Talk:Hasan Piker

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Reverted in less than 10 seconds

A contribution I made to this article, which I spent literally over a week researching, drafting, redrafting, redrafting, redrafting, etc, has been reverted after 10 seconds.

@Simonm223:, please immediately self-revert. It is not possible for you to have even opened the articles cited in the contribution, much less read them. The sources used are reliable, secondary sources, all of them on the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources except for one, which would still be presumable a reliable (as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is not an exhaustive list). I specifically noted that NONE of the articles used in the contribution are presented as opinion pieces, but certain editors would be eager to attempt to strike it down, attributed each writer regardless as per Wikipedia guidelines.

I wonder was it even possible for you to have even read the contribution before reverting it. This is bad faith editing, frankly. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edit concealed the repeated removal of a contentious infobox. It also inserted several opinion articles as sources and had undue weight issues regarding the Crimea issue. I was able to identify all these flaws in 10 seconds. I am sorry if you worked hard on this revision. If I can find that many issues that quickly then it clearly needs more work. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

As was expressed in the content of the contribution, the label of Democratic Socialist is not appropriate with regards to Piker.

Everything within the contribution was written per WP:NEWSOPINION guidelines, with every statement clearly attributed to an author and not presented as "fact" in the Wikipedia voice.

If you feel the contribution has a specific issue in regards to Crimea, that should have been adjusted/edited rather than the entire contribution reverted. As I have done many, many times on this talk page previously, I am happy to work on the rendering of information here on the talk page with other editors, so that is something that can be discussed/work-shopped. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I found the extensive use of news opinion thoroughly undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

In your haste to revert them, you would seem to have missed that they are not categorised as opinion pieces. It would have been helpful to have read my edit summary before reverting, which noted this. The sources are in the general politics/society section of their websites. Rosenberg and Levitz, for example, are in the general politics section of the Atlantic and Vox respectfully, both generally reliable sources. The Nation, a generally reliable source, has their article in the society section. WP:NEWSOPINION guidelines were followed regardless specifically to avoid POV issues that other editors may flagged, although perhaps that confused the sourcing for you. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try to discuss your content here first and we can work out what might be due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, we already know what I would like to include, so perhaps it's better if we discuss what specific wordings or renderings you have an issue with. You mentioned a specific issue with the Crimea wording (which I am happy to address); Can you expand on what your issue with that sentence is and how you think it should be addressed? CeltBrowne (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like it was actually 1 minute and 9 seconds. Cadddr (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the first step is to determine which sources are reliable secondary sources, and then figure out what should be added from them. For example, the Atlantic articles per WP:THEATLANTIC mentions to be careful here:

Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but as previously stated, I intentionally sought to avoid any potential issues in that regards, and so WP:RSOPINION guidelines were strictly followed, even to sources to which that would not usually apply, as well as carefully crafted neutral wording that stuck closely to the wording used in the cited generally reliable sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't change that you put in a whole lot of WP:UNDUE opinion. Like, seriously, Jonathan Chait? How is his opinion on a Twitch streamer encyclopedically relevant? I'm sorry. I understand that you put in a lot of effort. But this is why it's wise to workshop major changes before executing them. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

But this is why it's wise to workshop major changes before executing them.

Edits on Wikipedia do not have to be pre-approved by other editors or committees, nor does Wikipedia encourage that. Editors on Wikipedia are encouraged to be Wikipedia:Be bold and make contributions they feel are appropriate without seeking permission. This is a normal part of the broader Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Editors are told not to ask other editors to "screen" their edits, as this veers into WP:Ownership issues. Editors do not have a right to "veto" edits unless those edits have a clear problem. If there is a problem, that problem needs to be clearly outlined so the original editor can attempt to address it.

Piker is (as discussed in reliable sources) a political commentator, the platform he uses is irrelevant. Whether he uses Twitch or Youtube or any other platform doesn't change the standard to which the article is kept. If Charlie Kirk had used Kick or Rumble during his career, it wouldn't change the standard his article is kept to. Nick Fuentes uses a streaming platform, and his views/ideology is outlined extensively in his article.

