Talk:Patrick Shyu

Notability template

The page Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from May 2022 says, "Once the article has references to at least two reliable sources that have significant coverage about the subject the Notability tag can be removed." (emphasis in original) As I write this, the article has five sources with significant coverage of the source, tagged thusly on WP:RSP:

1. CNBC (not listed, although its sibling organizations NBC News and MSNBC are listed as generally reliable)
2. The Times of India (no consensus)
3. Benzinga (not listed)
4. Business Insider (no consensus for the news section)
5. TheQuint (not listed)

If we're treating CNBC as a branch of NBC News, that's one generally reliable source and two no-consensus sources that need to be evaluated in context. Notes on The Times of India state that it "tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government", but I doubt that such a bias would apply to this article. Notes about Insider (parent of Business Insider) call attention to the site's syndicated content, which the source in this article is not.

If we can find one more generally reliable source (or two more generally reliable sources, if CNBC is not reliable), or if we can consider the existing sources reliable, then I think it should be uncontroversial to remove the Notability tag. White 720 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd like to request that the "Criticism on women" be corrected or removed. TechLead actually supports women in tech, there are 3 prior videos on this topic here that should clarify his stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC1_Nojagh8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA-sLuEmUco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut2FU_uDgUU. I would encourage you to please consider watching the full context to be able to better understand his views. Due to TechLead's satirical & sarcastic tone, it is easy to misunderstand. Techleadhd (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

1) We're not going to use primary sources. 2) I suggest not referring to yourself using 3rd person -- it might be taken as an attempt to mislead other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I refer to "TechLead" in the 3rd person because he is not me. He is a fictional persona invented for YouTube. As for primary sources, the allegation itself is based on a misinterpretation of a primary source (ie., what the character said). As far as what a person said, there is no other source than the primary source. I am simply trying to correct a misunderstanding for people who may have read a headline but not watched the video to understand the full context. Thank you. Techleadhd (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

As long as Tech Interview Pro’s home page has the following statement on it, I am not going to accept this notion that TechLead is a fictional persona, independent of you. Please edit your home page to remove the association, or accept that, in your own words, you have linked your real name with your YouTube handle. ‘"TechLead" is Patrick Shyu - ex-Google/ex-Facebook Tech Lead, multi-millionaire app entrepreneur, digital nomad, Silicon Valley native, and senior software engineer. He's held roles in full-stack web development and mobile engineering. He has conducted over 100 interviews at Google, and has worked in the tech industry for over a decade from startups to Fortune 500 companies.’ White 720 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The website has been updated to remove references to "Patrick Shyu."

