Talk:BreadTube

The list
I feel a bit bad for saying this, as most of the content I am going to propose removing/reducing relates to YouTubers who I have a lot of time for, but I do feel that the bulleted list is somewhat arbitrary and not in keeping with the way we usually handle lists. A lot of the people/channels listed are small and have no article either for the channel or the creator. For example Mia Mulder is on just under 30K subscribers (which is objectively a travesty of justice but is undeniably still a small channel). As an example of arbitrariness, why is Shaun included while (the very similar and equally good) Three Arrows is not?

So what should we do? Here is what I propose:
 * 1) Remove the bulleted entries for the channels where neither the channel nor the creator has an article
 * 2) Add a sentence underneath saying "Other creators commonly associated with BreadTube include..." where we list other channels, providing an RS reference explicitly associating them with BreadTube or LeftTube for each one.
 * 3) Shorten the other descriptions. Remove links to specific YouTube videos. People who want details can look at the linked articles.

Does that sound reasonable? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Except for the "travesty" bit: Mia Mulder isn't noteworthy at all, even a little bit.70.127.15.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is for the RSes to decide. If I can find RS for her as a prominent part of BreadTube then I'd be very happy to keep her on a non-bulleted list but I'm doubtful that this will be the case, at least not yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
I think we have a disagreement about what merits inclusion on the list. I'm going to have to insist that we don't fall into WP:OR here. The list needs to be verifiable. Here is what I propose as the eligibility criteria:

and (not or) and (not or)
 * The channel has an article or the channel's creator has an article. The linked article must make it clear that it is about a YouTube channel or a YouTuber and support this with RS references.
 * Either the linked article states that this part of BreadTube/LeftTube with an RS reference for that or we can find a RS reference that we can put on the list entry itself. (Key point here is that it has to be RS. Reddit and other non-RS sources are no good.)
 * It must be a fairly significant channel. Lesser channels can possibly be mentioned separately in prose after the list, so long as we have references.

I understand the desire to build the list up with our favourite channels but we can't let personal preference come into this. I have removed several channels from the list, even though I think those channels are great, because they were not sufficiently notable or not demonstrably part of the BreadTube phenomenon. I'd like to see similar restraint from all editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"gatekeepy" should be reworded
There is text: "calling it gatekeepy", which links to a site on "gatekeeper" that does not once have the string of characters "gatekeepy"in it. I'm fairly sure that "gatekeepy" is not a word, and in any event if one wants to use non-words due to their use in some cited media then an associated wiki link should fairly represent the content on the page that is linked. Suggest remove the sentence and citation, or clean it up so that the word in the link matches the content of the linked page a closely as possible. I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I well know what a gatekeeper is. But When I say the word "gatekeepy" and a link I assumed that the link would explain to me some unique meaning behind this non-word, and yet it did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:C100:647:551A:E920:D692:9290 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know what it means but that link would not be helpful for somebody who didn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gatekeepy is a word: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gatekeepy. Swiftestcat (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it is still likely that a fairly large proportion of readers will not understand it. I think we should reword it in a way that retains the meaning but is more likely to be correctly understood by all readers. If anybody wants to give this a try then please do. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Vaush
Saw that Vaush wasn't included b/c there's no "articles" about him

- https://thepostmillennial.com/vaush-kim-klacik-racist - https://globalnews.ca/news/6729355/britney-spears-comrade-britney-trend/ - https://junkee.com/elon-musk-grimes-baby-memes/252754 - https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/01/the-end-of-marianne-williamsons-campaign-is-a-real-shot-in-the-arm-for-vaccine-tweets.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9680:C750:613A:F162:F27F:D62A (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, because there is no Wikipedia article about him or his channel. We only want to put the very most notable channels on the bulleted list. At the minimum they must have an existing Wikipedia article and must have a reliable reference describing them as "BreadTube" or "LeftTube". --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Notable, or popular? Johann Stamitz isn't as notable as Mozart but his work was extremely important to the genre. Just because you don't have newspaper articles written about you does not necessarily mean you aren't notable. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a hidden list of BreadTubers in the page, and Vaush should probably be included there. As User:DanielRigal mentioned, there isn't a Wikipedia article about him (yet). SWinxy (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

