Talk:Hbomberguy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political views

Stop removing the ones that you find embarrassing. They are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:E04D:CF80:7D19:59FA (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Claims like this will need reliable secondary sourcing. Harris is known for being a joker, so we could easily attribute this to that. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Those comments of his are entirely serious, if you would bother to read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:E04D:CF80:7D19:59FA (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Which 'embarrassing' political views are you referring to? At the moment there is no section for his political views, and only a small mention of his Labour Party memberhsip under Personal Life. Are you suggesting a section be added? Devgirl (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Devgirl: See these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5. The IP address was edit warring to add original research. The sources cited are primary sources that only indirectly support the claims, the way they were presented was misleading (the first source presents a past view without including the current view and the second makes an inference about his views), and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Also, it's a BLP, so we tend to take extra care. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Retro:Thanks, I'm still pretty green when it comes to navigating wp Devgirl (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede

I am concerned about this: he runs a popular YouTube channel in which he aims to counter the growing tide of the "manosphere" and the alt-right in the lede. This appears not to be a stated aim by Brewis, but rather The Guardian's assessment of his channel. The channel is far too varied to have this in the lede. Also, is such a "growing tide" an actual fact? It is also is a claim by The Guardian and not Brewis. And if this "tide" effect was true January, is it still today? Will it be a year from now? Ledes should be able to stand the test of time and not need to updated with every ebb and flow on YouTube. Better to only mention it in the body and properly attribute it to The Guardian. --SVTCobra (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of personal life

@Alduin2000: I have reverted your edit adding {{Third party source}}, so now we can discuss it in the manner of BRD. The inclusion of this material seems to fall within the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, so third party sources are not needed.

Of course, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I am not arguing that this section should become a random list of things he's said, but the information included seems relevant and interesting, especially considering what he's known for.

If you disagree about the worthiness of including this, you are welcome to ask for a third opinion or start an RFC.

Never mind, this has become almost entirely irrelevant because I have supported complete removal of the section following further discussion below. (but I've unstrikethroughed it because it's still true, even if it eventually loses relevance if the content is removed.) Retro (talk | contribs) 14:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I agree Harry Brevis is an authority on his own political leanings, but I have a massive problem with the claims in the article:

Tweet #1: Is socialism good? — I sometimes say I'm a socialist, and if it'll annoy the right people in the moment, a communist....

Wikipedia intrepretation: Brewis considers his political views adjacent to socialism, but states he prefers not to label himself this way

Tweet #2: So You a Marxist? Libsoc? Trot? Or just a big tent socialist boi

Wikipedia intrepretation: He is a member of the Labour Party

In my opinion, this goes beyond WP:OR and into the territory of intellectual fraud. There is no way to draw those inferences. --SVTCobra (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: The citations need to be fixed; the actual sources are the CuriousCat questions linked in the Tweets. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Do you still find the disputed tags appropriate? If think but states he prefers not to label himself this way. is a bit misleading, but I'm correctly trying to determine a better phrasing. The rest seems alright. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I saw your one tag removal, and with my revision, do you think it would be appropriate to remove the other disputed tag? Retro (talk | contribs) 15:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The second one is cleared. He is a member of Labour. The first one I don't like. Having read both of the Curious Cat answers, I think the second one is better suited for what his true political views are, while the first one is only good for saying labels are useless. In the second CC answer he says The most honest thing I can say is, I am ultimately a very boring and straightforward person who supports things plenty of regular people support if you were to actually ask them about it. I am a Labour party member and the leader I voted for is the most-voted-for leader of the party in its history. My views are perfectly average.

I read that to mean that when he calls himself either a socialist or communist online, he's basically trolling. Labour is a modern social democratic party which is quite far from socialism these days. They do not favor government ownership of industry for example, they just favor more social services and worker protections. "Adjacent to socialism" is also not a helpful phrase because it is ambiguous as he could be just to the right or the left of socialism.

If I were to propose something I would write: Brewis is a member of Labour and considers himself a mainstream social democrat, but he sees little use for politcal labels and then cite both CC sources for this one sentence.

However, does it merit inclusion? Brewis is not a politician. His channel is not a politics channel per se, more like anti-extremism. While he may find the extreme right more frightening and devote more time to them, I think he's been critical of things on the left as well. Is his bisexuality relevant? Is it a feature of his channel? His birthday is redundant. I more or less lean towards scrapping the "Personal life" section. What do you think? --SVTCobra (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I think the points you raise are valid; it's true he's not a politician, and readers can learn more about his specific views themselves if they are so inclined. I don't think this section is particularly necessary for the article, and I would be perfectly fine if it was removed. In fact, before I posted this section, I had a section drafted that suggested deleting the "Personal life" section entirely.

