Talk:Sam Hyde/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starship Troopers

Was sam hyde ACTUALLY even in Starship Troopers? He wouldve been 13 at the time which leads me to believe that his role as a soldier didnt happen, and that it's vandalism. I need actual confirmation that sam was in Starship Troopers or else it'll have to be removed

--Bitsnake420 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

Can someone change "He attended Carnegie Mellon University, and after one year transferred to the Rhode Island School of Design and graduated in 2006 with a Bachelor of Arts in Film, Animation and Video." to "He attended Carnegie Mellon University, and after one year transferred to the Rhode Island School of Design, where he graduated in 2006 with a Bachelor of Arts in Film, Animation, and Video."?

"And" is used too much in that sentence in my opinion.

Porquilho (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Murderer?

Either someone needs to explain how a member of this "Million Dollar Extreme" group is a mass murderer, or we need a new article. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You misread the article. The Million Dollar Extreme fans are known for calling Sam Hyde a mass murderer or a terrorist whenever such a thing occurs.Sam Hyde himself is not a mass murderer or terrorist. Its an inside joke made by his fans, and it has caused him to appear as the potential perpetrator of quite a few terrorist attacks, even getting him mentioned on the news. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

At the time of him writing that, the page was vandalized. It claimed Sam was a literal mass murder. 51.37.38.145 (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Aliases

It's worth listing some of the other names Hyde goes by considering 'Sam Hyde' is a stage name. He has also performed under the pseudonym of Dark Child and Peanut Arbuckle and this should be listed in parenthesis. 121.220.59.244 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sam Hyde's TEDx talk a hoax?

The paragraph on Sam Hyde's TEDx Talk should probably be moved out of the hoaxes section, maybe into the biography section, seeing as how it's not really a hoax related to Sam Hyde. Ryonne (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Is Sam Hyde really notable enough to warrant his own article? Near everything he's done has been with Million Dollar Extreme.

I'd argue that this page be merged with the main MDE page along with Charls Carroll and Nick Rochefort. While the aforementioned don't have articles, the main page should have sections on them regardless. 51.37.27.56 (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

He's definitely notable enough for his own page. Most of his antics reported in the media aren't even in conjunction with his comedy troupe (i.e, 2070 Paradigm Shift), so I think this article should be here to stay, especially in light of far less noted people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solntsa90 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If every individual Pokemon is notable enough for its own article so are most of these people you nerds love to remove for whatever reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.26.181 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• For future reference, please refrain from name-calling, and see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why it's not a good argument for the existence of this article. (That said, the user above has already pointed out the actual reason why this article should remain.) V2Blast (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the middle name "Whitcomb" confirmed

There apears to be an image of his drivers license that he posted to Facebook where where is name is "Salmon Kingsbread Hyde"

References

24.150.107.172 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism all over

Is Hyde's grandfather really Himmler? Doesn't seem likely. Has he been "correctly" identified as committing several killing sprees? No, that should read "incorrectly". And so on. This is a mess, and needs semi-protection at minimum because it's clearly going to get vandalized again if I fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.42.21 (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

His Hatreon page states he hates based on color

https://hatreon.us/BigPumpkinXXX/

"This is legit Samuel Hyde here ready to spew illogical hatred for no other reason than skin color. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.184.229 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Height issue?

Hyde's height can't seem to be accurately verified. A few claims are that he's 5'4" and others say he's 6'4". I've found no reliable sources to prove his height, and the reference provided links to an Instagram post which only confirms Hyde's weight. I've stopped reverting edits to the height and I'm wondering if anyone has a reliable source to verify either claim? Thanks. Tdts5 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if it can be reliable sourced it shouldn't be in the infobox. Height param is only supposed to be used if the person is notable for their height or it's relevant to their notability (e.g. an athlete.) Strongjam (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I misunderstood, this wasn't about the info box. It's still not relevant to his biography. It's just trivia cruft. Strongjam (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CNN - SAM HYDE

CNN has previously falsely reported Sam Hyde to be behind mass shootings, just today he was falsely reported as a mass shooter again on CNN. someone add this... Youtube link below confirms it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6RNaYwNEuw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.38.127 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I previously posted about this on the talk page but Majora took it down so I'm not sure if this should be here. ( SailingOn (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC) )

Support for Hitler?

This is a smear. Probably a joke by a fan. The link attached to the claim does not say anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.192.76 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, there's a photo of him Sieg Heiling with weev floating about online... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.170.247 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that unlikely given the other details in the article. Can you explain why you think this is a smear?--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Birdemic 2?

The article claims Sam was in the second Birdemic movie as a "beach goer", having watched the entire moving again I can say he nor Charls Carrol or Nick Rochefort appear in the movie.

The claimed source is an IMDB page. Like Wikipedia, IMDB is a website anybody can edit, unlike Wikipedia it doesn't have strict moderation. It's important to remember that Hyde's fans have a habit of creating spreading rumours and hoaxes. Unless a more reliable source can be found, I suggest the credit be removed. 51.37.54.188 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

He and the rest of MDE apparently were in Birdemic 2, as per the movie's own credits: i.imgur.com/cCnW5jt.jpg. I'm not sure where exactly he was either; I've never seen him in the movie, but must have been there somewhere in the background. 51.37.91.182 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the 'American people of Irish descent' category.