So, "TechLead" is a brand & persona, much like how "Jackie Chan" is a brand. In the movies, Jackie Chan is a kung-fu fighting machine who can jumpkick across New York skyscrapers while juggling plates. The movie version is very loosely based on the reality, but not everything is to be taken literally. Techleadhd (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Bit late for that. It is clear on various websites and in the sources that Shyu and TechLead are one and the same. This notion of a fictional character is ridiculous. TechLead is a social media handle, nothing more, and anything TechLead posts is clearly coming from Shyu, just as it does for anyone else who does not use their own name as their social media handle. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, the answer to whether "TechLead" and I are the same person is perhaps best answered by the source - myself (since I know who I am, and most likely no one else on Wikipedia really does). Most people who meet me in real life are shocked that I'm absolutely nothing like "TechLead" - I'm quiet, introverted, and plain. The fact is that I intentionally created "TechLead" based on an old co-worker, who was prideful, arrogant, a know-it-all and in many ways stereotypical of what a "cocky programmer" might look like. I mixed a few character qualities from various people, including parts of myself, to fabricate this persona who would be interesting for social media. Personally, I think it's odd to assume that we are the exact same person. Wikipedia policy is to take a conservative standpoint for living biographies, that is my $0.02. Techleadhd (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No, for Wikipedia the answer to whether TechLead and Shyu are the same person is best answered by reliable sources, and they uniformly say that they are the same person. That probably has a lot to do with the fact that they have been identified as the same on Shyu's websites (until changes were belatedly made in an attempt to shore up tis argument. It is very clear that TechLead trades on Shyu's experience to sell courses etc. You can't have it both ways. The argument that "it wasn't me, it was this fictional character" just won't wash, especially since the controversial tweets were referring to Shyu's actions when dealing with female employees. It wasn't TechLead who "rejected all women on-the-spot and trashed their resumes in front of them" - it was Shyu. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest that regardless of whether "TechLead" is the same person as myself, the article still should be corrected. There were 3 videos published that support women in tech. The claims alleging otherwise are taken entirely out of context - the tweet in-question was made as a bad satire, in that "trashing women's resumes at Google and giving them an NP-hard problem" obviously would never be tolerated at Google. The hiring process is very strict there, all interviews are written down, photos are taken of any whiteboard problems, & the report is sent to a hiring committee who makes the final decision - gender & name are not even reported to avoid any chance of unconscious bias. Techleadhd (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to request revision on the "companies founded" section for removal. While TechLead promoted these projects - they are not companies, nor is he the sole founder. TechLead has promoted dozens of brands & projects, the list is long, to which he has contributed in varying degrees. Techleadhd (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Patrick Shyu → TechLead – YouTube account name is more generally identified with the article subject than his given name is White 720 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't agree that this request amounts to a "technical" move, and I don't agree that the move should happen. At a minimum, it should be done via discussion & (potential) consensus on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Courtesy pings to: Nomoskedasticity and White 720 - ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: the sources generally seem to refer to this person by real name, not by the moniker. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Shyu's notability seems to come from things done under the techlead name, and that seems to be the name he is the most well known under. Per the criteria on choosing article names at WP:CRITERIA Techlead would be more recognizable, since that's the name he is most known under, it would be more natural, since that's what people are more likely to look for, and it would be more consistent, since other youtubers, such as Pewdiepie or MrBeast are usually identified by their youtube names --Tristario (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  While it is true all the sources refer to him as Patrick Shyu, all the sources also refer to the name "Techlead", and this one notes that is how he is popularly known. There are multiple plausible options available to name this article, and per WP:COMMONNAME, when that is the case the five WP:CRITERIA need to be considered. The policy does not say that just because a name is the most common, that's how the article should be named. For the reasons above, I think that Techlead would meet the five criteria much better than Patrick Shyu. It's also the case for other youtubers that they would be more commonly referred to by their real names in reliable sources, but it's also clear in those cases that their youtube names meet the WP:CRITERIA much better Tristario (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Great, so how do you prove it? I might agree, except the very first line in that policy is "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Sources don't predominantly use the name John Osbourne to refer to the singer. They call him Ozzy most predominantly, because that's how he is commonly known. Sources tell us what the common name is by a preponderance of use. Anything else is original research. Zaereth (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't original research, because we have a source saying that's how he's popularly known, as above. "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject", yes and then it goes on to say if there is more than one appropriate name (which there is), you apply those criteria. And that isn't what the policy says. It advises the common name because it can meet the WP:CRITERIA well. Assessing whether something meets the criteria well isn't prohibited under WP:OR Tristario (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Once source doesn't cut it, especially in the face of most other sources that refer to him by his name and simply mention his nom-de-plume as his other identity. The example of Ozzy is spot on. Very few (if any sources) refer to "John Osbourne, popularly known as Ozzy..." No, they call him Ozzy Osbourne across the board. That is how we know how he is popularly known. In this case, Sources call the subject Partick Shyu across the board, and we should follow suit. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  While that's the only source (in this article at least) that explicitly says that's how he is popularly known, other sources are clear that "Techlead" is the name he is known on the internet under and conducts his online activities under. It isn't WP:OR to see that. And considering the multiple options for a title, I think the WP:CRITERIA support Techlead - it's more recognizable, natural, and consistent with titles of other youtuber articles Tristario (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what one source says (the opinion of the author). What matters is what the sources uniformly do, and what the sources uniformly do in this case is refer to the subject as Patrick Shyu, aka TeachLead. We follow the sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  As I've pointed out that's not what the policy says Tristario (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  See Zaereth's comment. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah and I pointed out it says "There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics" Tristario (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  The policy states that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." In this case, that is Patrick Shyu. Consensus on what name to use would be needed only where there is ambiguity amongst the sources. In this case, there is no ambiguity; sources consistently refer to the subject as Patrick Shyu aka TechLead. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'll add this source also says he is better known as "Techlead" Tristario (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  This source also says that's how he's commonly known Tristario (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Doesn't appear to mention him at all. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Million Token is a decentralized fixed supply digital currency launched in early July 2021 by Patrick Shyu, commonly known as TechLead". It also goes on to then refer to him as Techlead Tristario (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'll also add, if you look at his twitter and youtube, it's clear that people refer to him and know him as techlead. If anyone cares about that bit of personal research Tristario (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  You mean original research. For your argument to work, the sources would need to uniformly refer to him as something like "the Youtuber TechLead (real name Patrick Shyu)". But all the sources, even the ones you are using to defend your position, have it the other way around. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at any youtuber, reliable sources generally refer to them by their real name, because it would be weird to refer to them by their youtuber handle throughout articles about them (but we have many youtuber articles which use the youtube name). As I've said, I think both the sources and any personal research support "Techlead" according to the guidance the policy sets out Tristario (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again, it's about what reliable sources say, and in this case they refer to Patrick Shyu. There are YouTubers who are so well known by their handle that they are referred to as such, perhaps with their real name in parentheses. But that is not the case here. All the subject's notability has been built up under his own name (his experience at Google, FB etc.) upon which he trades on his YouTube channel. So it is Patrick Shyu who is sharing his experience on YouTube using the handle TechLead (to describe that experience) and the article should reflect that. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  So, here are just 3 (of many) videos portraying TechLead as pure fiction. So, since the very start of the channel, TechLead was a fictional character written/acted by Patrick Shyu. It is loosely based on reality, but is very much closer to "edutainment" fiction. I'm not sure if you're a fan of the show, but most audience members know this. Only newer viewers are confused at first. Techleadhd (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again, it doesn't matter what the subject claims. It matters what reliable sources say. And as has been pointed out several times, this idea that TechLead is a fictional character appears to be a rather belated attempt to distance Shyu from controversy. There has been absolutely no indication that he is a fictional character prior to this. Indeed, quite the opposite. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the "reliable source" you're referring to is here... "Business Insider" and "The Quint" are not really reliable, they tend to be gossip magazines. In either case, my intent is not to distance myself from controversy, but rather I think the criticism that "TechLead is against women tech" is simply unjustified, especially when there is proof of 3 prior videos he made supporting women in tech. Providing that context is relevant to any potential criticism on this topic, since some of those videos were made at the exact same time the Tweet in-question was published. Twitter allows 280 characters, where satire/sarcasm can be easily misunderstood. The claim that primary sources are disallowed seems cyclical, since the alleged tweet itself is a primary source that has been refuted by the same primary source. Techleadhd (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again, Shyu (known as TechLead), not the other way around. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. White 720 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all the sources I can find (including his own website) refer to him as Patrick Shyu (inter alia "TechLead"). It doesn't matter what his YouTube account name is, what matters is what WP:RS primarily call him. As long as there is a redirect from TechLead to this article, anyone searching for his screen name will find him. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• - Oppose - I am going to have to agree with Lard Almighty here. This is just OR. If it is a big deal now it should have been one at the beginning. You can't have it both ways. The subject of the article has gone to no great lengths to separate themselves from the "secret identity", and in fact has done all kinds of things that show very openly that they are the same person. None of the sources use his stage name except to say it is the name of his youtube channel. None of that jives with what the Wikipedia user named TechLeadhd is saying, and that makes me suspicious; there is no way to be sure that this isn't some imposter playing a hoax. I think we should simply follow the sources, and the sources all use the subject's his real name predominantly. I would say that the cat is already out of the bag, but it was never in the bag to start with. Good luck stuffing it in now. Zaereth (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Use his own name, like he does, except using a nom-de-plume for his youtube stuff. I suppose a redirect could be used for people that dont know his name, but dont see the point. It's only Youtube after all. -Roxy the dog 22:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support (full disclosure, I am the subject of the article). There is more context at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patrick Shyu. To summarize, "TechLead" is the more commonly recognized name and exclusive topic under which the Wikipedia article is published in its current form. To be clear, "TechLead" is an exaagerated fictional persona created for YouTube acted/scripted by Patrick Shyu. To assume that "TechLead" is Patrick Shyu would be like assuming that "Jack Sparrow" is Johnny Depp - while the public may mistakenly assume the two as the same person, that wouldn't be quite accurate. I actually run multiple YouTube channels and businesses, of which "TechLead" is only one project and in the larger scheme "TechLead" composes about 1% of my biographical life. When/if someone is ready to write a biography on me as a person that covers my personal & professional career, then an article under "Patrick Shyu" would be warranted. Further, Wikipedia policy is to be conservative & careful on biographies of living people. Therefore, because the article is exclusively about the YouTuber "TechLead," who is a fictional persona (and many YouTubers on Wikipedia are referred to by their stage names), and Wikipedia's conservative policy on living biographies, I would support moving the article. Techleadhd (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Just leaving these for interested editors.

