shorter mention or statement such as:
“In 2025, Piker faced controversy over the treatment of his dog, which he denied.[1]”
It is verifiably true that Hasan is facing controversy over the treatment of his dog, which is clear from the media attention and reporting from reputable sources. Regardless if the controversy is justified or not is not what matters here, or what should be used to justify non-inclusion of a somewhat significant event in someone's life/career. Your accusation of WP:ADVOCACY would be more understandable if I was taking a personal stance or arguing for the alleged accusations to be covered in an accusatory tone, rather than advocating for the inclusion of what is verifiably true.
Maybe if I had more context I could be convinced otherwise. Do you know other wikipages I can use as an example to justify inclusion? Something that comes from an:
How is the claim that Hasan is facing controversy over the treatment of his dog "coming from an anonymous source, disputed by sources or potentially libellous."?
There are multiple sources that state that claim such as The Hollywood Reporter, which is on theaccepted perennial sources list.
My proposed shortened inclusion does not repeat or assert any claim of animal abuse. It mentions the existence of a controversy that has been reported in multiple independent reliable sources and it would also include Hasan's reply/denial which satisfies BLP requirements regarding alleged criminal actions etc.
Nothing in my proposal relies on anonymous sourcing. The Hollywood Reporter and Complex, for example, clearly state that a controversy occurred.
What would be potentially libellous or relies on online accusations in this proposed inclusion:
“In 2025, Piker faced controversy over the treatment of his dog, which he denied.[4]”
Complex - can you explain why this should be considered of BLP quality?
WP:NYPOST. Absolutely not. Please review all potential sources against basic policy.Don't waste our time with references that don't begin to Please ensure that offered references meet the high standards required for BLP articles.
The HollyWood Reporter is covering an exclusive statement to them from PETA, so falls into the concerns discussed previously where I wrote,To be DUE and get beyond NOTNEWS/NOTGOSSIP, better sources are needed that demonstrate this has some sort of long lasting impact. We must avoid churnalism, yellow/clickbait journalism, or rage-baiting media. --Hipal (talk)15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Hipal, could you explain why Complex should not be considered of BLP quality considering many many BLP articles use it? If the Complex article itself correctly references what the inclusion is talking about and substantiates that claim, I do not see why Complex would inapplicable here but not elsewhere. I have provided examples of Complex being used in other BLP pages including used as references for controversies or other contentious issues.
THR is an accepted source for BLP material, mentioning a PETA statement in their coverage of this topic would not disqualify their material as being acceptable as an source.
As for "wasting your time", I'm here in good faith trying to constructively improve this article and work toward a consensus that aligns with policy, as all wikieditors should.
Triplefour, thanks for responding. My apologies. I've refactord my comment.
You appear to be throwing references out indiscriminately without regard to past discussion or policy. Please take more care.
If you cannot make a case for Complex, you should not be offering it. The onus is on those seeking inclusion. If you're uncertain, then make that clear.
"Throwing out references" is a bit much considering I've mentioned 3 as support for inclusion, THR (accepted perennial source), Complex (accepted for BLP when meets inclusion requirements) and The Hill (another accept perrenerial source).
We can take out The Hill for being a video source, sure. That still leaves THR and Complex. Your reasoning for THR being non-applicable is that it includes a statement from PETA regarding the controversary, how this makes the source non-worthy is yet to be reasoned.
My case for Complex is simple, it's an accepted BLP source and it supports my inclusion that a controversary has occurred; "In the clip seen below, Hasan addressed the claims, which appear to have spread in certain corners of X in connection with footage of the dog making a short yelp sound during a stream.[1]".
As for addressing NOTNEWS AND NOTGOSSIP, I provided various media outlet's coverage of this situation in my initial post which shows the inclusions notability. Given that accepted sources are covering this topic, I'd like your explanation why you would consider including this controversary which has been covered by a range of outlets gossip.
On another note, I would also really appreciate it if you responded to what I've written in response to you inUser talk:Arsabent instead of putting a edit warring template, as the same "repeatedly reverting" condition applies to you aswell.Arsabent (talk)16:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like because of the sensitive nature of this, it should follow how other wikipedia pages handle similar matters. For example,Hillary Clinton doesn't includepizzagate, for example. Despite having lots of mentions in reliable secondary sources.Sibshops (talk)16:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arsabent, please look over the past discussions andWP:RSP, and note that BLP requires us to remove contentious material from articles and elsewhere for that matter. --Hipal (talk)16:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. BLP requires high-quality sources. RSN and RSP contain discussion that help us determine if a source might meet minimal requirements for use, sometimes noting additional concerns for BLP use. --Hipal (talk)16:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do BLP requirements allow edit warring? The edit history of the main article seems to show evidence of this occurring between multiple parties?
That's true. Hm.. The difficulty is that I can't find other wikipedia BLP pages to compare this with.
I don't think this is similar like in the case of sexual misconduct allegations.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Sexual_misconduct_allegations. These are from real people who's names are hidden to protect privacy.
Regarding Complex as a reference: In general, given their demographics and approach, it looks poor for BLP use, very poor for determining weight. I'll look into it deeper when I have more time. I haven't found any RSN discussions or anything similar. --Hipal (talk)17:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Given their demographics it looks poor for BLP use", what? What is your reasoning or explanation for that.
First time I've seen someone try to use "youth demographics" as to why they consider a source that's widely used in BLPs unreliable, not sure how that's relevant. If anything, being youth culture related would be favorable considering the subject of the article being discussed is a streamer who would fall into that "youth demographic" as well, not that it matters anyway.
The sale of Complex was close to 2 years ago now, and I'm not sure how that is relevant to this discussion either. Still unsure of your reasoning as to why Complex would be inadmissible as a reputable source for a fairly light mention of the debated inclusion. On top of the other sources, such as THR.
@Hipal Second time you've wrote that engaging in civil discussion about this topic is a "waste of time". Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, who decide freely what they participate in. Please keep your comments inline with Wikipedia's standards.Triplefour (talk)07:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I've refactored to indicate I'm not wasting my time further given policies and past discussion on this very page.
When discussion hasended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Since this is a nonstop discussion the last weeks I'm hoping this RFC finally clears it up. Should the dog collar controversy be included in this article?FMSky (talk)16:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per my post above, I believe a brief mention of the controversy should be included due to its notability.
To avoid any issues with BLPCRIME regarding accusations etc, perhaps something light like:
"In 2025, Piker faced controversy over the treatment of his dog, which he denied any wrong doing.[1][2][3][4]"
This avoids debate regarding merit of the alleged actions, includes the subject's response, and avoids repeating accusations whilst mentioning the controversy itself which has gained significant media attention from various sources.
That third (Huffington Post) and fourth (Complex) ref are not usable per the RSP and RSN discussions on those publishers. --Hipal (talk)23:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal HuffPost is considered generally reliable/green for BLP as per the perennial source list. For politics HuffPost has no general consensus and so requires debate before an inclusion uses it. There is no consensus on whether or not HP is an acceptable source for this inclusion yet. Complex has no consensus either, discussions for other articles and other inclusions are not applicable here considering no consensus exists in this debates context.Triplefour (talk)08:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can't find precedent for inclusion in other BLP pages. The accusation comes from anonymous online sources. Among the online community, the accusation itself is divided. It's potentially libelous as in it accuses him of a crime. I feel that it's better to err on the side of caution.Sibshops (talk)17:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The accusation comes from anonymous online sources" clearly goes against sources provided for this inclusion, such as THR's article stating "Hasan Piker the popular leftist political streamer who’s gained increasing mainstream prominence since Donald Trump retook the presidency — has become embroiled in controversy over the treatment of his dog Kaya, a perpetual presence in the background of his feed at his home in West Hollywood.".