Despite my best efforts, I have found no sources, reliable or otherwise, indicating Samuel is of Irish ancestry. The only clue is his surname, Hyde, which has at least two different origins. One origin from an old English measurement called a hide, the second is a possible Anglicization of the Irish de hÍde, which I assume is either a mutation of the given name Íde or could be a Gaelicization of the English surname. Hyde is also from Massachusetts, a state that had historically high Irish immigration. These two things are the only pieces of "evidence" I've found that may infer Hyde being of Irish decent, unless somebody can prove me otherwise I feel the category has been incorrectly applied. 51.37.70.219 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2018

24.247.40.84 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 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 a reliable source if appropriate. Which sources do you question? Cannolis (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

Sam Hyde seems to be a holocaust denier, based on him saying only 200 to 300 thousand Jews died in camps, and then jokingly correcting himself to 20 million, as per this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSvTnOHSX2Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:501:2700:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Might need to get your ears checked. He clearly said it was 20 million at least. Regardless it was a long comment about why Germany doesn't deserve talented Jewish professionals because 70 years ago, Germany put all its Jewish citizens into concentration camps, which seems completely fair given the whole German Hitler thing!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.121.122 (talk • contribs) 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also see WP:BLP/N#Sam Hyde until it's archived, another YouTube video (mentioned by the NYUlocal source in the lede) was "removed as hate speech". –84.46.52.48 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Optional Syntax: Please check out WP:SPA and WP:COI. Admittedly I missed that this was your second BLP/N entry affecting Sam Hyde. –84.46.52.44 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile archived. –84.46.53.186 (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Countering claims that Sam Hyde/MDE is "alt-right"

Hello all, I've read some sources countering the claim that Sam Hyde and MDE is affiliated with or promoting the alt-right. All the articles claiming it is alt-right merely reference one article by BuzzFeed's Joseph Bernstein who has something against Sam Hyde. There is nothing to suggest he is alt-right since most of the article is just talking about how alt-right fans enjoy the show more than other political groups.

Furthermore, the original article that all sources are citing offer very little evidence confirming Sam Hyde being alt-right. Even in the original article, he is described as a "libertarian." He has also denied being alt-right in the past.

BuzzFeed also seems to be a questionable source in itself, with biases of a more left-wing nature compared to most outlets. I must also mention that BuzzFeed has a status of "No Consensus" on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources list.

Sam Hyde's interview with the Hollywood Reporter also put those claims to rest.

John Maus also participated in Hyde's show MDE where he stated he never got the impression they were alt-right or "Nazi's" and only distances himself when articles started surfacing claiming otherwise.

I'm new to contributing on Wikipedia so I don't want to make any changes yet without some confirmation, especially in this instance because I may be wrong and not have enough verifiable evidence - however I also want to urge caution on further edits that may parade this view that Sam Hyde is an alt-right figure.

PrinceKael (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like most of the referenced sources claiing Sam to be alt-right are flippant and frankly hitpiece-ish (especially those by Joe Bernstein, who I would subjectively consider to be a biased source as he has had numerous negative encounters with Sam, albeit often initiated by Sam himself). Buzzfeed generally can be a bit iffy when it comes to factual accuracy and are consistently a partisan and biased source . Like PrinceKael, I'm hesitant to edit the article itself in any significant way, but I'd advise future authors not to use sources that are generally regarded as untrustworthy (in this league would be Buzzfeed &al.). Edit: To clarify my stance, I think I should state the following: It seems that Sam is, to an extent, an antisemite. The term "alt-right," however, I think is generally misused and ill-guided. I've seen most accusatory uses of it backed up with minimal or questionable evidence, and I find it often to be nothing but a mechanism to get somebody you don't like in trouble. The term itself is poorly defined and can quickly incite mob fury and justice (especially among the habitual consumers of Buzzfeed, whom I would consider to be predisposed to overestimating the danger and extremeness of popular figures that happen to be right-wing). I wouldn't be opposed to calling him anti-semitic, as he has said a multitude of things in the past that could be considered so. "Alt-right," however, gives the impression that the editor was not acting in the best interest of factual provision, and rather was furthering their already-held beliefs that were apparently based on the reporting of questionable and angry figures (Joe Bernstein would seldom be considered a reputable source in the modern day, especially after his flagrantly inconsiderate reporting on YouTube's Soph; there too, he showed his predisposition to refer to any right-wing or politically heterodox figures as "alt-right"). SapientiaOccidensis (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sam Hyde 2018.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Sam Hyde.jpg
• Samhydetedtalk2070 (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Users Guarding Article and Obfuscating Details

A cursory glance at the edit history will show a large amount of edits receiving instantaneous reversions from specific users.

One can't help but ask if the intent behind these constant revisions is to obfuscate or maintain a specific narrative regarding Sam. For example, any attempt to cite sources where Sam himself acknowledges one of his usernames is immediately hidden. What's likely is the users reverting edits would prefer to let their opinions represent Sam rather than Sam himself, effectively facilitating libel and slander without any form of clarification or response.

This appears as a case of users with bias or political incentives operating in an authoritarian position over articles to which they contribute little to nothing in the way of objectivity.

To anyone familiar with Sam's work, the nature of this article calls into question the perception of Wikipedia as a reliable source. Optional Syntax (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Find reliable sources and proper notability, they'll stick. You've been told this countless times. No politics here, and there was no quality source to whether they had such-and-such control of such-and-such social media platform, along with a straining minimization of grammar any English teacher would copiously red pencil. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