He has spoken before about not seeing himself as a part of breadtube. He should be given his own article once he becomes more prominent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.150.197 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he's probably going to reach the level of significance soon that means he's worthy of an article, especially when he starts his PAC. Internet culture topics in general are often incredibly difficult to not fall into WP:OR for. He's one of the largest socialist streamers, especially if those that have 'shows' aren't included, so I do think he's going to reach the threshold soon, though I need to look more into Wikipedia's policies on it.  Inkybinky3  ( talk ) 13:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the people on the page have spoken about not seeing themselves as a part of Breadtube. I don't know of anyone who has said they see themselves as a part of Breadtube. Loki (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Caso queira traduzir fique a vontade. 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:56D4:910F:806A:1ABA (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Dr. Loo Talk to me 03:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Se for possível traduzir como pt:comunista de youtube eu agradeço. att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:FB50:8FAA:1930:AEFA (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Melhor traduzir pra pt:filósofo de youtube, é o q eu acho. 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:6E85:C8B2:25DC:2295 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Melhor traduzir pra pt:filosofia de youtube, é q acho q daria mais acesso. att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:F629:289:FAE2:A9DE (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Essa fonte é boa? e esta? att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:742:A2D1:BC71:13F4 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

achei fontes acadêmicas pra "filosofia de internet". 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:23D8:1445:595F:4597 (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of "educational lectures" in lead
I believe that the use of "educational lectures" in the lead to describe their videos is justified, since that most closely describes their style/content. Their videos being political doesn't diminish their educational value (it's hard to be non-political in the fields they're discussing), as opposed to PragerU, who don't even bother to do the most basic amount of fact-checking and whose videos (among other things) lack depth, rigor, and understanding of the topics they're discussing — making them more propaganda than anything else, and any comparison of BreadTube (as discussed in this article) and PragerU one of apples and oranges. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"who don't even bother to do the most basic amount of fact-checking and whose videos (among other things) lack depth, rigor, and understanding of the topics they're discussing — making them more propaganda than anything else" The exact same could be said of Breadtube. At the end of the day it's a bunch of random people explaining and promoting economic and social left wing viewpoints {It is very easy to be non-political in their fields, by not siding with one side or another which they clearly do as their videos are designed to challenge and counter viewpoints they disagree with not for example to explain concepts.} Arguing why something is bad and something is better is not educational it is an opinion, and as they aim to convince others of their arguments they are by definition propaganda. Until you can prove that these homemade youtube videos are reliable sources it would be disenguous to refer to them as educational. TheFinalMigration (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to be non-political in their fields, by not siding with one side or another which they clearly do as their videos are designed to challenge and counter viewpoints they disagree with not for example to explain concepts. — In many cases, doing exactly that (not siding with one side or another) would not be educational if it is simply false; my favourite example for this is the topic of climate change / climate denial, or the issue of institutional racism (and even if they counter the viewpoints/concepts they disagree with, they still have to explain them first, which is something you claim they don't do). See Golden mean fallacy.
 * [...] The exact same could be said of Breadtube. At the end of the day it's a bunch of random people explaining and promoting economic and social left wing viewpoints [...] Arguing why something is bad and something is better is not educational it is an opinion, and as they aim to convince others of their arguments they are by definition propaganda. — That's nothing short of a false equivalence. There exists a huge gap in quality/accuracy between PragerU-style videos and LeftTube videos. In fact, many LeftTube videos are dedicated to exposing the lies and inaccuracies of e.g., PragerU videos.
 * Until you can prove that these homemade youtube videos are reliable sources it would be disenguous to refer to them as educational. — What matters is how reliable sources describe their videos. Demanding that I prove their reliability is not only a Sisyphean thing to ask, it would also be original research, and therefore unusable on Wikipedia. See Moving the goalposts.
 * The use of "educational lectures" seems to stem from this source:
 * "BreadTube is the current best attempt at harnessing this momentum. BreadTube, named after 19th century anarcho-communist writer Peter Kropotkin and his book The Conquest of Bread, is an online ecosystem of leftwing content creators, primarily on YouTube, who produce video lectures that are both entertaining and educational."
 * This was published in the Guardian's Opinion section, and is the only source that uses the adjective "educational" to describe their videos directly. Most sources seem to refrain from general judgements, and only describe the style of specific creators. I could cite this source directly after "educational lectures" to back the claim, or add a note saying that at least one reliable source describes their videos as such. (As a side note, I would also like to add to the lead that they essentially create video essays, which can be easily backed up by reliable source; one of the mentioned creators — Hbomberguy — even received critical acclaim for one of them.) TucanHolmes  (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for educational content to be "politically neutral", nor is the term itself politically neutral (as according to many ideologies, there is no political neutrality). However, I'm not sure one Guardian source is enough, and I can't find more about BreadTube in general. No doubt some creators such as Philosophy Tube have "educational" as a defining characteristic, but this isn't enough. I don't support the term "educational lectures" at this point in time.
 * I'm not familiar with any sources about any BreadTube channels which do investigative, corroborative or fact-checking content to the point where we could make any claims about the level of research/accuracy in the videos, but this tripleC article mentions that some large BreadTubers "tell their audiences to look at the sources themselves".
 * The "video essays" descriptor seems a lot more uncontroversially true and I'm sure there are sources to support it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would favour replacing "educational lectures" with "video essays" entirely, if that is more widely supported by reliable sources (and still gives a good overview of their general style). TucanHolmes  (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've made this edit. I've no idea what "editorial opinions" is supposed to mean ("from __ perspectives" already establishes provenance; and YouTube isn't a newspaper), so I took it out. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Globalize tag
It looks like the sources are primarily US-based and these sources can give a more international perspective: https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/long-reads/breadtube-gamergate-twitch-online-politics-streamers-b1765156.html https://blog.zeit.de/teilchen/2020/01/13/youtube-influencer-linke-social-media/. However, AFAIK this is an English-language only movement, and the members are mostly in the US, so there is a limit to the possible globalization. Sjö (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about an English-language movement with most of its members in the US and Great Britain so naturally the focus will be on those countries. There are sources from countries other than the US, so I think the tag can be removed. Does anyone know about some aspect of BreadTube that needs more coverage before I remove the tag? Sjö (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above, I will remove the tag again unless someone points out what other aspects need to be covered, per WP:DRIVEBY and WP:DETAG. Sjö (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The move discussion below shows that the user who added the tag wants to 1) change the scope of the article and 2) include YouTubers without any sources connecting them to BreadTube. The consensus is against expanding the article. Including people without proper sourcing goes against WP:V. There is, as far as I know, no content that we can use to globalize the article. Sjö (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