I noticed that stuff had been deleted from this page for BLP reasons in this diff. My forensic investigation of this led me to the google search, and the first two results were this and this. They are interesting, but I doubt the reliability of reddit and have no clue about the other one. -Roxy the dog 17:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Further forensic research led me to a noticeboard (BLP) which I shall try to read again, but what we have in the article looks very whitewashy compared to the info available on the Internetz? Roxy the dog 17:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

With WP:BLPs we need to be very careful about the quality of sourcing, especially for anything contentious. We should not be paying any attention at all to whatever is said on reddit. Those sources are definitely not good enough for such contentious claims. WP:BLPCRIME in particular may apply here Tristario (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I really doubt that Reddit would be considered a reliable source, suitable for a biography of a living person. I found a few crypto-centric news sites that talked about Million Token, but we should maintain a high standard for reporting to feed into this article. White 720 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

OK Good, do you want to suggest some text? Should we just use the text you removed? -Roxy the dog 18:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The text I removed said that the article subject had been jailed or imprisoned for fraud; there are no credible sources that back up such a statement.

I haven’t found any reliable sources who have said anything about Million Token. There have been accusations that it was a Ponzi scheme or a pump-and-dump, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan said. White 720 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas tweet

It seems that Fox News has picked up on the backlash to the article subject’s recent provocative tweet: https://www.foxnews.com/media/popular-tech-youtuber-ridiculed-declaring-merry-christmas-offensive-depressed-people White 720 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Million token?

Techlead's most controversial act was creating a cryptocurrency token that he pumped to his audience and that later took a massive dump in price. 109.255.167.195 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As with everything in this article, we need reliable sources suitable for a biography of a living person. If you find any reliable source with information about Million Token, please cite it. After discussion, we decided that previous sources about the token were not reliable, so we deleted information that cited them. White 720 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Not even a reference to the fact that he launched the token and the subsequent course of events? The price action alone ( a completely verifiable paramètre) would be a useful addition to his story. 69.253.120.75 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add this information with a citation to a reliable source. White 720 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He never worked at Google

Just check his channel for the YouTube post he made about it. 100.40.33.54 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

His most recent video describes himself as “ex-Google” White 720 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Self-published source for January 2024 claim

To follow up on a couple of recent reverted edits, WP:BLPSELFPUB says that self-published material can be used as a source about the subject "only if":

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The recent edits concern a claim about a third party, and about which there is a reasonable doubt about its authenticity, per an edit summary. For that reason, let's only add this info back in if a secondary source verifies the statement. White 720 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Correction on Coffeezilla (word) under the "Criticism" section