Still from what I've read and experienced of his YouTube channel and related YouTube channels, his content sometimes seems to get lumped into a political side of YouTube. But I think actual sources would be ideal before making such a connection.

Sorry for my impatience; I just wanted to ensure that edit was on your radar, but I will avoid using multiple consecutive pings with no intermediate response. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the whole "Anti-SJW vs. SJW" video debates which amused many people in 2017 and Hbomber was definitely in the SJW camp. I think it has now given rise to "BreadTube vs AltRight", but I think the article itself explains adequately the general gist of this. I really see no use for the Personal life section. He could have been Liberal Democrat, Green Party, or Labour and still make the same videos. Another question. Why is ContraPoints in see also? --SVTCobra (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For contrast, Steven Crowder's Personal life section does not mention politics. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Steven Chowder seems like a bad example because he has an entire section entitled "Political activity". Still, I think it was erroneous of me to merge the "Political views" section into "Personal life", but it should have never been moved to be subheaded under personal life.

I generally don't prefer see also sections (and they seem a bit weird in BLPs), so I'm fine if the ContraPoints link is moved elsewhere. The |associated_acts= parameter is a bit weirdly named though, and I'm not necessarily sure what the phrasing is intended to convey; {{Infobox YouTube personality}} doesn't really describe its purpose. Ideally, the connection between Brewis and ContraPoints would just be described in prose. Retro (talk | contribs) 19:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Contrapoints is mentioned in the Mermaids stream section as Natalie Wynn. "Associated acts" for YouTubers is usually used for collaborations. See iDubbbz for an example of multiple associated acts. --SVTCobra (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We most certainly do not need third party sources to support Brewis' sexuality or membership of the Labour Party, which ought to be included. Associating him with a political ideology is simply not going to work here, it's far too vague and confusing. The position of the Labour Party is also completely irrelevant. There's no reason to remove the section about his personal life since this is a biographical article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The content wasn't removed because a third party source was needed. In fact, I started the section arguing the exact opposite; a third party source is very explicitly not required. But since the section has changed in purpose, I will retitle it "coverage of personal life".

I do agree regarding political ideology; it can be complex to break down and parse, and to do it ourselves seems to become WP:OR.

I have fixed the citations for the re-added content.

As for the other re-addition, I intentionally removed that content because I moved it elsewhere, but I will discuss this in another comment; I am having some technical issues, so it will take another moment. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The "third party" issue arose out of Tweets being cited instead of the CuriousCat Q&A and was resolved. However, you seem to be contradicting yourself: You say political ideology is vague and confusing but the position of the Labour Part is also completely irrelevant. So why is it important to label him a member of the Labour Party? Next, why is his sexuality important? It is not a feature of the channel as compared to ContraPoints, for example. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's slightly inaccurate to say the third party issue arose out of the Tweets being cited instead of the direct sources; the original issue was me noting prior erroneous tagging (that it is not to dispute the validity of your tagging following my comment, which seemed appropriate in the context).

I will concede that I have said some contradictory things over the last 24 hours. My actual position here is relative neutrality; I don't think the article is hugely harmed if his bisexuality and political party affiliation is included (though the explicit citation for bisexaulity should remain included in some form if he is to continue to stay in the categories Category:Bisexual men, Category:LGBT people from England, and Category:LGBT YouTubers). I also don't think there's much loss from the article if it's not included (i.e. I don't think it's "hiding the truth" or "presenting a spin" as I might imagine someone hypothetically arguing against content removal in the abstract). But I don't see my slight leaning against including the content as a particularly strong argument necessarily.

Ultimately, whether and to what extent to include someone's individual beliefs and personal identity in an article seems like a largely subjective decision. For instance, I think most would agree that including content like Brewis likes apples (a fact I just made up) would be trivial and not worthy of mention (this is not absolute; if he ended every video by saying "I like apples", it seems more likely we might consider including it). On the other hand, politics, religion, gender identity, sexuality, etc. seem to have a sort of inherent high interest factor for many people, and many of our readers might be interested in reading about it.