BreadTube → Philosophy on YouTube or Revolution on YouTube or List of YouTube channels about philosophy or List of left-wing YouTubers – Globalize article 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:7064:1555:FEB0:90B9 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The sources call it Breadtube, with Lefttube as a byname. No sources call it Philosophy of Youtube. Sjö (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "BreadTube" is the WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed move would seem to entail a scope change. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not sure what "Philosophy of Youtube" would mean but it is certainly not this. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest speedy close for lack of rationale. I *think* the nom wants to expand the article to be about all creators of political content on YouTube, but there's no plan to do that, no reason why "Philosophy" would be the title, and I would still prefer "Philosophy on YouTube" then. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Literally every single reliable source refers to it as BreadTube. X-Editor (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:2DDF:94E4:C613:DC62 (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That article about pt:Henrique Cláudio de Lima Vaz has one instance of the phrase "Filosofia no Youtube" but it is not about any group of leftist Youtubers. That source does not support your claim and my statement still stands, that there are no sources that support the move. Sjö (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * + sources + sources + sources + sources... 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:E98E:660E:43D5:F2ED (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This subject seems to be unrelated to BreadTube. Of the four sources listed by the nom above, none seem to give any indication that there is any connection. The first source is a 503 Service Unavailable (for me at least). The second mentions "Ensino de Filosofia no YouTube" in a footnote once but I see no connection made to BreadTube or any of the YouTubers talked about on this page. The third source similarly talks about educational philosophy videos on YouTube with no connection to BreadTube or the BreadTubers on this page. The fourth source is the same. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the analysis of the sources is appears that none of them support the idea that BreadTube is better known by the proposed title.--65.92.245.188 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * pt:Jones Manoel, Maram Susli pt:Sabrina Fernandes, Nildo Ouriques, pt:Alysson Leandro Mascaro, felipe Neto, Pepe Escobar (here and here) ...2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:8424:DC1:7727:3F40 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you explained how those links are relevant to a discussion about what name Wikipedia should use for an informal group of left-wing youtubers. Or do you suggest we expand the scope of the article?Sjö (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * both. 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:891C:75AF:CCD6:B70E (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good, now we're talking. How are those links relevant to a discussion about what name Wikipedia should use for an informal group of left-wing youtubers? And what do you propose the new scope should be? Sjö (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * results comparative between of research of search. 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:891C:75AF:CCD6:B70E (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: BreadTube isn't just about philosophy, and even less so about "revolution". It is a category based mostly on an overlapping audience and community, so it's not really meant to include non-English-speaking YouTubers, unless sources characterise them as part of the BreadTube ecosystem. If you want some kind of List of YouTube channels about philosophy or List of left-wing YouTubers then that would be a different page. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pepe Escobar and Sabrina Fernandes talking in english too. 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:25B6:BAA1:366A:639E (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is meant to include all English-speaking Youtubers either, unless sources say that they belong to the Breadtube ecosystem. Sjö (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The proposed new name has changed during this discussion. It started as Philosophy of Youtube but it is as of now Philosophy on Youtube or Revolution on Youtube. There is so far a strong consensus to keep Breadtube, so it doesn't really matter. But I ask the editor who edits from Brazil to not change the template again. Changing the template is disruptive, because it makes it less clear what the other editors not-voted about. Sjö (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be the other way around? 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:D940:8DBC:F907:A10 (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. If somebody wanted to create an article about Philosophy on YouTube, it would not be this article, which covers the notable topic BreadTube. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Leaks