To avoid an edit war I want to talk about the neutrality of the article and the leading section. My gripe is that it seems borderline libellous to assert that someone outright supports 'white supremacist causes' given the negative connotation from such, and how genuine the politics are (especially from a comedian). Again this is simply regarding the neutrality of this argument, I'm not on a PR campaign. As per given sources, it is still a bold assertion. It is up to the reader of the article to draw their own conclusion, it is not Wikipedia's job to tell who may or may not be a 'white supremacist' cause supporter, especially without further identifying what said 'causes' are, it just strikes me as very odd wording. Any argument on the genuineness of the politics behind the donation is pure conjecture without an authoritative statement from Sam Hyde himself. His response, "worry about if people start killing reporters", seems more of a matter of free speech and Hyde himself being facetious. Zedd1997 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The information is sourced. A neutral presentation of the facts is not "libellous". Readers will draw their own conclusions based on what sources say, so whitewashing the article to downplay sources is non-neutral. Support for The Daily Stormer is, indisputably, support for a white supremacist cause. Being a comedian is a irrelevant, and hipster racism is a flimsy deflection. Since this isn't a platform for public relations, Hyde's statements only belong with context from reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Motivation behind the donation cannot be established. This renders the statement about what he "supports" unfounded. Contra10 (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Motivation is irrelevant. Financial support is support. Money doesn't care about motivation. That's kind of the point of money. Sources report on his support of white supremacist causes, so the article will reflect those sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Motivation is relevant when concerning a comedian and provocateur like Mr. Hyde. It would be foolish to to interpret his actions at face value. Saying that motivation is irrelevant is myopic and obtuse. Contra10 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Refute points in the talk section. Do not engage in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contra10 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses sources, not editor opinion. Calling someone a "provocateur" is a vapid defense. Free speech is not a get-out-of-criticism-free card. Comedians are not insulated from criticism, and as I said, hipster racism is still just racism. If sources are being foolish about this, then so will Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how bad you wish to cast a scarlet letter upon someone without regard for objectivity. Contra10 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Is he a "provocateur", or is this a scarlet letter, because it can't be both. He clearly wants attention, and he got it. The article will reflect sources either way. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to find it necessary to keep a half-truth in the header of the article. While I understand the negative connotations of donating to Anglin's legal defense, I do not understand how this leads to Mr. Hyde being a perpetual supporter of white suppremacy. As if he was spending his time actively spreading propaganda or attending rallies and marches. It seems to me like you have some sort of ulterior motive. Like you feel the need to brand someone that you clearly have done little of your own research on. I would ask for you to make a consession or two on the wording but I know I'd be wasting my time. You've already made up your mind (which I can assure you is very much closed). You have a narrow world view, or at the very least, a narrow view of art. Contra10 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism Sidebar

There are credible sources pointing at hydes anti-Semitic content/remarks. Most notably his skit on adult swim titled "Jews Rock" which poked fun at the jewish producers on the network. He is a large figure in the "alt-right" and featured on alt-tech platforms such as ifunny.co and gab.com enabling his hate. He was also featured on a poster by neo-nazi Andrew Auernheimer murdering jews in a synagogue. Hyde also appreared on the Gavin McInnes show where he had to be taken off for mockingly crying about the holocaust during the entire show.Bedrockbob (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you linked describe Hyde (or his views) as antisemitic; the second link is about something Auernheimer (not Hyde) did and the first only talks about Hyde personally (as opposed to the Reddit community) in a line about his donation and connections to white supremacist figures. "Antisemitic" is in general not how reliable sources describe Hyde or his views. It's very difficult to try and divine the views of someone who, as this article describes, "regularly blurs the distinction between himself and his characters" in his comedy; a sketch on Adult Swim called "Jews Rock" doesn't really tell you anything about him on its own. The sidebar would not be appropriate, and neither would describing him as antisemitic until reliable sources do. Volteer1 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Volteer1. I find sources that frequently describe him as alt-right, but not specifically antisemitic. Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

While he has not explicitly said he is antisemitic, his supporters are a hotbed of antisemites. He commonly drops his post-ironic persona and posts racist rambling on subjects such as the stereotypes of black women and various other minority groups including jews. None of these posts are for comedic purposes and since the killing of George Floyd, have only increased. Given these racist statements and evidence pointed out in the article this man is an antisemitic figure who should be labeled as one.Bedrockbob (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources have not explicitly labelled him as antisemitic. We follow the sources. Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

At the end of the introduction, it includes controversies such as mocking the Holocaust, however the link that is provided is actually a quote of another hyperlink of a since removed source, nullifying the credibility of the source as there’s no actual video of him mocking the Holocaust. 2601:587:380:6E00:94EB:F876:E4F1:7503 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As stated in the cited source, "McInnes also once hosted comedian Sam Hyde on his show, 'The Gavin McInnes Show,' in 2015 where Hyde mocked the Holocaust." —C.Fred (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. @C.Fred: It's supported by the source, but the source is a medium post embedded on the student blog NYU Local, definitely not suitable for a BLP. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyde Vapes

Sam Hyde's new brand of vapes hit the market last year with great success. No talk about this anywhere on his page. I believe he has mocked vapers before and seems hypocritical to offer vaping products. Maybe it is comical to him to get money from a bunch of degenerates in his mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.180.164 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If I request that Anthony Fauci's page include his role in torturing puppies, I immediately get banned..

"... something something biography of a living person bla bla..."

But here y'all are openly calling this guy "alt-right".

I loathe Wikipedia editors.

105.166.138.234 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)its_still_cool_to_be_white

Error on creator clash mention

"Sam Hyde has been open about his interest in boxing, training under Harley Morenstein for the Youtube charity boxing event, Creator Clash." is incorrect. Sam helped train Harley Morenstein, he was not training under him.98.114.134.243 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Questionable notability

IMO, the article's subject does not meet WP:ENT. The only RS I see about him (as opposed to membership in Million Dollar Extreme or the shooter-placeholder thing) is The Hollywood Reporter, and it's just not enough. Stunts and hoaxes ≠ notability. Miniapolis 17:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact he has been featured on many networks that are considered by Wikipedia "reputable sources", even as a hoax, and has his show and podcast is enough for notability. Wikipedia is filled with articles about much minor stuff. 240D:1A:98A:3600:D16C:6E47:C372:F1AD (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sam Hyde interviewed by Joe Bernstein

An in depth view of sam hyde with some interesting insights into Mr Hyde as well as the deep and complex writing style of Mr Bernstein. Dani.GGerman (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This, and the support from Tim Heidecker should be added to the reasons Sam blamed World Peace being canceled. Sources = videos still on youtube.

"He can't keep getting away with this" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect He can't keep getting away with this and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#He can't keep getting away with this until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

The article says "In February of 2022, an edited image of Hyde was misidentified as the 'Ghost of Kyiv' (a Ukrainian fighter pilot who supposedly shot down six Russian planes on February 24, 2022)". This should be corrected given somewhat new information that the Ghost of Kyiv is confirmed to be a myth — Preceding unsigned comment added by BsdSylvia (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

change "Samuel Whitcomb Hyde (born April 16, 1985) is an American comedian. He co-created the sketch comedy group Million Dollar Extreme (MDE) with Charles Carroll and Nick Rochefort." to "Samuel Whitcomb Hyde (born April 16, 1985) is an American comedian. He co-created the sketch comedy group Million Dollar Extreme (MDE) with Charles Carroll and Nick Rochefort. In addition to his other successes, he is also a proud member of MENSA as of December 2022."