Hi Wikipedians, i'm quite new to editing so i might make some mistakes in editing this Wikipedia page There're 2 things i want to point out in the TechLead's "Criticism" section :

1. Why does the name "CoffeeZilla" not match the original Coffeezilla's youtube name? (https://www.youtube.com/@Coffeezilla) [Very small typo, but i believe this needs to be fixed asap]

2. Although this isn't really necessary, can someone make the "Coffeezilla" word under the "Criticism" section redirect to the Coffeezilla's Wikipedia page? 2001:EE0:4491:3C80:30B7:E03A:62B3:3E92 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I forgot that I should include the typo : "exposés" the comment above as well. Oops. 2001:EE0:4491:3C80:30B7:E03A:62B3:3E92 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The video descriptions are lacking

I added better detail about what the criticism videos are about and my edit got reverted with the justification that it is a biography of a living person. If describing the video that is linked is wrong, maybe the videos themselves should be removed. Cartossin (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The whole section is questionable actually. It certainly needs better sourcing than the videos. You could take it up at the BLP Noticeboard . Lard Almighty (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Even though Coffeezilla is notable for taking down SBF and is likely credible; I agree that his video does not meet the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources standards for WP:BLP. However; I'd really like to find a reliable source outlining these things. I think the subject of this article may be manipulating edits. There's a lot of random IPs removing the more critical edits. 192.147.66.64 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If you read just above on this talkpage you'll see that TechLead is notorious for trying to get information on his page removed. I'm sorry my edit wasn't suitable for the site. I tried to keep it as neutral and factual as possible but after posting a few of the links weren't accepted. I'll try and figure something out but as the situation is currently developing there's not a lot of sources outside of Youtube videos (yet).

There are a few tweets though from eg. InternetArchivist: https://twitter.com/internetanarch/status/1804269738740322554

and SidAlpha: https://twitter.com/SidAlpha/status/1804333859699662901

and this article: https://protos.com/techlead-has-been-taking-down-critical-videos/

Averageeuropean (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversy and Drama with Coffeezilla and others

I started with some information on this situation. I think it's notable to add because Techlead has deleted most of the videos on his channel that he had for the last 5 years. Some of the sources I initially used were from Youtube but those don't seem to be allowed.

This information could also be added to CoffeeZilla's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeezilla Averageeuropean (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BLP has strict rules on what can and cannot be added. Blogs, youtube videos, facebook posts, etc. are generally not allowed due to a lack of editorial oversight (see WP:RS). Until this story gets picked up by a serious news outlet, and not just some crypto "news" websites, it will have to stay off the page. If the situation gets bad enough serious journalists (no matter how much I trust Coffee, he doesn't have an editorial team behind him) then we can report what those sources say.

If you find any new sources and you are unsure about the reliability, you can just post them here or ask on my talk page and I'll try to see what I can do.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 11:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for being so helpful. This is a bit overwhelming so I appreciate being able to ask questions. I posted some links in my comment just above on this page... but it was in the wrong place. Let's just wait a bit then. Averageeuropean (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Tweets are usually not admissible as sources, due to being self published sources (See WP:SPS, specifically the sentence "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") Unless it's a tweet made by the subject about themselves (See WP:ABOUTSELF). Protos doesn't seem to even have a Wikipedia page, and crypto websites aren't known for their reliability. But if you want to be sure you could always ask WP:RSN, where people debate on whether or not something is a reliable source.

However I do agree that waiting for a little bit is the best plan. I have a feeling that there might be more attention from the media after Coffee publishes his big "film".

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2024

"Criticism" section was added later and is vandalism - should be removed, as there is no reputable source. The only referred "source" is from Business Insider, an online tabloid opinion piece by a single editor. For the biography of a living person, there should be a more reputable and neutral source publication or at least multiple sources. 210.160.217.71 (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two sources. The Quint one needs to be updated though with an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20220604051618/https://www.thequint.com/neon/social-buzz/teachlead-a-youtuber-called-out-for-sexist-tweets Plenty of other sources out there including this Lard Almighty (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)