So is someone going to add the recent leaks proving that BredTubers are government funded propaganda? Or does the SuperPAC that pays the wikipedia mod, who watches this thread, not want that? 2001:871:237:55A6:1C8C:87AE:47CB:3C85 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The only source I can find discussing this is a single TheGrayZone article. It is considered a deprecated source by this site and is generally considered unreliable. I see no reason for the "leaks" to be added to the article if the only source is from an unreliable origin. --TwiliAlchemist (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * And TheGrayZone article itself is citing other sources.So yeah. I am sure some active wikipedia moderaters will have high interest into looking for sources. There is no real source for the "any BreadTube content creators are funded through crowdfunding, and the channels often serve as introductions to left-wing politics for young viewers" sentence either btw. The cited unreliable source does not claim that.212.95.5.223 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * TheGrayZone is still not a reliable source according to Wikipedia editing guidelines. Whether or not they cite sources, it still isn't a reliable source to cite. Upon reading the article itself, the sources they're citing either barely have anything to do with their topic, have large leaps in logic between what they might be citing, or they are citing themselves. Regardless on what the current citation in the article is, it is not what is under discussion. TheGrayZone is not a reliable source for this site and should not be cited in this article regarding the "leaks" and the "leaks" themselves are not referenced in any other reliable sources. --TwiliAlchemist (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited unreliable source does not claim that.
 * That sentence is currently sourced to a textbook published by a reputable publisher (i.e. a reliable source). The relevant quotes from the textbook are "Breadtube is a community of YouTube vloggers creating and disseminating critical content that takes on artistic and popular formats that is appealing to a young audience" and "Many breadtubers do not accept advertising and sponsorship income but ask their followers to support them with monthly donations on platforms such as Patreon. Not being dependent on advertisers' investments, Breadtubers have more freedom to be critical and advance critical content. Breadtube videos are anchor points that provide links to socialist works and debates that allow users to engage more deeply with leftist ideas." Alduin2000 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Have requested protection for the article as article is now clearly being targeted by vandals and trolls in the wake of the smear piece referenced here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm amazed to see people still pushing such completely obvious nonsense despite it getting no traction on any sensible platforms at all. It is clear that this emanates primarily from the far-right and I'm pretty sure that most of the people pushing it know this and are absolutely fine with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * And now it looks like we may need to semi-protect this talk page... --DanielRigal (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Deny, deny, and deny again—there's no need to engage. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Destiny left wing?
Sorry, this guy is a self described capitalist, definitely not on the left left, if you get what I mean, he should be considered a moderate leftist or even a centrist leaning to the left — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:2F69:9563:268A:1FF4:6D05 (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Independent described Destiny in 2021 as "an early Breadtuber named Destiny". Wikipedia is not based on our own opinions, but that of reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources saying that Destiny is no longer a Breadtuber, then that's another matter, but there are two good sources for the fact as present (whatever you or I may think of this person). — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That the Independent is a reliable source IS an opinion. I know that Wikipedia editors shouldn't do their own research, but if we find videos where Destiny vouches for capitalism, we should be able to rip them, post them to the Internet Archive, and cite those as sources too. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias
This article seems like an endorsement to them, Which is clearly against WP:NPOV, So the article should be rewritten to portray both sides fairly. 209.97.89.182 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand it you object to the phrase "Whereas right-wing creators' videos are often antagonistic towards their political opponents...". This seems factual and sourced to me, and it is also germane since it is mentioned in contrast to the style used by most BreadTubers. I don't see this as an endorsement or any violation of the NPOV position.Sjö (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot just rewrite content so it reads to you as if it were neutral. Each sentence should summarise a reliable source and you should not write something that is not said in the references cited at the end of the relevant text. If reliable sources are mostly positive towards a topic then the article will be mostly positive. If they are mostly negative then the article will be. If they are balanced equally then the article will be balanced equally. In either case, however, we are not "endorsing" anything in Wikipedia's voice. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To dredge this thread back up from the depths, I do think this article does need some rewriting due to what I perceive as unintentional bias due to over reliance on a single source. Many descriptions of the typical format of BreadTube videos, come from source number 7, YouTube as Praxis? On BreadTube and the Digital Propagation of Socialist Thought. This article focuses on four specific BreadTube creators and their content. I have a problem with how the Wikipedia article extrapolates what are arguments specific to these four creators and applies them to BreadTube and the YouTube politics/commentary scene as a whole. Many points, specifically under the "Format" heading, are based on the analysis of few creators but are used to represent the genre as a whole. For example, the sentence "Whereas right-wing... ...employing subversion, humor, and "seduction". cites sources 7 and 16. Both sources are based primarily on arguments made about the channel Contrapoints, with source 7 focusing on one of her videos and source 16 being an article by The Verge about her. My issue is that the sentence and section as a whole projects the actions of a small number of creators to represent the entire genre, not properly using the source. In summary, we need to either find sources that clearly support the statements that are currently supported by source 7 and 16, properly clarify that these points only apply to around four channels in the genre, or remove/rewrite the section entirely. MiiMe19 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well the reason I'm saying this, is because "whereas right wing creators are often antagonistic to their opponents, Breadtubers seek to understand their political opponents" Has "OFTEN" only on the right wing part,If we were trying to be anti biased here then the part about breadtubers should have often in it as well, So that it doesn't paint a biased picture like it did before.