Source: I spoke with MENSA as well as Sam Hyde about whether or not he was a member in good standing and received the following documentation:

File:Sam Hyde's Letter from MENSA.jpg

File:Mensa Sam Hyde Certificate.jpg

 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 a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please check my request again. I included some documentation received from MENSA to prove Sam Hyde's membership. Gregbingus (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the documentation, see the following link below:

https://www.credly.com/badges/63e99c69-c6d8-4831-aa88-9467d6dd5ca0/public_url Gregbingus (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this trivia is not reported in any secondary reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Open your eyes, M.Bitton. Do you need a secondary source to tell me what color your eyes are? None exist, so your eyes must be colorless. Do you really need more proof than written and signed documentation from MENSA itself as well as a direct link stating that the American Mensa Life Member award was given to Sam Hyde on December 28, 2022? That sounds like two reliable sources, bud. Gregbingus (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a few reasons why we'll need reliable secondary sourcing. First, there's no proof what Samuel Hyde these refer to. Second, they could easily be faked. Third, coverage in secondary sources demonstrate that this is WP:DUE. It's not something that is worth including without secondary coverage because it's essentially a scam to get people to pay to say they're smart. If no one else thinks it's important, why should we? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Would a written statement from the membership office suffice as a secondary source? Gregbingus (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That would a primary source, not secondary. It would also not be independent of the article subject. What we need is something published in a reliable source independent of the article subject that discusses this to show that it is WP:DUE for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How about a newsletter from the editor of Samuel Hyde's chapter. Would that confirm his membership? Also, I am confused about the idea of the MENSA organization being a primary source about the article subject (that being Samuel Hyde). I could understand how documentation provided by Samuel himself would be considered primary, but how would proof provided by an organization of which he is a part not be considered secondary proof. For example, would documentation from the DHS not provide enough evidence of someone's citizenship? Would you have to wait for someone else to write about that person's citizenship to finally be enough proof for you? Gregbingus (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop marking the request as unanswered. When the topic is under discussion, the request remains closed as not to waste the time of edit request patrollers. A letter from Mensa is a primary source for who is a member of Mensa. A newsletter could be secondary, but not independent, so it still doesn't establish that it is WP:DUE to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that you are doing everything in your power to rob this man of any semblance of achievement. Where you cannot attack him, you attack the organization (namely MENSA) of which he is a part, calling it a "scam" yet there is an entire page on Wikipedia devoted to Mensa International where never once are your views ("it's essentially a scam...) shared. It sounds like you need to get over to that page and edit your beliefs into there, not here. I have looked into the "sources" provided on many different pages on Wikipedia that people have used as justification to post skewed information and they are far less credible than a written statement from the organization of which someone is a part. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, you clearly have never won a single award yourself and so you are content to rob those who have. I am absolutely appalled at my experience thus far. For shame. Gregbingus (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My mom says I'm smart. That said, please focus on content, not contributors. I don't believe I've ever edited this article, I just patrol edit requests. There are a lot of articles with poor sourcing, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because something can be verified does not mean that it should be included. Articles should contain what independent secondary sources have to say about an article topic, not everything that can be found. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Too bad your mom isn't a credible secondary source... Gregbingus (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

She's not independent either. Good, it seems you're starting to understand the sourcing requirements. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why, if his name appears on List of Mensans - Wikipedia, will you not let me put this information on his personal page? Gregbingus (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

While you're at it, look at sources 43 and 44 on that page for your secondary sources for this request as well. Gregbingus (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

mensa

Sam is a life member of MENSA yet I don't see this Listed. 64.43.50.175 (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it is not covered in reliable, secondary sources, as explained in the section immediately above this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It literally comes straight from MENSA itself. You cannot get a more concrete source than this; I have encountered literally hundreds of things on wikipedia that straight do not have a source at all, let alone a secondary source. Why the sudden apprehension? I can find NUMEROUS pieces of info, with ONLY a primary source in MULTIPLE articles that YOU HAVE DIRECTLY CREATED, ScottishFinnishRadish. So for you to consistently deny Sam Hyde a accurate and fair wikipedia article shows an inherent bias to me. 204.107.221.1 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you see unsourced information on other articles, please do point it out on the talk pages or remove it. --Pokelova (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Categorization as an alt-right figure

Is this categorization supported by Hyde's own identification in interviews or are the sources for this third party writings? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

New Pseudonym

Add "Jason Goldstriker" as another psuedonym in the bio panel, from Sam's show Fishtank at https://fishtank.live 2600:1700:6BA0:5BDF:198C:284A:1261:26DE (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No reliable source for fishtank

The fishtank.live link is a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.164.194 (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we add this as a secondary source? https://win.gg/news/what-is-fishtank-a-24-7-stream-contest-gone-rogue/ 204.107.221.1 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You can but it would be irrelevant anyway, WP:ABOUTSELF covers its inclusion. Tweedle (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

shoutout by NSBM band

It is worth mentioning that Collin Webster, behind the one-man Holocaust denier black metal band Blood Libel goes by the stage name Sam Hyde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:B00:2970:FC3F:E5E0:7B81:999E (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

no AsyarSaronen (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Description of iDubbz documentary

The article described the iDubbz documentary as an attempt to "understand" Hyde, but from what I've heard, it seems like he was trying to "expose" Hyde and get him to say something that would permanently cancel him and Hyde spent the entire filming of the documentary pranking iDubbz and refusing to reveal anything about his personal beliefs, which would make this description of the video inaccurate. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no source to allow such a subjective statement on the documentary. Should be removed. AsyarSaronen (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence given that I could not find any RSes about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

minor edit: removing the links to the deleted fishtank page as it redirects here Telsasalsa (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin donation possibly not actually Hyde's