If you continue to think excluding the content is important, I would recommend starting an WP:RFC on this talk page. We can definitely discuss it further here beforehand, but I think seeking wider opinion might be ideal if we want to settle this to everyone's satisfaction. Retro (talk | contribs) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My comment about contradictory statements was a response to Onetwothreeip and not Retro. That said, I hadn't paid any mind to the categories. Yes, if it is important that he be in those categories, then it must be in the article. However, I still feel it is not really something which should be included (and thus cats removed) because I reviewed the source yesterday. And if this is the only source for bisexuality, the claim is rather weak. Let me explain: The source was an hour long video essay about H.P. Lovecraft. Brewis goes into a tangent for why it was important for him. He talks about how when he was a kid it didn't bother him if they threw gay slurs at him because he wasn't gay. Later in life he discovered he was "able to be sexually attracted to men" (quote from memory). He then goes on to speak about how that changed his views of gay slurs and how it became personal because it added weight because he could be "one of them" and how some people really thought less of them. If this video is the only source of him being bisexual, I think it is really weak. In the portion I listened to, he never said he acted on this sexual attraction. Maybe there's another part of that video where he does say something more on point because I stopped when the focus returned to Lovecraft. I feel we just don't know enough about Brewis to make these claims on a BLP and the issue should just remain unspoken unless stronger evidence emerges. Digging into an old video where he says he's capable of being attracted to men is weak. Lastly, I see the "member of Labour" has reemerged. Is the need to label a person who finds labels useless ironic? I do not know why this is relevant to the article. Is every entertainer on Wikipedia mentioned by their political party affiliation? After all, the article is about "hbomberguy" and not Harris Brewis even if they are the same person. --SVTCobra (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate the concern about BLP. I think if you give me a few minutes, I think I remember reading a more definitive comment on Curious Cat about his sexuality. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay here's an unambiguous statement: ... I think of myself as bi, but I've dated nonbinary people and have to recognise that pan is probably the more accurate word. Source: [1].

Regarding the topic of this article, my understanding is the article is titled "Hbomberguy" per WP:COMMONNAME, but the actual subject of the article appears to be Brewis himself (see also: the AfD discussion). If the article is solely about the YouTube channel, the lead needs restructured. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: But actually, I think you make a very interesting scope argument about the article that puts inclusion of the personal life details into a new light. If the article is about the person, then including the details makes sense. But if the article is largely about the YouTube channel (which it appears to be, as supported by the sources), then it makes little sense to include the content. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I read your new source and had to laugh. Right after your quote he again rejects labels, this time for sexuality instead of politics. And here we are debating which labels to attach to him. I had never heard of Curious Cat before this but it almost feels like spying on someone, like using their text messages to write a BLP on Wikipedia. But maybe I'm just a boomer and CC is a huge social platform. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess there is great bit of irony there (but I don't think it's inaccurate to describe him in that way in the article).

I actually hadn't heard of Curious Cat before the last few days either, but based on where it appears in search results when one queries "Curious Cat", I don't think it's "well known". Still, I don't think it's obscure; it's in the top 10,000 websites as ranked by the Alexa rank (as of this writing, it's at 6,073). And it's a public way Brewis engages with his viewers; he links it from his Twitter account.

As for further thoughts on the YouTube channel vs. person, it seems difficult to separate the person running the channel from the channel itself when the videos primarily feature audio and video that features the person. Brewis is a particularly interesting case, in that while he conducts his channel under a (publicly communicated) pseudonym "Hbomberguy", he often talks about himself in his videos, and thus the line between him as creator and performer is blurred. But as for the sources currently used in the article, they mostly seem to make no distinction, simply listing the name of the YouTube channel and then noting his "real name". I think it's also worth considering while "Hbomberguy" is his pseudonym, it's not necessarily a character in itself; I can ascribe no features to this "character" distinct from what I ascribe to Brewis. Therefore I don't think it makes sense to exclude content solely on the basis that the article is about the YouTube channel and not Brewis, because most of the sources discuss "Hbomberguy" as a person, i.e. Brewis.

But that is to say nothing about the appropriateness of randomly including personal beliefs on BLPs where publicly available; I unfortunately remain without strong opinion about that issue in this instance. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, hbomberguy is not a character in the same way as Dr DisRespect for example, but he does say he plays into the socialist/communist thing online even though he isn't. However, I want to talk about the sexuality thing again (even though I am in favor of not mentioning it). The quote I think of myself as bi, but I've dated nonbinary people and have to recognise that pan is probably the more accurate word. I just don't feel the word like I do when I say 'bi'. That's vague and stupid. But language is vague and stupid. Did you know 'overlook' means both to see everything, and to miss something? Fuck language which is used to establish him as bisexual is one where he says pansexual is actually more accurate. Thoughts? --SVTCobra (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We do not need to determine a specific term if he himself is being vague about it - we can just say that he thinks of himself as bi but that he also thinks pan might be more accurate.--Alexandra IDV^talk 01:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This is getting to the level of absurdity. He's called himself bisexual and it's a far more known term than pansexual. I don't know what you mean about "playing into the socialist/communist thing". Maybe we shouldn't mention his sexuality anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And homosexual is a more widely known term than bisexual, so I don't understand the argument here. And yes, I don't think we need the "Personal life" section at all. As for the "playing" with political labels I mean this: I sometimes say I'm a socialist, and if it'll annoy the right people in the moment, a communist which can be found here. Anyway, it was just in a discussion of whether hbomberguy could be a character possibly separate from Harris Brewis. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If we wanted to be more precise, we could say:

• Brewis identifies as bisexual, but doesn't use the term to exclude transgender and nonbinary identities.

But the linguistics of the term "bisexuality" vs. "pansexuality" are already debated, and Brewis is simply recognizing that some people use the term to avoid recognizing trans and nonbinary people. I don't think there's likely to be much confusion, given one of his primary features of note is a charity drive for a transgender charity. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

YouTube channel activity discrepancy

The date Brewis registered the Hbomberguy account is not in question, however, the infobox says "Active: 2008-present" and the article says the first upload was 2013. It is possible he deleted or privated videos from before 2013 or it could be the infobox is wrong. Or the truth could be something in between or even 2006. It is very common for YouTubers to get rid of their early efforts especially if they were children at the time and now find those videos embarrassing or "cringey", either way we should attempt to resolve the discrepancy. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If we know he was uploading since 2008 (or 2006 or whenever), we need to change the article to "his earliest available video is 2013's blablablah" instead of the authoritative "his first video on 24 August 2013, was titled "Merry Go-Rilla". If I was to make an educated guess, that is not his first video, given the audio and video editing required. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the exact first video is particularly important to mention in the article, just the general timeline.

Regarding whether he has previous videos, it seems likely he did. For instance, in this video (30 seconds in), he mentions:

Okay, we're going to get into some real deep H-Bomb lore here. But for the first... Decade? of my channel it was basically just a place where I posted whatever random videos I thought were funny, and Let's Plays and stuff like that. But I also used to do like a web series that was making fun of video blogs. It was just me with a camcorder messing about, it's silly. In that old video series I used to have a sequence where I would go to my bed to answer viewer emails.

I don't believe I have seen any previous videos in such a web series, which leads me to suspect many of his previous videos are no longer publically avaiable.

(But obviously if the article explicitly touches that, it kind of crosses into WP:OR) Retro (talk | contribs) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Content" section needs to be fixed in general. Exact titles and upload dates is minutia and not needed. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember what I based that on when I made the article, so it's pretty safe to change it. I don't see anyone else saying it MUST be 2008, and it doesn't make sense to me either, lol. Do whatever makes the most sense. Nihkee (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Change in residence (from England to Wales)

In his XOXO Festival 2019 speech uploaded yesterday (timestamp is 26:23 since Wikipedia does not allow direct links to YouTube?) he made a joke about how he had moved to Wales after the Mermaids stream. Is this a valid enough source to amend his 'Residence' in his infobox being in England? (You could always just change 'Residence' to United Kingdom too, I suppose.) MinishLAN (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Content

Given the amount of content he has produced relating to video game and media theory/reviews, I think it would be worthwhile adding some more information about this in the Content section of the article, specifically on the coining of the term "Play conditioning" since this has sparked several other game reviewers to expand on it and apply it to different games. It could even be worth making a short Wikipedia article on what play conditioning is. Sources 1 2 and 3 Andrew.d.peacock (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Is it fair to tag Nebula as an unreliable source for the claim?

So, clearly, Hbomberguy has some relationship to Nebula. Is it fair then to describe it as unreliable in that connection?--Phil of rel (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. It's a primary source, but it's reliable for simple statements of fact about it like who the founders were. However, the source doesn't actually verify the information in the article about Nebula and Hbomberguy, so we need a source that does. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just thinking of an alternative source where it listed his video on the soyboy diet, and thought it might be surmised to discuss him, but that probably violates another wikipedia rule because sources have to display more information than just the tangential info on the subject of an article. Thank you for helping me understand why it isn't a good source (for this subject).--Phil of rel (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a retrospective archive for twitter?