Hardly an anonymous online source. Plus what would be potentially libellous about mentioning the existence of the controversy without going into explicit detail?Triplefour (talk)17:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you're talking about then it wouldn't be coming from an "anonymous online source", the source for the controversy inclusion is Gary Baum from The Hollywood Reporter. BLP policy allows mentioning documented public controversies provided they are covered by reliable secondary sources and presented fairly, so are you disagreeing that there is any controversy at all?Triplefour (talk)18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a controversy, meaning it's debated online, it's just not notable in my opinion. I just don't think this should be the first BLP article to include controversies like this.Sibshops (talk)19:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I can't imagine this being anything of importance to his career in a few months. Wikipedia isnot gossip, as Bluethricecreamman pointed out. This is undue weight and not for a BLP.Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I17:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, the potential significance to his career in a few months should not be used as the standard for inclusion or not.Triplefour (talk)17:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Counter: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so we can't just go with the idea that it will forever be notable. I'm aware there's no foresight for either end, hence why I'm agreeing withBluethricecreamman on the other point of Wikipedia not being gossip.Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I17:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one can know if something will be notable forever or not, if editors used this logic for inclusions Wikipedia would have no content. Gossip would be applicable, in my opinion, if there weren't reputable (by Wikipedia's own standards) sources discussing the controversy, there's a difference between acknowledging the controversy exists and going into true gossip territory by discussing it in detail.Triplefour (talk)17:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Solely going off 10YT would result in a large chunk of the current article being removable. Will people really care that Hasan opposed the 2017 travel ban in 10 or 20 years? We're nearly at the 10 year mark already and it doesn't seem that notable. Will readers in 10 years still care that Piker "was invited to appear onKTTV'sThe Issue Is and the political podcastChapo Trap House" etc.Triplefour (talk)17:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editors opposed to any inclusion of this topic have mentioned they do not consider The Hill to be a reputable source, neither Out, nor The Hollywood Reporter (despite being a listed generally reliable source). As to what the point of inclusion is if this is just a bunch of incorrect social media users, that cannot be reliably established in either direction. What is established by sources typically considered reputable for BLP articles is that there was a controversy involving the treatment of his dog.Triplefour (talk)20:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe the sources provided are notable enough for BLP and other articles such as Nathan J. Robinson and Vaush which all use which all use sources considered marginally reliable according toWikipedia:Reliable sources have similiar controversies/reception sections to that of Piker's. --Arsabent (talk)20:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally reliable sources shouldn't be used for controversial BLP claims, especially in areas whereWP:BLPGOSSIP applies. If they are used for such on other articles and can't be saved by high-quality RS, than such material on other articles should also be removed. --Patar knight -chat/contributions22:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No reliable sourcing has been provided toprove or substantiate the allegations being made and in fact look to be clearing up that it didn't occur. A flash in the pan social media "scandal" that was false is not something we should really be bothering to cover underWP:RECENTISM. The only way it would've actually been notable for our project's purpose would be if it turned out they had actually committed the crime alleged.Rambling Rambler (talk)21:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler Multiple reliable sources (THR/The Independent/Huffpost) have been provided that verify that Hasan is/was involved in a controversy regarding the alleged mistreatment of his dog. Flash in the pan is invalid considering there has been coverage on this topic from reputable sources for weeks now.Triplefour (talk)08:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is/was involved in a controversy regarding thealleged mistreatment of his dog.
It's still a flash in the pan and my comment stands, there is zero substantiation of the allegations themselves, which given the seriousness of them would require substantiation to warrant coverage. I'd also highly recommend you read the essayWP:BLUDGEON, because quite frankly making 61 edits to this page in the last 4-5 days all pushing for inclusion and tending to respond to anyone who doesn't agree with that is not conducive to a positive outcome.Rambling Rambler (talk)15:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler There's an open RfC and multiple discussions on this talk page, if my edits are respectful, follow Wikipedia's rules and are constructively engaging in good faith fair debate what is the issue exactly?Triplefour (talk)15:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the essay. It's not about acting in good or bad faith. It's the fact you're quite clearly replying to almost everyone opposed to inclusionexpecting them to satisfy your questions.
There are multiple votes or posts that I have not engaged in any way with, and nearly all of my replies differ in content or point. There are multiple users on both sides of the discussion engaging repeatedly in vote posts across the past few days, as you'd expect in a lengthy overall discussion such as this. 61 edits includes grammar fixes, some formatting changes and minor edits as well, hardly a valid example of bludgeoning in my opinion, especially when WP:BLUDGEON itself states: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considereduncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views withinreasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed forconsensus building", considering we are trying to build consensus here.
But thank you for the feedback, whilst I disagree with your accusation I'lltake a step back from this discussion for a while to not taint the RfC.
RSN discussions specifically exclude the use of such Complex articles in BLPs. RSN discussions on hellomagazine.com are not supportive of it's use, though not so clear. Per RSN, podcasts are generally treated as opinions or primary sources, rarely usable in a BLP other than by an expert. --Hipal (talk)18:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — it's not really about whether it can be reliably sourced, it's about whether it is DUE for inclusion, and in my view, the answer is no, it is not DUE. It's RECENTISM from a bunch of social media users who don't have a clue as to what really happened since they were not there to actually be in the know. This kind of gossipy crap has no place in an encyclopedia.Isaidnoway(talk)22:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beyond the reliability of the topic being met, the topic meetsWP:DUE so long as its coverage in the article isn't verbose (I imagine a paragraph or two covering both sides of the debate would be sufficient). This incident has received substantial coverage, including from the Vice President of the United States. It is a notable event directly related to the article's subject. To label it "gossipy crap" misunderstand either the nature of the incident and its coverage or the nature of Wikipedia itself.Jcgaylor (talk)06:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The incident in question is being amplified by a bunch of social media users who were not physically present, and are only offering their opinions on the "nature of the incident". Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia, not agossip rag. We write with an aim towards a long-term, historical view, this incident has no long-term significance, and unless someone can produce some sources that indicate this incident has had asignificant impact on his career, it is not DUE for inclusion.Isaidnoway(talk)07:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few preliminary points:
The role of alleged "social media users" (like his viewers?) in this incident is irrelevant to the core considerations of inclusion. Regardless of what "social media users" did or did not "amplify", many reliable sources have covered this incident and have included significant viewpoints from those supportive of Piker and those criticizing him. We cannot handwave away RS coverage merely because "social media users" also discussed the issue.
Signifcance, in the context ofWP:DUEWEIGHT, isn't about the incident's significance on his career, but the significance of viewpoints relayed in reliable sources.SeeWP:DUE ("pages [should] fairly representall significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources") (original emphasis supplied). The central issue of WP:DUE is ensuring neutrality by covering significant viewpoints.