If you have issues with the contribution, please outline how they can be addressed. I have previously, and am now, engaging in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but that has to work both ways and meaningful attempts to build consensus have to be made. Otherwise, this devolves into "No, and this will go no further", which no editor is entitled to do.

You mentioned that there's a problem in regards to Crimea. How can that be addressed? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely never said it was required. However the down-side of that is that it is also not required that a bold edit be retained just because it represented a lot of effort. You've seen that the reception to this edit was rather negative as not just myself but also @Sibshops have expressed concerns with several specifics.

Your Crimea statement was tied to a single source and there is no demonstration either that this is, in fact, something Piker holds as an ideological view nor that this source was due inclusion at all. I think it's a prime example of something that would be best resolved by exclusion unless better sources become available. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP's I think the recommendation is to limit WP:RSOPINION articles which are generally considered primary sources attributed to the author's opinion and instead use secondary sources, instead.

Per WP:BLPSTYLE,

Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you feel the contribution is written in a partisan manner, and if so, how can this be corrected? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's kind of the second part of that. Because opinion pieces are primary sources rather than secondary sources they shouldn't be used for BLP articles because they are categorically not relaible secondary sources. As such all of the opinion articles and also any article that is from an outlet with a history of blending reportage or opinion should be excluded as a violation of BLP style. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Although some of the articles I've used would be more conversational in tone that I would prefer, you'll have to outline what you suggesting are opinion pieces vs magazine style articles. For example, the Rosenberg article is placed clearly in the Atlantic's politics section, and within it, Rosenberg speaks as a authority rather than simply offering a viewpoint. This is very much the case in the specific discussion around Einstein and his relationship with Zionism, in which Rosenberg invokes specific expertise.

The Nation article, although in magazine writing style, is (to me) clearly a factual reporting of what occurred during a specific event, and uses direct quotes from those involved. I don't see it as controversial or an opinion piece.

Chait's article is limited to only 19 words in my contribution, and uses a direct quote from Chait which is very clearly attributed.

The one cited source which I would be more open to discussion on is the Johnson/Dispatch source, which was a "late addition" to the contribution, which has the issue of being written in a "first person" POV despite being in the politics section of the magazine. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

As @Sibshopsmentioned above the Atlantic has a reputation for being unclear about opinion vs news reporting. So it being in the Atlantics' politics section is somewhat irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops:, as a third editor who has dipped into this conversation, it'd be great if you could help move things forward one way or another here, as obviously myself and Simon have opposing views here, and a third editor could be a "tie-breaker".

I would like to reiterate that I've taken articles from the Politics (Not Opinion) sections of good, reliable, secondary sources. Articles from those same sections of the same websites, such as Vox and the Atlantic, appear on other BLP political commentator articles such as Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson (where both Vox and the Atlantic are extensively used) and Candace Owens (where a Rosenberg article on Vox is used for high level sourced claim regarding her anti-Semitism). If the articles from the same section of the same website, and in some cases the exact same authors, are appropriate for other American political commentator articles, there shouldn't be an issue here. It's the same standard being applied. If Rosenberg can used to be the possibly contentious claim that Candace Owens is an antisemite, the same author on the same section of the same website should be fine for the less contentious claim of the model of Socialism Piker espouses. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I can really be a tie-breaker here. I also can't really say how other articles do sourcing. But looking into it briefly, it appears that the RSP note for The Atlantic came from a 2022 discussion, and the cited uses of The Atlantic may be before that update to WP:RSP was made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_373#How_should_we_treat_the_Atlantic's_Ideas_section?_Is_it_news_or_opinion?

For example, most of the Atlantic sourcing in Tucker Carlson appears to be from before 2022. But either way, some uses of The Atlantic there seem problematic, as well. Some of the citations are of opinion articles used as contentious statements of fact.