There should be some way of archiving twitter sources, but I don't know how to archive twitter sources after the subject has deleted said sources. Could another wiki-editor assist?--Phil of rel (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There's Wayback Machine, which archives all highly-visited pages on the internet, but no website that (purports to) archive Twitter only is likely to be reliable. If someone deletes a tweet, we should be very careful about how we use it, as it may be indicative that any information in the tweets was incorrect. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, Bilorv.--Phil of rel (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Origin of name HBomberguy

Is it worth, under the content subsection, explicitly referencing the inspiration for the hbomberguy name, that being the Bomberman videogame series rather than Arthur "Bomber" Harris who coordinated the bombing of Dresden, which seems to be a common misconception.

Harris Brewis did previously clarify this: https://twitter.com/hbomberguy/status/975340064208293889 however the curiouscat account which contained the statement has since been deactivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticky Wiky (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What would the source be for Brewis explaining this derivation of his name? — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Piped Linkage for Soy_Boy

A bit of an edit-reversion took place, so here's to avoiding an edit-war. The §Content line in question: (bold all for emphasis)

...allegations about the supposed feminising effect of soybean phytoestrogens...

I changed this to:

...allegations about the supposed feminising effect of soybean phytoestrogens...

@Alduin2000: citing WP:EASTEREGG, quickly changed it, and, not just reverting, but, probably accidentally, excluded any links in the given phrase:

...allegations about the supposed feminising effect of soybean phytoestrogens...

That is the background. Now, the phrase "supposed feminising effect of soybean phyoestrogens," although not featuring any explicit reference to soy boy,, I maintain, is inextricably relevant with soy_boy. For one, The name of Hbomberguy's video in question includes the phrase soy boy, and that's what it's about, it's not just some Easter-egg. For another, look at the last line of the header for soy_boy:

The term is based on the presence of phytoestrogen contained within soybeans, which have led some to conclude that soy products feminize men who consume them.

This conception perfectly matches the phrase appearing here in this acticle, so I don't see how it counts as WP:EASTEREGG. The concept of a soy boy is being described to a low-T. This link's inclusion does not add any information and context that would be missing from a print version, unlike the examples at WP:EASTEREGG for Thomas Bowdler and 1944 Bombay explosion.

Now still, if I am wrong on this issue, I see no reason this policy should be implemented such to exclude the original two linkings; if nothing else, those two heavily warrant consideration for reinclusion.

Well, that's all. I would love feedback; what do y'all think? Is Soy Boy WP:EASTEREGG?

Gratefully and Sincerely,

Akalendos (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Akalendos. I removed the link because it "[requires] the reader to open [it] (or, at least, to move their mouse pointer [to it]) before understanding where [it leads]" which is discouraged by WP:EASTEREGG. It also essentially includes a hidden reference to the topic of soy boys akin to the Thomas Bowdler example at EASTEREGG which excludes those reading a print version who will not see the reference to this topic. A link to soy boys might be useful, but in my opinion it should be incorporated explicitly into the article prose if that's to be the case. Also, thank you for pointing out that I removed the previous links - you're right, that was a mistake. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Akalendos. The article soy boy is about the "supposed feminising effect of soybean phytoestrogens". The reader, seeing that prose, should understand they're being taken to an article about that concept, not necessarily know that the article will be called "soy boy": otherwise piping links would not be possible. There is not really any useful information in the links soybean and phytoestrogens—which are, by the way, a violation of "sea of blue". — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's useful for readers for context to be explicitly presented in the prose of the article and for the location of links to be clear prior to being clicked on, so I think it's a bad idea for soy boy to be linked like this (which is a separate question to whether or not links to soybean or phytoestrogen are appropriate). But I don't feel that strongly if other editors disagree. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you think this works, Alduin2000 and Akalendos? I've tried to compromise by using the specific text "soy boy" to link, which is relevant; though not in the original source, it is in the title of the relevant video and not a controversial claim to make with the primary source of the video itself. It was too verbose a clause and still may be, but I'm not sure how to improve it further. — Bilorv (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Possible alternative is something like content creators who use the term soy boy to express the belief that soy makes men feminine or content creators who use the term soy boy in reference to the idea that soy makes men feminine but might be more OR-ey to draw an explicit connection without a source, not sure. I'm fine with the current version though. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Any of these are tolerable to me (passable, really). The sentence is so unstable from the beginning of this, that many of these proposals make the sentence unreadable; e.g. it ruins the parallel nouns in the sentence. All these have forced inclusions of soy boy which I find read unnaturally in the sentence.

I still don't think I see why soy boy should have to be in the prose as long as it isn't in violation of Wikipedia policies, including WP:EasterEgg, for which I think there's a worthwhile case made above. I've been trying to think of something better that could include the prose anyway, but nothing has come to mind yet, so, short of returning to what I originally proposed, I don't have much to add as is. Akalendos (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)