WP:RECENTISM (an essay, not a policy or guideline) does advise editing with an eye towards the long-term historical value of material. Additionally,WP:BLPGOSSIP (a policy) instructs us to consider whether material is "relevant to a disinterested article". Is there relevant, long-term historical value to the fact that the Vice President condemned Piker over this incident? I'd say it is just as (if not more) relevant or historical valuable as Twitch condemning him for TOS violations (which is included in the article).
The recentism essay also posits that the inclusion of recent news may benefit the long-term development of the article ("[Articles] can be—and are—improved in real time; these rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts, but later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated").
I believe it is more likely than not that this incident will be relevant in the long-term. Then, the consideration turns to what coverage is due. As I stated earlier, a paragraph or so seems appropriate given the rather straightforward facts and viewpoints.Jcgaylor (talk)08:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still gossip no matter how you frame it, and just because RS reported on this gossip does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion. We have a different set of criteria than media outlets to determine content, and it has not met that threshold for inclusion. And the fact that the VP took a hateful potshot at someone who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion either.Isaidnoway(talk)14:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: His biggest controversy yet by far. Even PETA (link) and JD Vance (link) have commented on it by now. Not including would be disingenuous. And I say that as someone who normally hates irrelevant social media drama and always argues against inclusion, but this is another level imoFMSky (talk)18:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue What is encyclopedic is notable events covered by reputable sources. The allegations do not need to be deemed true or not for inclusion, nor does covering a notable controversy violate BLPCRIME if no direct accusation is made, a response is included and the accusation itself is notable enough for coverage. For example, what would be against BLPCRIME for a brief inclusion such as: "In 2025 Piker faced controversy over the treatment of his dog Kaya, which he denied any wrongdoing." etc?
From sources considered generally reliable like The Hollywood Reporter and The Independent it is verifiably true that Hasan is facing controversy for the treatment of his dog, and that he has denied any wrongdoing.Triplefour (talk)19:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Triplefour: From what I gather, Piker is being accused of abuse and cruelty towards his dog, yes? Just because you vaguely rephrase an accusation of a crime using weasel words ("facing controversy", "treatment" – what controversy, what treatment?) doesn't mean a crime isn't being alleged, especially if the reader has the missing context (i.e. the details of the allegations) in mind.Yue🌙19:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Covering a notable controversy isn't negated by charges not being laid yet if the inclusion follows BLPCRIME requirements as you mention. If an event is significant enough in coverage by notable sources and overall scope, it should be worthy of inclusion. I'd argue that reputable coverage of a vice president of a large country discussing this topic is an indicator of its notability, amongst other reasons such as the amount of media coverage on the controversy.Triplefour (talk)19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or just apply the first section of BLP and be done with it: While not being accused of a crime, he's definitely being accused of wrongdoing:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives --Hipal (talk)18:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the mere evaluation of sources, it's putting words in their mouth. Are you really suggesting that a reliable source has accused Piker of a crime?Anne drew (talk ·contribs)19:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe original research is the the other way around, no? Like we can't reinterpret the source, if the article says "critics claim abuse" we can't say "critics claim mistreatment", like you are suggesting.Sibshops (talk)18:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if most people claiming animal abuse are using it in that way. Abuse in casual usage is like someone "I can't believe he left his dog out in the rain. That's animal abuse."
More serious allegations are the ones made for example by JD Vance. "One of the things they show is young Freddy Krueger torturing animals." when talking about the matter.Sibshops (talk)19:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has the sourcing. it has the relevance. It has the lasting notability as people are still talking about it weeks later. It's been commented on by the vice president now adding more to its notability. Complete NPOV violation to stonewall this out of the article.Ratgomery (talk)23:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. More to the point, it's not a gossip rag. Not everything that "is news" briefly belongs in an encyclopedia article.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A brief inclusion such as "In 2025 Piker was involved in a controversy regarding the alleged mistreatment of his dog Kaya, which he denied" is not gossip when it's covered by multiple reputable sources. It is verifiably true and notable that Hasan was involved in such a controversy. Gossip by Wikipedia's definition is "idle talk orrumor", what is the rumor here?Triplefour (talk)11:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, however how does this inclusion classify as gossip?
"In 2025 Piker was involved in a controversy regarding the alleged mistreatment of his dog Kaya, which he denied"
As per BLPGOSSIP:
"Avoid repeatinggossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that useweasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware ofcircular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article is picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit."
"Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources"
Sources used for this inclusion attribute material to Hasan himself, such as his response.
"In 2025 Piker was involved in a controversy regarding the alleged mistreatment of his dog Kaya, which he denied." does not rely on anonymous sources, all sources for this inclusion such as THR, The Independent and Huffpost all have named staff reporters.
PETA did not accuse Hasan of mistreating his dog either, so this wouldn't make sense as an inclusion. The PETA section from the THR article is as such:
"Now, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is weighing in. In a statement toThe Hollywood Reporter, the advocacy group says, “Hasan Piker has denied using a shock collar on his dog, and we hope that’s true because shock collars are dangerous and downright cruel. They put dogs at risk of burn wounds, chronic anxiety, and displaced aggression.”
