Talk:5-Minute Crafts

Highly controversal channel

As the channel get more attension and controversy, I think we should start this talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Original research

Hi DrifAssault, and thanks for contributing to this article. There are a couple of issues with this sentence:

5-Minute Crafts was criticized for using misleading clickbait thumbnails to attract viewers, as the subject of the thumbnails usually don't match to the content they mentioned or obiously not a useful hack.

References

Primary sources (including the channel itself) can't be used to make controversial claims about the article subject, since that is considered original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. You'll need to cite reliable secondary sources for that. Also, critical opinions should be attributed in-text to the person who wrote them. Finally, please don't use contractions (like "don't") in the article unless it's in a quote from a source, since the tone is too informal. — Newslinger talk 04:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been noted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § 5-Minute Crafts and User:DrifAssault. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

5-Minute Crafts is a Russian Propaganda Mechanism produced by the organization called TheSoul Publishing

I have reason to believe that this article is the product of a Russian Propaganda outlet. If this article is allowed, it should contain not just the sunshine presentation by the organization TheSoul Publishing but also the ugly warts of its actually intent. What TheSoul Publishing does not want included in the article needs to also see the sunshine light of day.

I made the following undo:

19:14, December 20, 2019‎ General Ization talk contribs‎ m 13,730 bytes -497‎ Reverted 1 edit by Charlesdstruth (talk) to last revision by Lineslarge (TW)

Charlesdstruth's edit has creditability. General Ization "undo"ed it. And I "undo"ed Genernal Ization's undo.

A claim will undoubtedly be made that Charlesdstruth's edit lacks validity as it is "original research". This is not the situation.

A recent article on the Lawfare website https://www.lawfareblog.com/biggest-social-media-operation-youve-never-heard-run-out-cyprus-russians offers significant support to the content of Charlesdstruth's edit.

I won't drag out any quotes from this article to demonstrate my assertion. Please read the Lawfare article, decide for yourself.

There is a specter involved with the producers of Fake News that needs, no, requires wikipedia's examination and appropriate action.

Osomite (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

MSNBC video at "Russia working social media to manipulate American voters"

Unsure if 5-Minute Crafts is under Channel Frederator

The only source I could find regarding 5-Minute Crafts being under Channel Frederator is as an off-hand mention in the cited source. Additionally, Channel Frederator is primarily an animation channel, so this channel's inclusion doesn't make much sense. WhoCaresAboutThat (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, I can't find anything beyond that single article either. Looking at videos from this channel and Frederator channels, the latter are very heavily branded in their descriptions with a lot of Frederator URLs, while 5-Minute Crafts doesn't mention Frederator at all, instead plugging brightside.me. I'll remove the claims being made in this article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge with BrightSide into a TheSoul Publishing Article

I wish to propose that the contents of this article and of Bright Side (YouTube channel) be merged together under an unified, "TheSoul Publishing" with the relevant content to each major channel under its own heading. The channels themselves do not have a large amount of content that can be discussed that wouldn't be applicable to others. If people disagree, should an article on TheSoul publishing be created? I just feel like there needs to be a unified presentation regarding TheSoul Publishing's content. Superdadsuper (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Xth most subscribed channel

Some crosstalk here, I think, User:Deoxy99. I'm using the latest Social Blade website as a source, which currently puts it at 11th, you appear to be using List of most-subscribed YouTube channels which puts it at 6th (where that page is "as of November 2020" and needs updating), and User:176.88.95.196 is using the livestream MDM stats channel on YouTube which claims 7th. Which one do we want to go with? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you're saying not to count the (four?) automatically-generated channels above it. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the sentence or reference tag? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be more common to simply state the channel's ranking based only on user-generated channels and not reference this fact in the article. Most users on YouTube don't consider the automatically generated channels to be actual channels, so I don't think they would get confused to read that statement. Deoxy99 (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems a bit opaque if Wikipedia doesn't say it and the source doesn't say it either, to the point where I assumed Wikipedia was using obsolete information, but your call, I'm not a YouTube user. I guess it does get clarified later in the article, here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Why does Troom Troom redirect here?

Is it because their content is similar? Because from what research I've done, they don't appear to be owned by the same company. Asking since I've started a draft for an independent Troom Troom article. Would it have a chance of being accepted or is it not notable enough? KawaiiManiac (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Label the channel as satire

Judging by how the channel used to be and how it became, I think we can all agree that it's not really a DIY anymore but rather a satire/comedy channel. 2A01:E34:EC63:6ED0:D9AD:9307:6D24:DC32 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"DIY-style" Channel Characterization

I think this should be modified to make it clear the channel is for entertainment purposes only, and no one should attempt to replicate the "DIY" videos, since at best they are misleading, and at worst dangerous. Someone reading this article would be left under the impression that these DIY projects are legitimate and can/should be attempted as a fun weekend project. It should be clear to any reasonable adult that the videos they produce are not legitimate, and boldly referring to the channel as a "DIY-style" channel at the beginning of the article is a gross mischaracterization. 148.75.17.16 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)