Talk:Quinton Kyle Hoover

BLP status

Okay, well, I forgot about the character limit and Twinkle cut off my edit summary. Anyway. My opinion on the recent edits:

The topic of this article is Hoover himself, that's how it was initially written, and it only makes sense to write it that way and categorize it as his biography page since this is the only page about Hoover or his work, and it makes sense to scope the page accordingly so that if any more sources about him emerge, then they can be included. This is similar to the approach used already for many other similar YouTuber pages: see ContraPoints, Innuendo Studios (and particularly its deletion discussion whose consensus resulted in the page's current state) and Hbomberguy, videogamedunkey, etc. These pages are all indisputably about the people running these channels, and not the channels themselves, and are only named after their channels because that is more likely to be how people will search for them, and the people themselves are often colloquially referred to that way. (Per WP:COMMONNAME)

The words that Hoover said about his own work are things which he was repeatedly quoted as saying in reliable sources, so I think that's pretty self-explanatory, that's what the sources said, those should be allowed to stay since they're persistently in the sources. We could downplay them, perhaps, but not remove them entirely. Personally, I think the paraphrasing of his opinion about his work was already completely within WP:DUE as it accurately reflected how he is portrayed.

Additionally, I believe the tweet sources are completely within acceptable bounds as well: while WP:ABOUTSELF (as I interpret it) does not give us free license to write in anything that the subject said at some point irrespective of how much coverage it's gotten, it's completely appropriate for us to use those tweets as evidence of very basic claims such as his birthplace and birth date, which is all that was being done. Which is why when citing that tweet where he said he was born in Kentucky, I did not opt to include the political opinion stated within that tweet.

Anyway, that's about that, that's just my opinion. I will have another pass over the article just to be sure that all the sources are actually useful; I understand the objection about some of them being trivial mentions, and I don't particularly object to removing those. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose we could remove the tweet about him getting his play button; it's not like that's super important to have. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I did see that WP:BLPPRIVACY was cited as a reason for removing the tweets. I'd like to direct attention, however, to the paragraph at the bottom of that policy section which says:

"A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it."

As I understand it, BLPPRIVACY is intended to encompass things like court documents or government records or such that would breach the subject's privacy and potentially dox them, but these are tweets that Hoover made himself on his public Twitter, which, while not verified (that doesn't mean a lot on Twitter lately, heh), is persistently linked from his YouTube channel in his "about" page and the descriptions of his videos. There's no reason not to believe that Hoover himself made these tweets. I'm pretty certain it's therefore fine to include them. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I made some more small edits to downplay some of Hoover's own words- I think since the fact he thought it was funny to make the iCarly videos so long is mentioned in multiple sources, I feel it should probably stay, but everything else he said I'm willing to admit as trivial, and I've no objection to removing it.

Even if the ultimate decision here is to make the article say "Quinton Reviews is a YouTube channel run by... [etc]" I still think it's pretty important to categorize this as a BLP, because it's unavoidably going to have Hoover himself as at least a secondary focus and that warrants the article being watched for BLP issues. There are plenty of untoward things being said about Hoover by fringe groups online, of whom this article could easily become a target. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 Fwiw, even if this article should be moved back to Quinton Reviews, WP:BLP applies per "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: WP:BLP obviously should apply to articles about living people no matter what. But after recently looking through the history, I find that some of the removals of information are a bit egregious, mainly because they follow an overly strict interpretation of the policy to the point where it somehow even manages to contradict policies rooted in community consensus. Per WP:SPS, I already know that self-published sources should not be used for claims about living people under any circumstances - such as if a fan of Quinton "claimed" on Twitter that his birthday is on a specific day or some YouTube video made an expose on somebody's age.

However, as you mentioned BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, WP:ABOUTSELF specifically states that SPSs may be used so long as they originate directly from the topic of the article about the topic of the article. Heck, the WP:BLPPRIVACY policy you cited had that note at the bottom linking to a discussion that conceded tweets from a subject about their own birthday falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Seeing as how that tweet is directly from Quinton himself, using that tweet should ostensibly pass through accepted policy and community consensus. Despite this, for whatever reason Bonadea still took it upon herself to remove the tweet verifying his birthday, among other primary sources from him and about himself. Although some of those sources were fairly removed, I don't entirely agree with her invoking of the policy.

I don't want to insult her decisions because I get that as an administrator it is her task to make sure all articles adhere to a certain standard, especially BLPs. I would've thanked her for her copy edits here had they been separate from her removal of the WP:ABOUTSELF comment. But not all admins are infallible. In citing WP:BLPPRIVACY, she seemed to ignore that exception already pointed out in the policy. Yes, Wikipedia requires coverage from secondary sources for all topics. However, not ALL claims necessarily need a secondary source - only material that is likely to be challenged or exceptional claims that require exceptional sourcing. WP:PRIMARYCARE allows use of primary sources in certain contexts, and Quinton's tweets about himself fall in line with "An article about a person." Although an article should never be based solely or majorly on primary sources, having one or two used for basic claims doesn't drastically decline the quality of the article when it's surrounded by a multitude of notability-proving sources that do the heavy lifting.

Also, fitting that I posted this on the day of Quinton's birthday (in PST at least). PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

a) I am not an admin. b) {{them}} is a handy template. c) Birth dates may potentially be sourced to a verified Twitter account, but if no independent and secondary source has bothered to mention it, why would an encyclopedia? Anyway, I would agree that the article is primarily about the YT channel; all independent sources focus on the channel and the person who uploads it does not appear to be notable in himself. But since my attempt to change the article from a biography to an article about the channel were reverted, the only alternative was to move it to the individual's name. (WP:BLP obviously applies everywhere, not only in biographies, but in an article about online content there would be no expectation to find a date of birth.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)