Support Wiki doesn't catalog every suspension from streaming websites, but this article lists afew. The subject is notable because of a career in streaming, punditry, and is sometimes engaged in controversy. Suspensions are relevant given the context of the subject. For comparison,On 30 January 2024,[Pokimane] announced that she would stop streaming on Twitch stating that she was "done with Twitch's..." [...] citing the changes that the company has made in recent years. However, she has continued to stream. A famous entertainer not-retiring is internet drama, but may be worthy of inclusion for a living biography. Reliable sources wrote there was speculationTucker Carlsoncould attempt a run for President of the United States in 2024. A notable pundit not-running for office can be worth inclusion. Reliable sources tell us as much. Here, they do the same despite controversy which can be reflected in inclusion. How it is included can be debated (with attribution, 1/2/3 sentences) but it passes the threshold.Affyaffy (talk)02:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC was put up for inclusion. Above I see discussion and votes pointing toWikipedia:BLPGOSSIP or similar arguments against inclusion. The word is mentioned 60+ times on this page. I provide examples of Wiki including "gossip", in a plain definitional sense, because gossip defined in the English dictionary is not the same as what is written inWikipedia:BLPGOSSIP. Pokimane not-retiring, Carlson not ever announcing a running for POTUS, or a controversy/suspension section here appear consistent with a principled application of policy. Is there something you would like me to clarify?Affyaffy (talk)18:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting this be included as a matter of policy, not that policy be disregarded. 1. There are reliable sources 2. They present material as true (a controversy occurred and that's all that's all that's being asked here: inclusion) 3. It relevant to a disinterested article about the subject-- no more or less than other controversies added to BLP articles including this very one. 4. This is not circular reporting, as secondary sources report on widely accessible on primary footage.Affyaffy (talk)23:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, on the condition that it is made clear that he denies it and that it isn't givenundue weight. There does seem to be enough coverage to warrant a small mention, and the only part ofBLPCRIME that applies is the part where he is presumed innocent unless convicted in a court of law. One or two sentences summarizing the fact that he has been accused of using a shock collar on his dog, and denies the allegation, should suffice. Any more than that would be excessive.QuicoleJR (talk)01:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course anything covered by reliable sources in such a major and comprehensive way should be included. Anything other than that here is a total whitewashing of the events as they took place and were reported on.Iljhgtn (talk)01:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a transient social-media controversy without proven lasting significance. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for amplifying internet rumors or moral panics (WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTGOSSIP). No reliable source has established misconduct, and inserting unproven allegations into a BLP risks harm and violates the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. Until there is durable, independent coverage demonstrating real long-term relevance, this belongs off-wiki, not in an encyclopedia.--HanKim20 (talk)23:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This may be the first time that a sitting Vice President spoke about a Twitch streamer. It has brought more page views to the pageshock collar in the page'sentire history. There is significant coverage and interest in this event.LDW5432 (talk)23:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The RS that do report on it do not present it as true, thus the elevated level of caution atWP:BLPGOSSIP applies. With the low amount of RS coverage, I don't see how it's possible to both cover the subject in a way that alleviates the obvious BLP concerns around alleged dog shocking/abuse while keeping within the bounds ofWP:UNDUE. Since the article subject gets a semi-regular amount of coverage in RSs, it's better to see if this controversy gets picked up in the future, in which case inclusion might be justified. --Patar knight -chat/contributions22:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. There exist some coverage in RS news sources (seeTalk:Hasan Piker#Reliable sources about the collar incident). I am fine withTriplefour's suggestion, although I think the controversy should be attributed to "social media" specifically. While I understand critics' citingWP:BLPGOSSIP andWP:UNDUE, given the claim is not as extraordinary to the extent it accuses Piker of committing animal abuse with a shock collar, but only discusses "treatment of his dog", I feel the claim warrants at least a single sentence mention since there has been some coverage on it.John Kinslow (talk)05:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the accusers are never named, and we have yet to see enduring coverage.WP:BLPGOSSIP,WP:NOTGOSSIP, andWP:RECENTISM apply. Piker is "involved in controversy" almost constantly, and many obscure and irrelevant details of his life are verifiable but should not be included in his biography. —Rutebega (talk)22:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the accusers are never named"? This is something that happened on video. The "accusers" are the general public reacting to the video. Why would a specific accuser need to be named and who would even be an accuser in this context?Ratgomery (talk)23:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means the RS usesweasel words so they aren't making the claim themselves. In other words, the reliable source doesn't make the accusation or name a specific person who made the accusation, either.
An named accusation from a RS would be something like "According to CNN, Starbucks is in trouble." or "According to a Business Professor John Doe, Starbucks is in trouble." Unnamed sources would sound like, "According to social media critics, Starbucks is in trouble."Sibshops (talk)14:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until better sources are written. This is obviously a notable event in Hasan's career and needs to be included eventually, but the sources don't yet have the quality for BLP. See "Potential sources" section below.NotBartEhrman (talk)03:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, undue. The sourcing is brief and much of it is low-quality; there's limited sourcing at the time and much of it focuses more on critiquing J. D. Vance's comments about it, mentioning Piker only in passing for context. This level of sourcing just doesn't support the idea that it's an important part of his bio - we don't automatically include every time someone is criticized by the Vice President, and based on the limited sourcing provided above that seems to be the main thrust of available coverage. --Aquillion (talk)16:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BLP, BLPGOSSIP, POV, NOTNEWS, VNOT. The hunt for BLP-quality references to support the RfC proposal has not resulted in anything that rises above the threshold of these policies. Not that we should be proposing a RfC topic before finding BLP-quality sources in support of the topic. Sources should be found first, and then we should summarize them as they relate to the Piker. Otherwise, we risk serious POV problems, potentially fuelingWP:POVPUSH andWP:BATTLE situations. --Hipal (talk)17:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think this is not "relevant to a disinterted article about the subject."? The discourse online about the collar have pretty much overshadowed every other parts of his life in sheer volume since the original streamTrade (talk)03:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been one profile on Piker since the dog collar controversy:Variety, which was conducted well after the incident and it does not mention it at all. Maybe it's a big thing on the online spaces you frequent, but except for The Hollywood Reporter, it hasn't been picked up by the type of high quality reliable sources thatWP:BLPGOSSIP recommends. --Patar knight -chat/contributions04:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Based onWP:RS, this is definitely a notable "controversy" (perhaps for a new section), and it is worth mentioning in one or two sentences at least. I don't really understand the argument against inclusion.Doctorstrange617 (talk)14:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move this to the BLP Noticeboard? Far as i can see there are only a couple of users and IPs involved in this conflictTrade (talk)16:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Triplefour: I dont mind if its short but this is a bit extreme lmao. That's completely missing what the controversy is even about. The shock collar part should at least be mentionedFMSky (talk)17:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue for something longer like:
"In 2025, Piker faced controversy over the treatment of his dog after allegedly using a shock collar on her on stream" (which is still backed up by the same sources).
However most people trying to repeatedly stop any inclusion of this use BLPCRIME as a way to justify it's exclusion, so I'm trying to take the path of least resistance for now, and once more sources roll out then more can be added with less debate.
Or his full reply could be included if the inclusion expands on the controversy itself for context, such as: "Piker responded to the claims stating "they’re claiming the most well-trained and the most spoiled, best-kept-after dog on the planet is actually being abused by me, apparently. Because I gave her the place command while she was getting off [the bed] and then she yelped."
However this relies on using Complex as asource for the quote, which @Hipal has deemed non:RS in above discussion:
"Regarding Complex as a reference: In general, given their demographics and approach, it looks poor for BLP use, very poor for determining weight"Triplefour (talk)14:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted you directly, and there is no general consensus on Complex being a reliable source or not. It should be judged on a case by case basis for an inclusion on merit, not on a prior discussion without a conclusion. I have explained my reasoning for Complex being a reliable source for this topic's inclusion in prior discussion, and I have provided examples of various BLPs using Complex as references including for controversies. So there is precedent for using it as a source.Triplefour (talk)16:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is no general consensus on Complex being a reliable source or not Even if that is the case, it's no argument for inclusion. BLP requires better.
Incorrect, I've replied to you previously in my post above explaining why I believe Complex is an acceptable source for a brief inclusion that you can refer back to if you wish. In short, the Complex article is not from an anonymous source or writer, it contains a reply from the article subject on the contentious matter and is framed neutrally with no direct claims being made. It is also supported by other sources others have listed, including The Hollywood Reporter which is considered generally reliable.
Even discounting Complex, there are other reputable sources for this inclusion. Let's agree to disagree about Complex for now and see how the RfC plays out.Triplefour (talk)17:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no agreed upon BLP-quality refs to use, nor any indicated for in the actual RfC. In order to follow BLP, this needs to change, or the RfC should be rejected outright.
That makes no sense to me. Maybe you can restate, avoiding anyWP:FOC problems?
There are ongoing content discussions in parallel with the RfC, but any vote in the RfC to include needs to indicate the exact content including sources. --Hipal (talk)16:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal is just saying the RFC should be specific. It should contain theTemplate:Text_diff.