I watched this piece on Hyde's career resurgence and it brings up the Anglin donation as possibly have been made by someone else in Hyde's name as a prank similar to how his fans send news organizations his picture and name every time there is a mass shooting. The maker of the video even pointed out that Hyde never actually confirmed or denied that he had actually made the donation and that he may have simply been messing with the interviewer who called him to ask about the donation by wording his response in a way that simultaneously implies he did it while offering him plausible deniability. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't consider "Jabroney"'s channel on Youtube to be particularly reliable, given our general treatment of Youtube sources. Versus the LA Times piece which we do generally consider reliable (see WP:RSP). I don't think Jabroney's investigation is high quality enough sourcing to overturn what we have from the LAT and I would oppose any inclusion of it or use of it to remove the LAT content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use YouTube videos as a source for citation, I'm trying to demonstrate why claims made by some sources may have not been fully vetted through investigation. A claim made without evidence in a reliable source is not much different from making a claim with no reliable source. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the interview with the LAT looks like evidence to me. Your standards for evidence appear to be quite high for negative press about Hyde. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I've just seen evidence that contradicts some of these claims. It has nothing to do with whether the commentary is negative. I want all subjects to be covered neutrally. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I've just seen evidence that contradicts some of these claims.
in reliable sources? Otherwise it would be WP:OR to use this to write the article. If you'd like to dispute whether the LAT piece or this youtube show should or shouldn't be considered RSes, that seems like a conversation better had at WP:RSN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The LA times article isn't really a source, it's an opinion piece. The writer has a personal vendetta against Sam Hyde because he was getting trolled by him. I don't think that's reliable or unbiased in any way. 2600:1700:A4A1:6B40:2832:5601:2BBA:C9DE (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we have very specific criteria for what "counts" as an opinion piece. The LA Times source was not published in an opinion area of the venue, it was editorially reviewed and fact checked by their staff. Thus, as a source it has quite a few things going for it that would counter any theoretical bias you, as an individual person, may believe it has. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sam Hydes status as the producer of Fish Tank

Sam Hydes friend Jet Neptune was the producer of Fish Tank, not Hyde himself ref WoahFlamingo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Even the source in the article specified that Hyde was a host, and did not mention him as a producer. I fixed that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

should we really call the sam hyde is the shooter meme section "shooting and terrorism"?

he hasnt shot up anything (obviously), maybe rename it like "mass shooting hoaxes" or something Authenyo (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was kind of thinking the same thing when I saw that section title. "Mass shooting hoaxes" isn't perfect but it's certainly better than what's there now. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2024

{{subst:trim|1= Amend description to include lifetime membership to MENSA

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 04:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Brony dating sim Kickstarter under "Pranks" section feels dubious

Hyde has went on record multiple times saying that the Kickstarter for Dark Skyes (while being tongue-in-cheek and parodic) was going to be a legitimate project, with him stating that he believes the true humor would've come from the project coming to fruition. I feel it should also be noted that he cancelled the Kickstarter because after people found out that he had come up with the project they started to take away their pledges en masse, believing that the project wasn't going to happen. (MickeyQTip) 08:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of being alt-right?

This is the second time I've asked this question, since I was not answered previously. What is the evidence of Sam Hyde being connected to the alt-right? It's not demonstrated by the sources. Several of the news sites repeated allegations made without evidence by BuzzFeed News (which is now defunct due to multiple credibility issues) and the Hollywood Reporter interviewer came to an opposing conclusion after talking to Hyde. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're seeing that in the Hollywood Reporter interview. But even so, Buzzfeed News is considered a reliable source and if as you say many other sources echo their sentiment, on balance the description of alt-right would stick. --Pokelova (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News is absolutely not considered a reliable source. They are a punchline Internet-wide. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No he means in WP:Reliable sources (though I would agree with you), also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Tweedle (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I want to repeat that I was asking about evidence provided by reliable sources, not whether news sources had reported a claim. I've struggled to find actual evidence backing up these allegations. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the evidence isn't demonstrated. Regardless, it's not really our job to question what reliable sources say. If you have an issue with that, take it up with a policy noticeboard. --Pokelova (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I watched a video with Harley Morenstein saying that he doesn't think Sam Hyde is alt-right. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Aren't noticeboards more for if someone aggressively edit wars on an article than a content dispute with no intense party on either side? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Some noticeboards are for wrangling unruly editors, others are for policy discussion, like for example if you wanted to challenge Buzzfeed News' status as reliable. --Pokelova (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Simply being a reliable source wasn't the point I was trying to make, and even reliable sources make mistakes. If a claim isn't proven by evidence, what difference does it make if a reliable source reports it? Also, I wasn't interested in discussing whether BuzzFeed News is considered reliable, though I'd be very surprised if it were considered to be reliable due to their repeated history of having their credibility challenged and stories turning out to be misleadingly reported or flat out wrong, like Jamie Kennedy saying on his YouTube channel that BuzzFeed News edited his comments to remove context when they interviewed him about a movie he'd acted in that he admitted was politically biased and didn't agree with. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What I was referring to was the interviewer saying that as someone Jewish and gay, he thought Sam Hyde's show was funny and a part later where the interviewer said that Sam has been described as someone who "never [drops character], that [Hyde is a] Andy Kaufman-style performance-art comic who sometimes says racist or anti-gay things" for provocation rather than hatred. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask the clearer question that if there's not any evidence that Hyde is a member of the alt-right than why is this page and the MDE: World Peace page categorized under the alt-right category? Let's forget the word "connection" since it's confusing the issue. Is the categorization on these pages for the same reason that Pepe the Frog is categorized under alt-right? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it possible that someone who never drops character said

the network's marketing department produced billboard proofs with over-the-top tag lines such as "World Peace is Racist, Hateful, and Takes No Prisoners." Hyde claimed this sabotaged the marketing by forcing him to reject the marketing team's ideas resulting in no billboards for the series. Hyde also claimed that one of the Williams Street production staff was fired from her position after a failed attempt to break into the show's editing suite to delete the show's footage, and that Million Dollar Extreme members were confronted at an Adult Swim company party by someone saying she was going to get them fired