So it's entirely possible those other articles need cleanup, too. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So it's entirely possible those other articles need cleanup, too.

Articles such as Tucker Carlson are some of the most debated, most contentious, BLP articles on English Wikipedia, with talk page archives as long as my arm.

Rather than an article as closely examined as Tucker Carlson simply having have massive sourcing issues that no one seems to have spotted, there is another possibility that's not being considered here:

That the sources I've used are appropriate, and were not correctly evaluated before being reverted. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: If you go and remove opinion-ish material sourced to the Atlantic from Tucker Carlson I will not object. WP:BLP should never apply just to people we like and we should have consistent requirements. I think excluding The Atlantic is better than including it. However, fair warning, I'm only one editor and I don't even have that page on my watchlist so I'm hardly accountable for the local consensus there. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully Simonm223, your offer for me to go away and alter an article you don't care about in avoid changes to an article you do care about is unappealing.

Per WP:THEATLANTIC, the Atlantic is a generally reliable good source. The articles cited are not opinion pieces, but even if they were, my framing of those sources adhered to WP:NEWSOPINION. I did that specifically to appease the watchers on this talk page (like yourself) rather than stating as fact or attributing the articles to the publications themselves rather than the authors.

I agree; WP:BLP should never apply just to people we like and we should have consistent requirements...which is why my sources, which I've shown are consistent with other contentious American politics + BLP articles, are not an issue. Not only are the same publications and same sections used on contentious American political BLP pages, in some cases its the very same authors, to make the most contentious of claims.

We can't have one standard for the articles I cited previously (Kirk, Owens, etc) and one standard for this article. Local consensus on any given Wikipedia article cannot overrule Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I've shown my sources are on are on a par with similar articles.

Look Simonm223, you're an editor with over 20,000+ edits, and you seem to be well acquainted with Wikipedia's guidelines and other internal processes such as internal noticeboards. As a mature editors, can we come to some kind of agreement rather than going around and around without advancing? Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS;

they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately.

I am willing, as I've done before on this talk page, to accept less than what I originally wanted in order to advance. I would hope that other editors, acting in good faith, are likewise inclined. There are multiple ways we can advance, can we try one?

A) We revert to my original contribution

B) We alter my contribution to a version you're more open to using the same sources

C) We alter my contribution to a version you're more open to using the original sources + additional sources

Neither of us has to be 100% happy with the result, but can we at least attempt to come up with something we can both live with? CeltBrowne (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no you don't get to say "if someone opposes my edit long enough they must stand down and let me insert it unchanged." Nor can you mandate all your sources are sacrosanct. We shouldn't be using The Atlantic here. Likewise for Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Charlie Kirk is subject to looser sourcing requirements as he is not living nor recently deceased and is, as such, irrelevant to this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

However I will concede that asking you to remove The Atlantic from Tucker Carlson was somewhat unfair. So I'll go do it myself. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would help to get clear consensus on all references proposed.

At a glance, Rosenberg can be used, Chait should not. --Hipal (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That may have been a copy-paste error, this is the Rozenberg piece in question.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/hasan-piker-einstein-democrats/686855/

The Problem With Hasan Piker’s Einstein Story - "People scrutinizing influencers for their views should also hold them to account for their facts." ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