Inclusion can mean, "Hassan abuses his dog." or "Social media is divided in claims that Hasan has used an e-collar for pet training during a livestream."Sibshops (talk)17:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Since it's new, the entirety of what's related to Piker:
Vance, 41, was appearing on The New York Post’s Pod Force One podcast when he and host Miranda Devine got into a discussion about the controversy that has engulfed Twitch streamer Hasan Piker after his followers spotted his dog wearing an electronic training collar in a video and accused him of using it to administer corrective shocks to the animal, which Piker denied.
Apologies for not being clearer. There are RSN discussions specifically about Express Tribune that specifically reject the use in BLPs of articles categorized as entertainment or culture. --Hipal (talk)23:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Consideredgenerally reliable: "2020 RfC foundHuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their politicalbias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it". While Hasan is a political commentator his primary notability stems from streaming and online entertainment so the political caveat is arguably less applicable in this context.
- Source includes Hasan's denial/response and does not assert guilt
- Supported by other sources like The Hollywood Reporter and The Independent
True however the inclusion being discussed is not inherently political, and HuffPost is already used as a source in the article multiple times. HUFFPOLITICS also mentions there is no consensus on HuffPost when using it for politics so it cannot be immediately discounted regardless.Triplefour (talk)19:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to propose additional edits, however for this discussion there are multiple sources typically considered generally reliable for BLPs that all support a brief inclusion of the controversy. HuffPost is considered reliable for entertainment topics (we are discussing an online entertainment streamer), and as you note with HUFFPOLITICS there is no general censuses either way if you think the political caveat applies to a notable controversy regarding alleged pet mistreatment. I have included my reasoning in my initial reply as to why I think this source meets BLP requirements, could you please clarify why you think this wouldn't be an acceptable source beyond stating that it "fails BLP's high requirements".Triplefour (talk)19:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent my commments.
The ref is inherently political in content, so fails HUFFPOLITICS. Even if that weren't the case, the ref is clearly the type of poor reporting that was soundly rejected in the previous discussions about the dog collar incident. It's clickbait. --Hipal (talk)20:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HUFFPOLITICS establishes there is no consensus if it's considered politics:
"In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus onHuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considersHuffPost openlybiased on American politics".
Poor reporting is subjective, the article is written by a senior staff reporter for context.
Article in debate quotes Hasan as an "Americanonline streamer,influencer, andleft-wing political commentator." Whilst he may stream political opinions he is primarily known for and established in Wikipedia for being an online streamer, which is under the entertainment field more-so than politics. The source in question can be used for politics either way, if it meets BLP standards.Triplefour (talk)17:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clickbait article that's largely an excuse to rehash the Kristi Noem dog shooting controversy. Hardly a high quality source for this claim.EvansHallBear (talk)20:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim itself isn't being debated, nor should it be on Wikipedia. The proposed inclusion is regarding coverage of the controversy itself as a notable event, not establishing guilt. The article linked is aligned with other sources mentioned in above discussion.Triplefour (talk)20:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this The Washington Freebeacon mentioned which could be added to the notability pile.
" People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals contributed to the conversation, telling The Hollywood Reporter:
“Hasan Piker has denied using a shock collar on his dog, and we hope that’s true because shock collars are dangerous and downright cruel. They put dogs at risk of burn wounds, chronic anxiety, and displaced aggression.”
Your cited source does not sound reliable at all. Do you have something more official. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about freebeacon in general I'm specifically about this article. To be frank, it's very optioned and I think a more neutral source is better.Question169 (talk)09:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much neutral more so less unprofessional to be quite frank, the freebeacon article looks like it was written with a pretty blatant axe to grind.Question169 (talk)03:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sommerlad, Joe (2025-10-30)."JD Vance says only 'really terrible' people mistreat dogs – apparently forgetting his cabinet colleague shot hers dead".The Independent.Archived from the original on 2025-11-13. Retrieved2025-11-13.Vance, 41, was appearing onThe New York Post'sPod Force One podcast when he and host Miranda Devine got into a discussion about the controversy that has engulfed Twitch streamer Hasan Piker after his followers spotted his dog wearing an electronic training collar in a video and accused him of using it to administer corrective shocks to the animal, which Piker denied.
"Streamer Hasan Piker Accused of Using a Shock Collar on his Dog to Keep her in the Shot for Views".The Australian. 2025-10-08. Retrieved2025-11-13.A left-wing streamer is going viral for a moment that played out during one of his recent live streams, but not for the reasons he might want. People are accusing Hasan Piker of using a shock collar on his dog Kaya in order to keep her in the shot. The moment in question played out during a Twitch live stream on Tuesday. Social media immediately went into a frenzy over the speculation about the extremely influential streamer...
"Hasan Piker accused of mistreating dog on stream with 'shock collar', denies allegations".The Hill. 2025-10-09.Archived from the original on 2025-10-10. Retrieved2025-11-13.Popular leftist streamer Hasan Piker is being scrutinized by the internet over his treatment of his dog, Kaya. In a clip that went viral earlier this week, Kaya appears to yelp in pain at the same moment Piker reaches perhaps for something off camera. Now that moment led many people to speculate that Hasan's dog was wearing a shock collar and that she yelped because Hasan had shocked her with a remote that was hiding off screen... Piker later posted a video in which he strongly denied the allegations and said that Kaya most likely just accidentally injured herself while stepping on her bed.
Hollywood Reporter: Baum's reliance on PETA is an additional strike against it given that PETA is unreliable.
The Independent: Sommerlad presents the incident in a wider context that should be considered rather than ignored.
Free Beacon: Written as clearly yellow journalism, I assume this is the type of reporting that resulted in the publisher being considered generally unreliable prior 2019 and that was highlighted as questionable in the latest RfC. Extremely poor source.
Sources like theHollywood Reporter,The Hill, andComplex make the dog collar controversy-related contentWP:DUE, and pretty clearly so. The fact that there was an initial hubbub followed by a PETA response makes the controversy all the more notable, hence why it pops up quickly with a quick Google search for his name. PerWP:RSP, there is justification for some sort of "Controversy" section. Even if it's brief as of nowDoctorstrange617 (talk)14:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
What I think should be changed (format using{{textdiff}}):
Organize Career section chronologically instead of in buckets of topics.