and

According to Hyde, despite Adult Swim executives' apparent interest to pick up the show for a second season, Turner ultimately decided to cancel the show.[12] Hyde also accused Tim Heidecker of being against the series due to his political views, and using his influence with network executives to prevent its renewal for a second season,[3]

and was able to deny the allegations of coded racist messages needing to be removed? Also if all these statements from him were actually somehow part of the character he never drops rather than responses from Hyde the person, why are we repeating them as if they are responses from Hyde? I.E. You can't have it both ways, you can't imply that perhaps he never denied he donated the $5000 etc because he never drops character while simultaneously claiming we should mention these statements from Hyde. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that he never drops character. I've seen videos where he's not in character. It was the journalist that said that he never drops character. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay but how is that relevant in any way to how we can improve this article? The simple fact is if he does sometimes drop character, then his never dropping character cannot be an excuse for why he's never bothered to explain certain things like his donation to Anglin. So someone's untrue by your own admission claim that he never drops character is irrelevant. Indeed it suggests we should not trust this person since they make claims which are untrue or at least excessively hyperbolic and therefore unhelpful. So putting aside I'm fairly sure they're not an RS anyway, why do you bring someone up who is so utterly useless to our ability to improve this article by your own admission of what they've said? Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Alleged donation to Anglin. He never said that he actually donated to Anglin. Also, the journalist saying that he never drops character was the Hollywood Reporter interviewer whose interview with Hyde is cited in the article, so what are you saying is an unreliable source? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the claim of Sam Hyde being alt-right originated from one of his fans' annual mass shooting hoaxes because years ago, Bill O'Reilly tweeted that "white supremacist Sam Hyde" was responsible for a mass shooting. There's a screenshot in the Jabroney video I linked to in another discussion below. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal. The article seems fair to me. AsyarSaronen (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d6wge/an_overcrowded_islamic_center_in_murfreesboro/c0yuidh/?context=3

There you go, that's his reddit account being an utter racist. That's literally already on my copy/paste from just wanting to see who this dude is.

"Please prove to me that racism is racism" should just get you banned tbh. CrickedBack (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

He isn't "alt right". He's a comedian and anyone that gets offended by him throws the word around. 2601:485:4200:7D80:C4FE:ED1B:BE08:6F47 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archive, I noticed that this issue was previously brought up before I did. How is there still not a resolution? I'd just like a basic answer, like "although there's no evidence that Sam Hyde himself is alt-right, his comedy is enjoyed by some people in the alt-right, so we think the categorization is appropriate". Is that the reason behind the categorization on here and Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace? If that was the reason I would at least understand. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree with Pokelova here. RockabillyRaccoon, BuzzFeed News is not BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed News is an entirely different branch of the company with their own totally separate managerial and editorial processes. They were very good and always were. They were shut down due to budget issues, not credibility issues. If a lot of reliable sources report something, we say it. It doesn't matter that you are personally unconvinced by the sources, because we report things that are verifiable, not the truth. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't conflating BuzzFeed News with BuzzFeed, I was saying that no one I know considers BuzzFeed News a reliable source, because they are manipulative, biased and dishonest. I understand what you are trying to convey here, but the response you gave about BuzzFeed did not address what I actually said. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to create a discussion over at WP:RSP if you think Buzzfeed News is not a RS and have adequate evidence. Until that point, statements like "no one I know considers BuzzFeed News a reliable source" and falsehoods like "defunct due to multiple credibility issues" will hold no ground here, and consensus has been reached to include that he is connected with the alt-right. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And I'm asking for evidence. Not clickbait articles but concrete evidence. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And 3 of us now have repeated that the evidence presented is enough. If you are so certain Hyde isn't alt-right, then there must be a reliable source that reports otherwise. Unless you provide one, we have no reason to believe that the sources we have are incorrect. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It was pointed out that one of those sources, Hollywood Reporter, says that he isn't alt-right. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Came here from BLPN, no opinion if the category is relevant for not, but BuzzFeed News is considered a reliable source. If you wish to challenge that I suggest opening a thread on WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes sources may have a mixed reliability and I was not interested in pursuing a discussion of the reliability of BuzzFeed News as a whole, rather than having an issue with this specific article, since it did not demonstrate evidence of it's claims. That should be the point of discussion, not whether the source is considered reliable as a whole but whether the individual articles demonstrate the claims being made. For comparison, in a scientific discussion, if a bold claim about a scientific issue is made by an article published by a reliable source, but the article does not demonstrate it's claims with evidence, then is the general reliability of the publication more relevant than the claim being made having proof? That was more of my point about the article, even though I don't have a very high opinion of BuzzFeed News personally. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't need to provide evidence that satisfies any particular contributor. That's the whole point of us relying on reliable secondary sources. We trust them to get it right since it's what they do. Rarely a particular article might have been challenged by other sources or have problems glaring enough for us to exclude it even if it comes from an otherwise reliable source, but this isn't supposed to happen much for sources considered generally reliable and we need something far stronger than one particular editor's dislike of the source or believe the evidence isn't strong enough. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I said that regardless of what I think of BuzzFeed News, I haven't seen a reliable source demonstrate evidence of the claims made in the article. I don't have any interest in challenging the reliability of BuzzFeed News as a source, I just question the evidence of the conclusion made in the BuzzFeed News article. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are reliable sources which bolster this characterization:

• He's also a member of the alt-right -- his twitter account @Night_0f_Fire spewed hatred for Hillary Clinton, support for Donald Trump, called Lena Dunham a "fat pig" and mocked Black Lives Matter before being suspended -- and was involved in the Gamergate.
• In fact, one of the show's creators and star, Sam Hyde, has espoused many alt-right views on Twitter. The Atlantic described the show and Hyde's tweets as "peering inside the mind of a far-right Twitter troll."
• The six-episode run of "World Peace" received steady ratings and aired the sort of sketches that, in the parlance of the alt-right, "dropped red pills." One sketch cast Hyde as a pickup artist training a wheelchair-bound man in his ways, which included buying sweatpants from "the black person mall" and bestowing the secret name "David Duke."
• Its creator, Sam Hyde, is also an outspoken proponent of the alt-right. “Million Dollar Extreme” was canceled after one season.
• Earlier this week, Adult Swim confirmed that they’ve canceled their new show Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace not long after Brett Gelman severed ties with the network over the “alt-right” show as well as their treatment of women
• Mr. Hyde is a real person, an absurdist comedian whose jokes often lean far right politically.

