Talk:Shane Dawson

quick edit fix

"Not Cool competed against Anna Martemucci's Holidaysburg." --> It seems like the other movie should have a wikilink, or at least be spelled correctly, so that curious people can find it more easily. Link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollidaysburg_(film)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

I would like to change the Controversies part by saying "This interviewer found Shane and asked him if he likes James Charles another Controversial person. He replied with "I don't want to get suspended again". With that response he is implying that he likes James Charles and what James Charles is doing" Owen9647 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need reliable sources describing that, rather than your thoughts about possible implications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Name of Reception/Criticism/Controversy/Reactions Section

There seems to be a slight edit war happening that I've been watching, so I thought that I'd take the discussion here to try to get a consensus. What should it be named? And should we get an RfC if we can't find one here?

Thanks Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Nemov, Criticalus, and SchroCat as people involved in this who might wanna share their opinions. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really know much about this subject, but this information should really be rolled into the career section with due weight. Under no circumstance should the section title be called controversy or criticism. This is a common mistake I see on biographies that violates WP:CRITS. Nemov (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Hi. Just to clarify, I don't believe there to be an edit war. Nemov & SchroCat brought up a valid point re: WP:CRITS, my objection was not to changing the name but specifically to changing it to 'Reception'. Per its general usage, the Reception section on Wikipedia implies an overall overview of how the subject has been received, both positive and negative, so when we take a section that was previously named 'Controversy' and is filled with only criticism of the subject (there is not one positive thing said in that section) and rename it 'Reception' we have effectively implied that the subject was universally received negatively. Since SchroCat changed it to 'Reactions' instead on their latest edit. I have not objected, as Reactions is more open-ended and does not carry the same implications as 'Reception'. However, I do think 'Reactions' is too open-ended and wishy-washy. One place I disagree with @Nemov is that "under no circumstance" should a section be named "Controversy" -- even the crits uses the word "generally." As Obi-Wan said, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Other names that could be used are even worse than controversy, for now I think unless a good name surfaces 'Reactions' is fine enough. Some potential names, like 'Allegations of pedophilia and zoophilia' or 'Comments on underage girls and animals' or 'Use of blackface and the n-word', are all significantly worse. Criticalus (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Just adding re the due weight and rolling into career points. In this case the controversy is a large part of the person's career, large enough to take up a portion of the lead, and to bury it in the career section would do a disservice to the article, instead I really think the easiest solution might be to add a couple lines of positive in there (from reviews of their work or etc) at the top and then just leaving it as a 'Reactions' section. Criticalus (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:CRITS again and focusing on this bit: Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.. This content is about this person's career so that's where it belongs with due weight. Nemov (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CRITS again. You are misreading that section and quoting out of context. Here is the full section you pulled from.

Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public image, create a section entitled "Public image" or "Public profile", and include all related information—positive and negative—within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section.

They are literally saying to do what I'm saying, which is to take positive and negative information and put it in a separate section (in their example they name it Public image, in ours it's currently named Reactions). Nowhere does it say to bury it into the general career section..... Criticalus (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• The contents of the section are a slightly different point from the title it bears. The guidelines specifically states “the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles”; and “Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies"”. Instead, the guideline says, “Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments".” Regardless of the content, neither “criticism” nor “controversies” should be used. My last edit was to change it to one of the recommended suggestions of “Reactions”. Reactions was equally acceptable, according to the guidelines, but as this was also objected to (although I don’t quite understand why), I went for one of the other suggested alternatives. Reception or reaction: both are fine by me, and the guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think Reactions is fine for now, but not Reception. I just want you to understand my point. The title it bears is not a separate point from the section's contents, because the title reflects what the content is, and suggests how to interpret it. On Wikipedia, we generally use 'Reception' sections to highlight (ideally impartially) how something (like a film) or somebody is received by the larger public. This section that was named 'Controversy' contains many negative points about Dawson, but very little if any positive information. Therefore, if you just rename the section because of WP:CRITS, you actually haven't solved the issue. Instead you have taken a section heading which is widely interpreted to give a relatively impartial view of how a subject has been perceived, and you have used it on a controversy/criticism section, the result being that you have implied that the subject is universally seen negatively. That is the issue. Thus, the actual solution, per WP:CRITS, would be to balance out that individual section, and then rename it something like Reception. Y'all skipped a step. Nevertheless, Reactions does not have the same impartial connotations that Reception does on the wiki, so it functions fine for now. Criticalus (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Shane and Friends

The podcast page for Shane and Friends definitely deserved to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards? Nokia621 (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)