CeltBrowne, I suggest (after a final pass for making the proposed addition as rock-solid in sourcing as it can be) doing an RfC on this. Involvement with local editors alone is unlikely to gain a consensus, especially a non-whitewashed one. For my part, I think the addition was fine, and at most would have warranted tweaks, not nearly instant reversion. Many news media articles provide analysis and are themselves reliable WP:Secondary sources (a primary source would be searching through Piker's steams for things to quote him on, which is obviously against Wikipedia guidelines), and as noted above are commonly cited for right-wing figures. Analysis of Piker's numerous foreign policy views are very much WP:DUE for this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Crossroads. I don't want to presuppose what other local editors will do going forward, and I would like to believe they will abide by the views expressed on WP:RSN#Is the Atlantic a reliable, source for BLP articles?, which seem to indicate that views from prominent publications such as the Atlantic can be used so long as WP:RSOPINION guidelines are strictly followed. I would also hope they note your own view, and the view of others on RSN, that the sources I used, such as the Atlantic, are very much DUE (to quote User:Rhododendrites it doesn't get much more "opinion typically worth including" than The Atlantic. and User:Guz13 who agreed with that assessment). The Atlantic was also stated to be BLP appropriate let's just cut to it: Yes, The Atlantic a reliable source for BLPs..

I would like to think that a revised version of my contribution, in which opinions are attributed to the publications rather than the authors, and possible addition of one or two more reliable sources (further cementing DUE, and further demonstrating Piker's stances are reliable sourced) would not be opposed in light of the advice given on RSN. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

A WP:RSOPINION classification makes this material largely unusable for this context. A loaded characterization that says Hasan supports or sympathizes with authoritarian governments would need widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources to be due for inclusion under WP:BLPSTYLE. Attributed opinion from a small number of commentators does not, by itself, establish due weight for a contentious BLP characterization. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The basis for citing journalistic articles like this is really WP:SECONDARY, not RSOPINION. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (these in turn being Piker's streams, interviews, etc). RSOPINION is about sources that are reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Something like Vox (etc) is reliable for statements of fact and is an analysis of Piker's views of various governments - hence a quality secondary source. Anyway, clearly an RfC is needed to hash out exactly how this should be applied here - but I'd encourage relying on WP:SECONDARY in the opening argument. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:RSPVOX, Vox is generally reliable, but it also does not always clearly delineate reporting and opinion content. The Vox piece, The real problem with Hasan Piker Spoiler: It’s not about Israel. appears to fall in the opinion commentary side since it's argumentative commentary about Piker's views, not straight reporting on his views.

https://www.vox.com/politics/486091/hasan-piker-democrats-israel-china

For contentious BLP material, I think we should use secondary coverage of his views. Opinion pieces saying Piker is authoritarian, campist, an apologist for authoritarian regimes, or sympathetic to terrorism needs better sourcing, in my opinion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If the Atlantic, Vox, and Dispatch sources were paired with sources that A) stated as fact Piker is sympathetic to governments such as China and Cuba in a "straight reporting" secondary style (ie Piker said X, here's what Expert Y had to say about it) and B) Reliable Sources that confirmed each of the statements cited, do you believe that would address your concerns? CeltBrowne (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I can pre-agree to any wording without seeing the sources or text being proposed, but "straight reporting" secondary style is definitely needed when covering his views.

I'd still be concerned about pairing straight reporting with opinion commentary to support a broader contentious label. Like Source A says Pixer said X. Source B argues that because of X shows Piker is (contentious label). ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Attributed opinion from a small number of commentators does not, by itself, establish due weight for a contentious BLP characterization

@Sibshops To an extent it does though. We of course shouldn't be making wide, loaded characterisations on the basis of a single piece, but if we have a number of appropriate sources, even if opinion, stating such a view it might be appropriate to mention that such a view (even if a minority) is notable.

Reading through @CeltBrowne's edit that I think started this, I would personally say I think the overall thrust of it is more than suitable for inclusion (i.e. the use of clearly attributed RS opinion pieces to state certain authors description of Piker's espoused views). My issue though would be that it is currently too long and has more quotes than necessary, and should be reduced to simply an overview. i.e. wording along the lines of "Piker's views on foreign affairs has been characterised by some as being sympathetic towards authoritarian regimes, in particular the People's Republic of China. Piker himself has described his outlook as being positioned against a "dying American empire". Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. I'm willing to be convinced. Let's take one proposed view: He has shown sympathy towards authoritarian regimes. What reported secondary sources support this?