≈≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.89.182 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "the community host[ing] a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from Social Democratic to Maoist" is a "a case study in deradicalisation." lolwut. Maoists are not radical? 124.170.122.108 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is nowhere in the article that connection is made. You are presenting a strawman. Sjö (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that we do not call BreadTube "a case study in deradicalisation". We quote that it is, according to The Conversation, "increasingly referenced in media and academia as a case study in deradicalisation" (emphasis mine), which is verifiably true according to the reference presented and attributed in prose.It is not clear what text you are proposing be added or removed (nor why you wouldn't just make those changes yourself), but take care to consider avoidance of synthesis. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Left Wing
I noticed that the article only says that breadtubers are left wing and composed of social democrats, anarchists, communists etc.. It even later mentions some being maoist. Isnt communism and maoism considered far left? If It mentions far right youtubers,then this article should say that Breadtubers are left to far left youtubers since as said above, some consist of Communists,maoists,anarcho-socialist etc... otherwise it might look a bit bias. 173.172.16.197 (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Left wing" already includes the whole lot. I can't see where any appearance of bias might arise. DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont understand. Then why use far right when right wing also includes the aforementioned group? It doesnt hurt to be specific does it? Anything to clear up confusion, since this article already seems to have a topic about bias, which I dont think is the case. I dont know, you guys are more experienced at this than me, I was just curious about when a broad usage of whatever political wing is appropriate versus being specific and saying that it's center-left,far-left, center right, far-right etc.. When writing about this stuff. If you could educate me on that I'd be thankful. I just don't want to use it wrong, say for example I call the proud boys right wing, and then someone gets the wrong impression and thinks I'm being disingenuous for not calling them far-right. Know what I mean? 173.172.16.197 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. I get it now. You are just playing games. Please stop. We are not here for your amusement. If you have a point to make about some other article then you need to make that point on the Talk page for that other article. Nothing you have said has anything to do with Breadtube or this article and hence it is off-topic here. DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you mark off that attack. You dont know they're intention of "playing games" and are being overly defensive. This article itself mentions communists and maoists. That is far left. Period. You only credit the claims of bias. 2603:8080:AC00:CA6:3E52:3EEA:9483:243B (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Using "left" instead of "far-left" creates bias because it gives the false impression that their ideologies/ideas are substantially more moderate than they are.
 * I think you've been unfair (and suspiciously defensive) to the other commenter - he is quite right to use the example of right-wing vs far-right to highlight the need to distinguish. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources are you proposing be added to the article to verify the statement "BreadTube is far-left"? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a Guardian article describing BreadTube as Marxist, 'radical left', and as being named after anarcho-communist philosopher Peter Kropotkin: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/12/marxist-memes-tiktok-teens-radical-left 194.80.168.100 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Headlines, not generally written by journalists, are not reliable for fact and doesn't refer specifically to BreadTube as "Marxist". BreadTube is described as "harnessing ... momentum" related to left and "previously radical" ideas. The phrase "radical left" is not used to describe it. Moreover, this is a comment piece, so not particularly good for fact; we'd have to cite it as "Joshua Citarella of The Guardian stated that ..." if it had a usable description. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Cornbread tube
This article should be updated to include the term cornbreadtube as the growing moniker for Black breadtube creators 2600:4040:7AA1:7800:819D:8844:B2E6:52AE (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When you've found a reliable source that defines the term, you can update this yourself without anyone else's permission. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything in Google News for it. It's a clever term but I'd be surprised if it gets any RS coverage. DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