A draft is here where I just moved sections around. I didn't add or delete any paragraph content. I just moved content around.User:Sibshops/Hasan_Piker_career_reorg
Why it should be changed:
Eliminates criticism section and makes it easier to organize and understand career history.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
I addressed Agnieszka653's comment on the content by reducing the scope. This just reorders, instead of addressing content changes, as well.Sibshops (talk)18:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the second objection, Rainsage didn't actually have an objection, he just had a procedural question about how to do an edit on a protected page.Sibshops (talk)22:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it troubling that the article had been locked only after @Hipal managed to remove most of the less positive information about the subject, effectively whitewashing the article. They managed to do so via smaller edits over the course of months and recently heavily scrubbing the article, edit-warring, and constant sealioning on the talk page. I don't think a single user should gatekeep the information in this article and constantly cast doubt on sources deemed reliable; especially when it could be argued that the user has a clear bias.I believe it would be best if someone could revert all edits made by Hipal and then lock the article for the time being until an actual consensus is reached. Otherwise, the removal of the properly sourced information seems dubious, to say the least, and sets a bad precedent.89.233.73.237 (talk)18:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an administrator would volunteer to do that work. However, I think you can propose a change yourself. It sounds like an administrator would add it if there are no objections from anyone.Sibshops (talk)18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen at least 2 other editors other than me voicing objection over the removal of the Dan Crewshaw feud, that should definitely not have been removed. I'll restore it when the article isn't locked anymore.FMSky (talk)09:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
btw regarding that piker china trip / support for communist regimes, that could be moved or incorporated into the section views or receptionFMSky (talk)20:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Education section needs to be fixed. Aligntment is wrong
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
After the subsection "Coverage of the Gaza War", subsection "Allegations of antisemitism" should be added, including the entire 2nd paragraph from the Gaza war coverage section:"In November 2024, Congressman Ritchie Torres criticized Twitch for alleged "amplification of antisemitism", specifically calling for an investigation into Piker.[52] Piker defended himself, arguing that he did not criticize Jewish people as a whole and was only anti-Zionist.[52][53][56] A campaign by various commentators, including the streamer Destiny, pressured advertisers to leave Twitch due to the platforming of alleged antisemitism, including Piker's political commentary of the conflict.[52][53] Both the pressure campaign and Ritchie Torres posted clips of Piker's channel they alleged to be antisemitic. Piker rejected the charge, arguing the clips were taken out of context.[52][53][56] Because of the controversy, some advertisers have pulled advertisements.[56]"MonkeyBrave (talk)13:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stylistically, I'm not sure if it's recommended to make a single paragraph a subsection perMOS:OVERSECTION.
Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings.
Maybe it could be added if there was an additional paragraph added to the parent section? I feel like a paragraph could be added about how he is covering the gaza war. In it's current form there isn't any content describing his coverage. Like interviews, news, analysis, etc...Sibshops (talk)13:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Not done for now, as there doesn't appear to be consensus for the request. Feel free to reactivate if/when there is agreement about what should be added.Happy‑melon12:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should a section be added in Career about Hasan's role in the New York City Mayoral race, both his support and how he is mentioned in attack ads and by Andrew Cuomo?
In the 2025 New York City mayoral race, Piker backed Zohran Mamdani, using his sizable online platform and with his on-the-ground presence at major rallies and election events. That association became a point of contention for Mamdani's opponents, who targeted both Mamdani and Piker in attack ads and during debates.Sibshops (talk)19:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would likely need more sources to back that inclusion. The NBC article mainly addresses Hasan's "America deserved 9/11" comments and how Mamdani addressed it, no mention of on the ground coverage.Triplefour (talk)20:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention that. It instead only has a pair of sentences about how Piker was at the "victory party" like many other people were. That doesn't establish anything about any supposed role.Rambling Rambler (talk)21:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's tangential at best, and the provided source if anything suggests Mamdani distanced themselves somewhat after Cuomo referenced him in attack ads.Rambling Rambler (talk)20:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I should have included the hollywood reporter, too. That article mentioned that Mahmandi's success was due to his online infulencers in the room which includes Hasan and interviewed him about it.
But I agree, it's probably not a strong enough to include at this time. Maybe if more articles talk about how they see Mahmandi's success was due in part from online infulencers and if they specifically mention Hasan.Sibshops (talk)21:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that THR source is basically useless for the purposes you present it for. There is only one mention of Piker and it's this:
The upcoming midterm cycle is going to be very funny,” leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who has supported Mamdani, posted to X. “Lots of politicians trying to do stuff like [Mamdani’s videos], not realizing why it isn’t hitting the same way.”
So he wasn't "interviewed", the author of the article simply quoted a tweet Piker himself made without passing any judgement as to what impact Piker had (if any).Rambling Rambler (talk)21:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to collect sources, another article came out suggesting a link between Hasan and the success of Mamdani. Seems to be a RS perWP:VARIETY.
Before the Mamdani win becomes a reality, however, Piker can only hope the polls are accurate. But he’s feeling confident as we walk along a busy stretch of 10th Avenue. An older man wearing a bandanna and hoop earrings stops in his tracks and claps as he recognizes Piker. It’s a sign that the streamer’s message about Mamdani and/or Israel is resonating.
In the2025 New York City mayoral race, Piker expressed support forZohran Mamdani, and Mamdani appeared as a guest on Piker's show.[1] During the campaign, Mamdani’s political opponents used Piker's past remarks, especially his 2019 comment that "America deserved9/11", in attacks against Mamdani, including in a televised advertisement aired by a pro-Andrew Cuomosuper PAC.[2] Mamdani disavowed Piker's comments during a mayoral debate, calling them "objectionable and reprehensible".[3]John Kinslow (talk)00:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, honestly reading through all of these sources the thread seems to really be that Mamdani spoke with Piker on a streamone time at some point (amongst many interviews they've done with all manner of outlets/people) and because Piker is also considered a "leftist" and has a long history of shall we sayquestionable comments Cuomo's campaign decided they could smear Mamdani by linking him to the latter as a "political bedmate" and Mamdani distanced themselves very publicly to Piker's previous comments.
I know Mamdani used Hasan Piker in his campaign but I don't think his role was prominent enough to warrant a mention on the page. Unless there is reason to add the Mamdani debate with Cuomo where Mamdani had to condemn Piker's rhetoric on 9/11 but that doesn't really seem fitting for the Piker page.Agnieszka653 (talk)21:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This event was covered by sources listed as generally reliable sources onWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and Piker himself commented on the whole thing. One simple paragraph summarising what occurred is not exhaustive. The addition I've made to the article includes sources not previously discussed here, such as Politico and the Washington Post.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCeltBrowne (talk •contribs)23:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While you have added two new sources to the discussion (Washington Post and Politico) the problem remains that neither make any remark as to thenotability of Piker as having a prominent role within the campaign. It still remains that Cuomo tried to attack Mamdani using an unrelated historical comment Piker made, Mamdani denounced it, and then Piker was simply at the victory party as an attendee. The lack of depth beyond that in terms of sourcing is the issue here, i.e. sources highlighting an impact Piker made on the campaign, was he a crucial positive or negative force involved etc.
Strangely with the present level of sourcing this "incident" for lack of a better word would be more relevant to an article about the conduct of the mayoral election (as an event that happened during a debate) than here on Piker's own biography because it's really more the Cuomo campaign than about Piker himself as a person.Rambling Rambler (talk)23:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely with the present level of sourcing this "incident" for lack of a better word would be more relevant to an article about the conduct of the mayoral election (as an event that happened during a debate) than here on Piker's own biography because it's really more the Cuomo campaign than about Piker himself as a person.
I would feel the opposite. I don't think Piker's presence was significant enough to include on the primary2025 New York City mayoral election article (as that article is already rather lengthy and adding to that would be ill-advised), but level of coverage by generally reliable sources means that a paragraph noting the events in Piker's own article is warranted.
They are reliable sources but really the Piker stuff is tangential and relatively minor in all of them and they are really about the debates as part of the campaign, so it's hard to argue they meet the threshold of inclusion within the context of "notable facts about Hasan Piker and/or his activities".
If his 9/11 comments had been new/recent then maybe there'd be an argument there to document this as part of it as in being contemporary "reaction" to them, but really they're just stale old ones that Cuomo's campaign dug up to desperately try and attack someone else with.Rambling Rambler (talk)00:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If his 9/11 comments had been new/recent then maybe there'd be an argument there to document this as part of it as in being contemporary "reaction" to them, but really they're just stale old ones that Cuomo's campaign dug up to desperately try and attack someone else with.