Sources

So we have high quality RSes (NYT, WaPo, Atlantic) backing this up, but also popular culture-focused RSes like Vulture, Mashable, and Pitchfork. I would say this passes muster pretty handily. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review and quotes, very thoroughly done. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

None of this actually proves that Hyde is alt-right. You're not making your case here. You're still basing this assertion based on claims made without evidence rather than providing any actual evidence. A source saying this without evidence is not proof, it's much the same as having no source. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we may just have different levels of "evidence" that we accept as reasonable in such sources. I think the quotations and events referred to in these sources easily support the assertion. You are free to have your opinion, but consensus here may be against you. (see also WP:1AM). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus aside, where's the evidence? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I just thought of something. Is All Out Fighting as reliable source? I posted an interview with Hyde from the All Out Fighting podcast's YouTube channel earlier where Hyde was out of character had said that he was apolitical or disinterested in politics. Would that be a reliable source for challenging the alt-right categorization or is the All Out Fighting podcast not considered to be a reliable source? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the podcast is reliable, but it doesn't matter because something said in an interview falls under WP:ABOUTSELF regardless of whether it's published by something reliable. We can use this to say something along the lines of "most sources agree that Hyde has expressed alt-right views, but he says he is disinterested in politics". Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

but he says he is disinterested in politics
This would be WP:SYNTH, as we do not have sources which connect these two things (Hyde being alt-right and Hyde being disinterested in politics). You, an editor, have made that connection, not the sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s not synth because it’s not in wikivoice. It’s fine to point out contradictions in sources. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

still synth. Was Hyde talking about his characterization from others of being alt-right when he said that? Also fails WP:ABOUTSELF since Hyde isn't the publisher of All Out Fighting. Matin Domin and Donagh Corby appear to be the people who edited and published this, and they are certainly not experts on Hyde. Nor, I would argue, are they independent of Hyde. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Well first of all, where in ABOUTSELF says that subjects are required to have also published things they verifiably said for them to be usable that way?

Looking at the interview... Hyde never says anything about being apolitical, the closest thing being that he doesn't care about Hasan Piker's politics. He seems to imply that the impression he is far right reported by the news and everything solely stems from his trolling of this one guy he dislikes. Because Hyde here is in fact addressing the public perception of his political views, it isn't synthesis either. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Well first of all, where in ABOUTSELF says that subjects are required to have also published things they verifiably said for them to be usable that way?
Right here: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.

It's not called "WP:ABOUTOTHERS". The issue is the editing, question design, and editorial judgment of the source. We also don't use ABOUTSELF to contradict what RSes say. Because people are not necessarily reliable sources for information based on how others describe them. E.g. Authors don't actually get to decide what genre their books are published under, publishers do that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. About themselves. Hyde is the one talking. Talking about themselves. I don't see the issue here. I can now see how you could, with a really strict reading of the section, interpret it to require that sources are both created and published by the subject. But actually enforcing it like this contradicts common sense. Hyde knew he was being subject to an interview. Hyde knew this interview would be published. It is obvious that it is the real Sam Hyde being interviewed. There is no reason to believe he would be lying about this. So why then, would it be any more credible if Hyde published the same video himself, rather than All Out Fighting?

By the logic that we don't use ABOUTSELF to contradict what the sources say, the following sentence isn't allowed:

"Bob Smith was accused of motor vehicle theft by his grandparents.<news citation> Smith denies this.<ABOUTSELF citation>

Which is pretty much a more extreme example of what we're doing here. There's no reason ABOUTSELF can't be used to contradict RSes in contexts like these if there's in-text attribution. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What about PKA (podcast)'s interview with Harley Morenstein in which Morenstein said that Hyde isn't anti-Semitic? Is PKA considered a reliable source? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Is PKA considered a reliable source?

No. As it has no independent editorial board, or published editorial practices or history of fact checking. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASEDSOURCES which answers many of the questions you've asked on this talk page.

E.g. WP:BIASEDSOURCES: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that a major problem with covering YouTubers like Sam Hyde is that since his primary medium is Internet content, a lot of the sources interviewing him and covering him are usually going to be considered unreliable sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Then those aspects are likely not WP:DUE per WP:RSUW. As an analogy, we don't cover the favorite ice cream flavors and spirit animals of K-pop artists, even though many fan sites cover these aspects with great depth. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

you literally won't accept any evidence that he's alt-right, because you're a fan of his and you know what the alt-right are. the evidence has been shown and you just deny it. 2404:4402:3306:3800:7B0D:6C42:348A:C0E1 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO "alt-right" is a deprecated term for a specific Spencerian movement, however looking at Hyde's retweets it becomes obvious what he supports. One can only be ironic for so long. Although I don't think Hyde is as extreme as his haters make him out to be, I also don't think he's as "based" as his supporters believe him to be. Also remember he has to change his "public" views to appeal to the audience he is targeting. He's a disillusioned, alienated paleolibertarian if anything.