I don't think stacking opinion columns is the best way describe his views, especially if the characterization is contentious.

I agree that Piker's description of his own views is usable. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that we're not describing his views, we're describing how others view his views in such a way.

"Stacking" RSOPINION pieces is not the best way to do this (we would obviously prefer a secondary RS source saying this), but it is an acceptable way if you have several WP:RSOPINION that all say the same thing. You just have to be careful with the wording to make sure you're not describing the scale of said view (i.e. you shouldn't say "many view Piker's views as..."). Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we also have to keep in mind that because Piker is primarily notable for their actions in regards to politics and his political views there is arguably a lower "threshold" so to speak on it being WP:DUE to mention such criticism of his political views than there would be if it was the BLP of say a musician or author. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hm... if we are not describing his views, but describing how others view his views, then I think there is still a gap, no? We are still missing secondary sourcing describing his views and establishing due/weight. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

We are still missing secondary sourcing describing his views and establishing due/weight

I'm doing more research and drafting but won't have something finalised until like next week (I'm in the midst of extremely busy 7/8 days right now) but I can point you towards two or three additional sources that support my original contribution

• This "straight reporting" article by New Lines Magazine, which would be used as a "straight reporting" example of reliable secondary sources describing Piker's ideology in the manner of my original contribution
• This opinion article from the Boston Globe, the 10th largest newspaper in the US. Before anyone jumps on me for listing another opinion article, I only noting this source as an example that the view of Piker as sympathetic to illiberal governments is DUE. The New Line Magazine is much stronger.
• This GQ Magazine article (WP:RSPGQ) article which states For Hasan Piker, China represented more than an untapped market or a shiny backdrop for new content. As a socialist, he looked to the achievements of the Chinese Communist Party, which has run the country since 1949, to see what his values and ideals looked like when put into practice. He wanted to experience a country where leftists are in charge rather than outliers on niche entertainment platforms.

CeltBrowne (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have numerous high quality RSOpinion sources expressing that view then that's still good enough. Secondary sourcing would of course be better, but they're not necessary when something is clearly not a completely non-notable views. If anything we actually seem to be able to find RSOpinion sources on the RSOpinions criticising him. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with CeltBrowne's general direction, here. I think representing Piker's views should primarily be done though secondary sources that describe his views directly, then only relying on using opinion columns.

For example, the New Lines statement "Piker has also said that China comes closest to embodying his vision of socialism." is useful because it characterizes Piker's views in the voice of a secondary source, rather than repeating a commenter's criticism of him.

I don't agree that many high-quality RSOPINION sources can be used in place of secondary sourcing when trying to describe someone's views. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Concur with Sibshops. His views should be presented factually and dispassionately.Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Again though, this isn't about us describing Hasan Piker's views, it's observing there has been criticism from people about how they view Hasan's views which is a different item.

Basically it's more akin to how we cover film reviews in a way, where we are using RSOpinion to describe how others view the film, not saying whether the film is or isn't objectively that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The big difference is that BLP imposes a higher standard about what we can put into an article than we have for movies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Odd omissions

i find it odd that this page doesn't cover many I've his controversial acts, such as but not limited to, platforming terrorists/general terrorism support, claiming America deserved 911, multiple examples of animal abuse, and some statements about minors ~2026-31025-74 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't Reddit, Twitter or YouTube; there are standards. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Some of these claims are WP:BLP violations. I'll be honest, I don't watch Twitch and really don't care much about Hasan Piker but the people who have made a fandom out of hating him have really asserted the necessity of paying attention to him with the forcefulness of their distaste for the man. As Yue said, Wikipedia has standards, and one of those standards is that we don't post a bunch of random nonsense an entertainer said on his bio page. Nor do we post unfounded accusations of crimes, Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The claim about 9/11 is literally in the article and have been there for years. Accusing editors of violating BLP simply for mentioning it is bizarre Trade (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me clarify: platforming terrorists is a MOS:TERRORIST violation and likely a BLP violation. Multiple instances of animal abuse is a BLP violation as it is dependent on WP:OR claims regarding what his anti-fandom believes they saw in a stream. The 9/11 stuff is probably not a BLP violation but the onus is on those who want to include it to demonstrate WP:LASTING significance via sustained mention in reliable secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Having had a look at the section in the article about 9/11 I believe what is there to be perfectly adequate to demonstrate such and would not advocate removal. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand some statements about minors is very vague but, depending on what is meant by it and what sourcing is provided, may also constitute a BLP violation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