Regardless of how you feel about Cuomo or Mamdani, the fact that Mamdani appeared on Piker's stream, that Cuomo attacked Mandami for this, and then Mamdani rejected Piker's comments are 3 new notable elements. This is not about rehashing the original 9/11 comments, it's about noting that Piker was an element/aspect of the 2025 New York City mayoral election campaign. It was notable enough that several generally reliable outlets covered it.CeltBrowne (talk)00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's thecontext that's important here. The articles are focused on the election campaign as the notable subject here, not Piker, and Piker's name is only tangential to the main thrust (i.e. the articles covering the debates make abrief mention of Cuomo attacking Mamdani using the latter's appearance on a single stream of Piker's). This is basically aWP:VNOT scenario in that while it's verifiable that Piker was mentioned in some reliable sources in regards to coverage of the election, there's been no demonstration of notable prominence within it and therefore at present it fails to make a good case of being something that the inclusion of would improve the article.Rambling Rambler (talk)00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are focused on the election campaign as the notable subject here, not Piker,
I've had this discussion dozens and dozens of times over the years on Wikipedia; someonedoes not have to be the primary/sole topic of a news article in order for us as Wikipedians to use those articles as sources of information about that person. This is a common misconception.
What you're essentially arguing is that this failsWikipedia:Trivial mentions. However, this is multiple paragraphs in multiple sources of the highest quality and is far above the threshold. In particular, the Washington Post, TIME and Politico articles make Piker a focus point of their coverage.
They don't have to be the primary focus, but they do need to be substantial enough to glean new useful information from it.
I am not arguing "trivial mentions", but that the information istangential and doesn't introduce anything meaningfully new.
Out of the three sources you want to draw particular attention to, The Times source mentions him in one brief section aboutaccusations made by Cuomo about Mamdani, the Politico sources mentions him during a brief section aboutaccusations made by Cuomo about Mamdani, and the Washington Post mentions him during a brief section aboutaccusations made by Cuomo about Mamdani.
All mentions are tangential and largely contextual, only there to explain that Cuomo was accusing Mamdani of being "pro-9/11" because he'd spoken to Piker one time and more than half a decade before Piker completely unrelated made comments about 9/11. So there's nothing here that actually improves a biography about Piker because at best it's just very belated criticism of his comments that we've already documented enough.Rambling Rambler (talk)11:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you demonstrated this isn't meaningfully new or tangential. His role in the election seems topically appropriate and notable enough to be covered by 6+ RS. That's a higher bar for inclusion than most of the other paragraphs in career section.
Sure the sources say that Cuomo made accusations about Mamdani, but some of the sources also note Hasan's support of Mamdani. Such as Hasan's interview and coverage of Mamdani. And sources note Hasan's impact, too, as an introduction of Mamdani to Hasan's viewers. It also can't be ignored that Hasan's support is notable enough for the opposition to use it in an attack ads and debates, in the first place.Sibshops(talk)13:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number of RS mentioning it doesn't do much to make it convincing when all of them are just as "in-passing" as each other, in the same way it wouldn't be that convincing to take these same examples and go "well we need to bring up these debates on the Hamas article" given they're also given mention.
The problem is that what we're really lacking in this (that would justify inclusion quite easily) is a reliable source actively making comment on the importance of Piker in the campaign, rather than us as editors getting close toWP:OR with our view that it was important to the campaign.Rambling Rambler (talk)13:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about OR, I can take out any OR claims of importance or impact. How's this?
In the 2025 New York City mayoral race, Piker publicly supported Zohran Mamdani by promoting him and hosting him on his show. That association became a point of contention for Mamdani's opponents, who targeted both Mamdani and Piker in attack ads and during debates.
I don't know, I think that phrasing is still possiblyWP:UNDUE:
Piker publicly supported Zohran Mamdani by promoting him and hosting him on his show is ambiguous in phrasing, as we only have RS for he appeared on a stream once with Piker while that sentence suggests something a lot more coordinated andongoing in nature.
became a point of contention for Mamdani's opponents, who targeted both Mamdani and Piker in attack ads and during debates it was only one opponent that seems to have raised it and briefly, and even then it was to target Mamdani and not Piker himself.
Similar to Triplefour's comment below, I think at best the only thing we possible have sources to justify right now is a slight addition after the existing content about his 2019 suspension for the comments along the lines of "these comments received further scrutiny during the 2025 New York Mayoral election, after Piker interviewed and stated support for candidate Zohran Mamdani."
It doesn't assign any "worth" of Piker to Mamdani's campaign (which we lack in RS), and acknowledges the few facts we have in RS (Piker interviewed Mamdani, Piker's historical comments on 9/11 were scrutinised following this).Rambling Rambler (talk)14:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a least three RS mentioning Hasan promoted and interviewed Mandani. Variety, NBC, and Politico.
The opponents aren't just the opposing candidate, it include the political PAC, too, right? Or do you have a better way to reword it that attacks came from more than one entity?
I don't think we can infer the real target of the attacks was only Mamdani or that would be OR. We can only report that the attack happened to both.Sibshops(talk)15:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's RS saying he interviewed Mamdani, but we need to be careful to not suggestcoordination between them (i.e. Piker was explicitly part of the campaign or had a de facto role with it) because that's basically what the Cuomo campaign (including that attack ad) wanted to imply but we have no actual sources for this, instead only that there was an interview and that Piker had expressed support for Mamdani. Either way it feels once again we're drifting too far towards content more material to an article on the election than a personal biography.
Really the only bit that is directly relevant to this article (biography of Hasan Piker) from what we have RS for is that his 2019 comments were scrutinised further after conducting an interview with and expressing support for Mamdani. That's why I think the wording I just proposed would be the most we can say for now without further, more expansive on the issue RS.Rambling Rambler (talk)15:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hasan's coverage of Mamandi is a relevant part of his biography, as well. This can be seen in biographical articles about Hasan in secondary sources since it also includes this topic. In general, the wikipedia article on Hasan should mirror the relevance of the topic as seen in these sources, too.Sibshops(talk)19:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with thatin theory, but to describe it beyond the solitary interview and saying he expressed support for Mamdani we need again more extensive RS to say it and not ourselves extruding that from what is very minimal coverage across many RS that don't give us that detail.