TL;DR I think the statement on the introduction should be "past allegations of association with the alt-right" or "allegations of association with far-right individuals and/or groups", or "allegations of associations with [insert specific unfavourable views]" AsyarSaronen (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously this video isn't a reliable source at all, but check out this review of World Peace as it presents context for both why the group could be seen as being alt-right, and why the reviewer doesn't think that the group are alt-right. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You are not going to gain consensus at this point. We do not have to satisfy your understanding of the quality, reliability, and use of the sources provided, and providing a litany of unreliable sources and interviews is not going to help your case. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I literally said it wasn't a reliable source. I wasn't suggesting a source, I was trying to show that there was evidence that the BuzzFeed article's accusations are unfounded. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is due to Sam Hyde’s comedy often being popular with alt-right communities, whether or not Hyde believes himself to be part of the alt-right doesn’t matter, but his impact on that community is notable since all his comedic targets are often people the alt-right happens to hate. 2601:201:8101:E5E0:C0E1:72A2:CCA6:BB00 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This is due to Sam Hyde’s comedy often being popular with alt-right communities, whether or not Hyde believes himself to be part of the alt-right doesn’t matter, but his impact on that community is notable since all his comedic targets are often people the alt-right happens to hate. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Granted, it's a primary/first-party source, but nonetheless, during his appearance on Dick Masterson's podcast (The Dick Show), Sam Hyde outright refers to his political views as "alt-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordzii (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Getting Away With It" Documentary to Pranks segment

The lack of the addition of the Getting Away With It Documentary bewilders me. I have tried to add it, but have been rebuffed due to a "lack of reliable sources", though the sources I cite are Hyde's own video discussing his involvement with the documentary, and the documentary itself. As this is undeniably one of Hyde's most prolific public pranks, I think a segment should be added discussing it: again, I think it is irrefutable that the majority of Sam Hyde's audience have discovered him through this public stunt. Beaksmccoy (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source. See WP:SECONDARY for what that is, and how it differs from primary sources. Also see WP:YT for more on why you should (almost never) use Youtube as a source. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"known for his incorporation of anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic rants in his comedy routines"

where is this even cited? --FMSky (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In the three sources cited at the end of that sentence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you give the exact quote please? --FMSky (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sam Hyde is an American Alt-Right Comedian" +"and he has a fanbase that is known for favoring white nationalism and anti-Semitism."

I'm sorry, but this is objectively a biased way of phrasing it. The "Sam Hyde is an American alt-right comedian" is I guess arguably more objective, but stating "he has a fanbase that is known for favoring white nationalism and anti-Semitism" is literally just somebody's opinion about his fans.

I've gone ahead and reverted my last edit, but since it's getting reverted, I figured I might as well explain myself. I much prefer to state "His transgressive meta-ironic style has garnered significant public controversy, and has been linked with the alt-right due to his usage of antisemitic, homophonic, and racist jokes": as it doesn't state an opinion regarding his fanbase. Crockpure (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing reliable source is not "objectively biased". Even with reliable sources, "meta-ironic" is almost meaningless. Post-irony is used to intentionally muddy the waters between ironic and sincere, so your proposal is just a verbose, euphemistic way of saying he uses 'just joking' as a way to present his alt-right opinion. The use the term "homophonic" instead of homophobic makes me wonder if this isn't just an attempt at trolling. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"known for his incorporation of anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic rants in his comedy routines" <--where is this cited? --FMSky (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The cites are the end of that sentence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin: Could you give the exact quote please? --FMSky (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, here's the exact quote in the lead: "Samuel Whitcomb Hyde is an American alt-right comedian known for his incorporation of anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic themes in his comedy". Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

But what is the source for this statement? FMSky (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to go to the end of the statement, look at the citations, and read them. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If you want to whitewash Hyde's article and cleanse it of the reasons he's covered by reliable sources, you'll have to do better than this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the problem. I read all 3 sources but couldn't find anything that supports this statement. Maybe someone else can help me out --FMSky (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that anyone can "help you out", if you've actually read every source in this article, and you still believe that sources do not refer to Hyde's comedy as anti-Semitic, or racist, or homophobic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at these sources earlier and also could not see where that statement was coming from. I expect Fred Zepelin is alluding to this statement As much as Hyde has used his position as a comedian to pass off his racist and discriminatory comments as ironic, his actions speak for themselves. found at the end of [1]. But this is all quite problematic, because the lead statement says he is known for these things, and that is not what the source says. What it actually says about what he is known for is Sam Hyde, a comedian infamous for pandering to the alt-right. There seems to be editorialising going on here, and a growing pile of citations in the lead are suggestive of WP:CITECONFLICT. In any case WP:BLPRESTORE applies. A good faith objection to that statement with that phrasing has been raised and so now it should be left out until a consensus has formed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding to that, Paste Magazine should not be used for the reason stated in this edit summary 1 (I assume Fred Zepelin simply oversaw it) --FMSky (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Paste Magazine is a perfectly acceptable source for what it's used for here. I've also added the quotes from the sources that explicitly lay out what supports the article text. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think stating that Sam Hyde is an alt-right comedian could be appropriate, but it'd need to be supported by an article in which Hyde makes any claims about his political opinions in an unironic manner. As far as I'm aware, such an article doesn't exist and the majority of the things he's said involving politics seem to be done in a meta-ironic manner.

TL;DR: I could see the first part going either way, but I personally don't think stating it has "links to the alt right" is more appropriate given Hyde's comedic style of intense meta-irony.

I stand by my claim that lumping all his fans together as antisemitic white nationalists is a vast overgeneralization, and articles claiming such are largely editorialized. On this topic, Hyde's ban from YouTube, Twitch, etc... is not covered in the article, and I feel like discussion of this is probably warranted should an appropriate source be found. Crockpure (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• but I personally think stating it has "links to the alt right" is more appropriate given Hyde's comedic style of intense meta-irony.

apologies for the typo Crockpure (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think a demand for an un-ironic comment is a red herring. We will describe him as sources describe him, and the lead should summarise the main text. But on that, this article is full of WP:PROSELINE. It needs work to convert that to coherent prose that adheres to neutral point of view and adequately describes him, as well as his views and their reception. When that is achieved, a new lead (without the need for strings of citations) would be possible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the misspelling. It's not an attempt at trolling. Crockpure (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)