When Americans accuse others of making "statements about minors" it's pretty apparent what they are referring to Trade (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I am saying, absent impeccable sources, it is a BLP violation. Simonm223 (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Latest addition of authoritarian commentary

@CeltBrowne I have some concerns with the latest addition. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Piker&diff=prev&oldid=1356016102

This paragraph reads like a WP:BADTHINGS list rather than neutral coverage of Piker's views.

For example, it gives weight to sources characterizing Piker as sympathetic to authoritarian governments, but does not include balanced coverage showing that he has also spoken against authoritarianism.

For example, NPR reported that Piker warned the United States could become an "authoritarian nightmare" if the Trump administration succeeded in suppressing political speech. https://www.vpm.org/npr-news/npr-news/2025-10-08/hasan-piker-who-was-supposed-to-debate-charlie-kirk-on-the-state-of-free-speech

I think this needs more balanced coverage, insead of just listing of negative characterizations. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You should insert his critiques of right-wing authoritarianism then. If multiple organizations reported on his supposed support of left-wing authoritarianism, then it should least bear an attributed mention in my view. JPHC2003 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. I can add some additional context. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

"This paragraph reads like a WP:BADTHINGS list rather than neutral coverage of Piker's views." If anything, this article does an extreme of Whitewashing of Hasan. Especially with the omission of the Kaya shock collar incident. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 19:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I added some context, but I still think this section has an NPOV problem.

One example is the Xinjiang sentence. Piker's claim that the re-education camps are closed is not a fringe description. The source cited in The Atlantic article does not appear to support The Atlantic's parenthetical that the camps themselves are not closed, either:

He once referred to China’s mass-detention facilities for Uyghur Muslims as “concentration camps,” only to quickly revise that to “reeducation camps” and claim that they “are all closed now.” (They are not...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/china-still-no-accountability-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-xinjiang-three-years-after-major-un-report/

The linked Amnesty International article says people are still being detained, imprisoned, and repressed, but it does not directly support the narrower claim that the re-education camp system itself remains open.

So the part which says "Piker said they were closed; The Atlantic disputed that." Makes it seem that Piker's statement is plainly false, where as it doesn't seem that straightforward. The cited source the Atlantic uses seems to say that detention and repression continue, not that the re-education camp system itself remains open. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether a separate linked source in the Atlantic says A or B is almost entirely irrelevant. We're not citing that source, we're citing what the Atlantic's viewpoint is. And they stated, in black and white,

[Piker] once referred to China’s mass-detention facilities for Uyghur Muslims as “concentration camps,” only to quickly revise that to “reeducation camps” and claim that they “are all closed now.” (They are not, and the detentions also continue throughout the formal justice system.)

Regardless of what their cited sources states, *the Atlantic's viewpoint* is in fact disputing that the camps are closed.

My wording is accurate to what I've cited: the Atlantic does in fact dispute the point. My wording would only be potentially problematic if I was citing the amnesty.org article. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

But you see the problem right?

The Atlantic made the statement the camps are open. Widespread reporting said the camps themselves had a start and end date with detention and repression continuing in other ways. The article includes The Atlantic's statement uncontested as an incorrect 'fact-check' on Hasan's statement. I think we need a proper secondary source here to contest Hasan's statement not something covered under WP:RSOPINION. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne I saw you removed that claim, but I was using it as an example of a larger issue with the section.