It's annoying but we're dealing with both BLP and beyond that uncomfortably rubbing up against possibly multiple Contentious Topic issues (certainlyWP:AP2, possiblyWP:A-I) so this is something we have to be exceptionally careful with.Rambling Rambler (talk)19:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler Okay, how is the change? I tried to incorporate all your changes requested. It doesn't imply coordination, impact, or influence. And tried to make sure I wasn't making any OR conclusions not explicitly mentioned in any of the articles. I also kept it short and included the reference to the 9/11 comments.Sibshops(talk)22:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in to say the proposed edits by CeltBrowne seem far too excessive and unnecessary. The scope of the reporting by reputable sources on this matter seems limited to Mamdani condemning Piker for his previous 9/11 comments. At most, a one or two line inclusion regarding the 9/11 comments being condemned by Mamdani in the existing suspensions section could perhaps be justifiable, however a new lengthy section also covering Hasan attending the election victory party serves little purpose.Triplefour (talk)12:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to re-render the text to be more condensed, and be inline with what you're suggesting, such as cutting the election victory party for example.CeltBrowne (talk)01:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find anyother BLP-quality refs to demonstrate this is worth noting:
In November 2025, Piker made a trip to China, which was subsequently criticised as promoting Chinese propaganda. In an interview with state-runChina Global Television Network, Piker said he wanted to visit China to see what the US could "adopt and emulate" from the country, calling China "just another normal country like every other country is" and described the visit as a "dream come true".[4] Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at theHudson Institute, criticised Piker for "attempting to normalise theChinese Communist Party". Liu He, a researcher at theHoover Institution, highlighted the episode as demonstrating "China's tightly controlled media environment", while conservative activistDrew Pavlou shared footage of Piker being confronted by police, framing it as evidence ofcensorship and state control.[4] The police encounter occurred during a livestream atTiananmen Square, where Piker was attending the daily sunset flag-raising ceremony. According to Piker, the officer wanted to ensure that his group was "not making fun" of the ceremony; the broadcast briefly cut to black during the inspection. Piker called the interaction a "minor mishap" and defended his remarks, stating he had not had any negative experiences during the visit.[4]
Even if it is noteworthy, that's seems UNDUE. It looks like just another stunt by Piker, churned by poor and unreliable sources. -Hipal (talk)20:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would meet such a statement. Nothing of this suggestssupport for Communist regimes, at most that he doesn't consider the PRC to be "different" to other countries.Rambling Rambler (talk)20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources about the China trip. One is Newsweek: Hasan Piker Stopped From Filming by Police in China: What We Know [[15]] The Washington Free Beacon: Hasan Piker Hails China as 'Normal Country' During Appearance on CCP Propaganda Outlet That Covers Up Uyghur Genocide [[16]] again The Washington Free Beacon: Hasan Piker Geeks Out After Receiving Mao Zedong's Infamous 'Little Red Book': 'Really, Really Special' [[17]] and the South China Morning Post (which is green on the RS noticeboard) US influencer Hasan Piker’s China tour draws fire after viral Tiananmen police encounter [[18]]Agnieszka653 (talk)16:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant any other refs, as I indicated in my edit summary. I've revised my comment to avoid further confusion. --Hipal (talk)18:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all of them SCMP is the only green source I have found. I know Newsweek is contentious admittedly still not sure as to why? Clarification on why it's an issue on BLP pages is welcome (yes I know it's not green I just mean was there a scandal why can't we trust it etc).Agnieszka653 (talk)19:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sibshops, you removed content based on the critics not being named. A new version was rendered in which critics were named. You yourself then reverted while citingWP:BRD. However, perWP:BRD, the cycle can be advanced by refining the text in response to a concern (WP:Bold-refine). Instead of reverting, you should have altered the text to fix whatever you're suggesting the problem is.
As Bluethricecreamman has reiterated, SCMP is a generally reliable source. The passage added to the article directly comes from that generally reliable source, and everything was clearly attributed to individuals cited by that generally reliable source.
I was happy to condense the text to address concerns, but removing it entirely from the article is overkill, particularally an article which has had so much discussion about using quality sources. SCMP is a perennial reliable source.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCeltBrowne (talk •contribs)
It's a source that hasextreme bias to respond to CGTN propaganda, as the RSP entry indicates:However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party... --Hipal (talk)21:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the text was SCMP biased or incorrect about?
That in November 2025 Piker visited China?
That in November 2025 Piker was interviewed by CGTN?
That subsequent to the interview, a number of individuals criticised his visit?
That during the trip, Piker was detained in Tiananmen Square?
That after the trip, Piker responded to the criticism?
CeltBrowne, sorry about the confusion. I didn't have a good way to refine your change, and it seems that there isn't consensus for inclusion, yet. To be on the safe side, I removed it because potentialWP:LIBEL reasons since he is being accused of spreading communist propaganda. (Note: I forgot to pasteWP:LIBEL in my initial edit reason, unfortunately.)Sibshops(talk)22:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that the article should state in wikivoice that Piker is spreading propaganda. He has been accused by others of doing so, and citing those people is entirely different than making that claim in wikivoice.Cortador (talk)07:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be repeating allegations like accusing Hasan of spreading CCP propaganda in this article even if it's accredited to named people. Since this is a BLP, Wikipedia should be cautious about repeating contentious claims unless there is significant weight given to the allegations in high-quality sources.
SCMP is generally reliable, but perWP:SCMP it's coverage of CCP-related issues requires additional consideration. And I believe that caution should probably apply in this case. Given the fact that there are no other reliable sources supporting or covering this criticism, I don't believe it is appropriate for inclusion at this time. It's seems to be part of a recent news cycle and not something with lasting significance for his career.Sibshops(talk)13:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like a non-contentious claim is "Hasan visited China". A contentious claim is "Hasan is attempting to normalize the CCP". It's a statement which is disputed or likely to cause disagreement.Sibshops(talk)15:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sobolik, the guy who made that claim, advertises a book calledCountering China's Great Game: A Strategy for American Dominancein his Twitter banner. Why would a news outlet writing that a guy like Sobolik criticised someone like Piker be "contentious"? This was entirely out of character for Sobolik and/or it would be doubtful that he actually said that, sure, but reporting that a guy from a conservative think tank criticising a left-wing streamer is about as par for the course as it gets.
No, they aren't contentious. That is just your opinion and effectively original research i.e. coming to a different conclusion than laid out by the source.Cortador (talk)19:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern art is ugly" in the Wikivoice would be wrong to add to an article.
"Hitler considered Modern art to be ugly" is a completely different sentence and sentiment, and absolute fine to add to an article; is not Wikipedia suggesting modern art is ugly, it's noting Hitler's view on it. It's extremely important for editors to understand the difference between the two sentences.
"Piker promoted the Chinese Communist Party" would be wrong to add. "Piker was criticised by Sobolik for normalising the Chinese Community Party" is completely different claim. It's a fact that Piker was criticised Sobolik, and the Wikivoice takes no view on it.CeltBrowne (talk)18:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern isn't wikivoice vs. attribution. Even attributed criticism must meetWP:DUE andWP:WEIGHT. In this case, the criticism appears only in a single article, and perWP:SCMP coverage related to CCP matters requires additional consideration. Since no other independent high-quality sources have repeated or supported this criticism, I don't think it should be included.Sibshops(talk)15:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DUE and WEIGTH state: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
In this case, it's not about balancing viewpoints between multiple reliable sources. The issue is that the material doesn't represent a significant viewpoint in secondary sources in the first place.Sibshops(talk)16:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. It's because I cited the policy by memory andWP:LIBEL wasn't the best fit for the point I was trying to make, either.
The more relevant right policy is probablyWP:BLPPUBLIC.
It states:
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
What "allegation"? That Piker has been to China? That he has been criticised for his comments? Those aren't allegations, they are facts. Piker doesn't deny he has been to China or made these comments. The think tank guy's tweet is there for everyone to see.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.Nubzor[T][C]15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Not done for now, as there doesn't appear to be consensus for the request. Feel free to reactivate if/when there is agreement about what should be added.Happy‑melon12:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