The paragraph mixes opinion with factual claims about what Piker said.

For example:

likened China's absorption of Tibet to the Union's defeat of the Confederacy, called Uyghur detention facilities "re-education camps", labelled Mao Zedong "one of the great leaders of this world", and called the collapse of the Soviet Union "one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century"

Those are not written as the author's opinion, it is shown as factual claims about what Piker said. If we include them, I think they need generally reliable secondary sourcing that directly supports the specific claims and context of the claims. Otherwise, the section risks using opinion sources for factual assertions about a living person.

Per WP:RSOPINION, we have to "make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." Right now, the section does not seem to be making it clear it's opinion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

All of these statements attributed to Piker are also supported by the "straight reporting" of New Lines Magazine. It is *not* an opinion that these are his stances; it is a *fact* that those are his stances. It's also a *fact* he made the statements you added in the paragraph above mine. It's the same standard for those passages. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne this is more of the same WP:BADTHINGS cataloging of every time an entertainer said something dumb. I think we really need to dial back this clip-show mentality surrounding Piker and instead focus on things that actually impacted his biography. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This material is in no way a coatrack or BADTHINGS (which is an essay anyway) because it sticks squarely to the topic of the article and to controversial things he has said that are covered in secondary sources (not "every time"). These sorts of takes are precisely the "things that actually impacted his biography", to the point of the UK denying him entry (which I don't agree they should have done, but it's clearly relevant to the article). It's also a major aspect of the debate about his association with some figures in the Democratic Party. It's good to include his rebuttal (which the material did) but this sort of commentary is a major aspect of his notability and excising it from the article leaves it clearly incomplete. Not saying there's necessarily no refinement possible, but I see no need for wholesale removal. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think removal is necessary. His views on international affairs is relevant to his biography as a political commentator. Most of my concern is a structural one.

I think the section is organized a tankie-style criticism section without there being a reliable source outright saying tankie. So it's collecting statements like

• China as socialist model
• Support for Mao's great leap forward
• Complaint about Soviet-collapse
• Opinion section characterizations of pro-authoritarianism
• Downplaying events in Xinjiang

I feel like it would be better structured around a more neutral topic such as views of socialism, views on china, instead of tankie umbrella. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2026

Change: In May 2025, Piker was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago after returning from a trip to France. According to Piker, the officials who questioned him during his detainment knew who he was and asked him detailed questions about his views on Donald Trump, Israel, Houthi rebels, Hamas, and his Twitch bans. Piker believes he was detained due to his political views and that his detainment is part of the Trump administration's intimidation tactics to silence political opposition. Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin accused Piker of "lying for likes" and said it was a routine inspection that any traveler could be subjected to.

to: In May 2025, Piker was detained for around two hours by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago when re-entering the country. According to Piker, the officials who questioned him knew who he was and asked him detailed questions about his views on Donald Trump, Israel, Houthi rebels, Hamas, and his Twitch bans. Piker believes he was questioned due to his political views and that the extended detention was part of the Trump administration's intimidation tactics to silence political opposition. Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin accused Piker of "lying for likes" and said it was a routine inspection that any traveler could be subjected to.

I think the current wording is a bit biased in his favour since a normal border process is inherently a "detention" (you can't enter the country until CPB gives you the green light) and the word's repeat usage invokes a police stop/arrest. Either "extended detention", "subject to secondary screening" or "temporarily detained" could be used, but all carry some level of minimization/maximization. The two hour claim seems non-contentious (it comes from Piker, already in the NYT article, and not challenged by the McLaughlin response) and is probably the best way to fairly frame the event in a NPOV. Reaverxai (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

to be clear what you're proposing. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: I've specified that he was detained for two hours and changed both instances of the word "detainment" to "detention", which is more commonly used. The other changes you've proposed seem unnecessary to me. It's better to simply describe him as having been detained, with the amount of time specified, than to get into semantics over whether it was an extended or temporary detention. Day Creature (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)