At least mention the far left side of "Breadtube"
It's like the article doesn't mention the actual bread part of the breadtube. Where are the anarcho-communist youtubers? UlyssesYYZ (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * which YouTubers are you thinking of and what secondary sources (like newspaper articles) characterise them as part of "BreadTube"? The origin of the term from anarcho-communist literature (The Conquest of Bread) is mentioned because The New York Times and The New Republic commented on it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thought Slime, NonCompete, etc. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there are any sources that mention them but they are basically where the "bread" part of the breadtube is supposed to lead (personal thoughts on both those youtubers aside, considering many find those two annoying). UlyssesYYZ (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a limited scope. We only mention facts from other secondary sources. This helps us revert frequent vandalism/misinformation as well as avoiding promotion/advertising (e.g. from a hypothetical small YouTuber with 1,000 followers arguing they warrant mention in the BreadTube article). Other websites might aim to provide more comprehensive lists of BreadTube creators. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting a speedy renaming
Hello,

If you want "BreadTube" to redirect here, fine, but "List of left-wing YouTubers by political stance" is a more objective title than a buzzword that the mainstream media uses to describe it. Channels like BadMouse and Balkan Oddysey are small out of context, but as communists with hundreds of thousands of subscribers they are significant as part of the broader group. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, this article should not be called "List of..." anything because it is not a stand-alone list. Second, Wikipedia prefers the "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" per WP:COMMONNAME. If the mainstream media uses Breadtube, that is the name Wikipedia should use unless there are very good reasons for another name. Sjö (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That very good reason is that the word is undescriptive. As other people have pointed out, Vaush rejects the category while Destiny might be capitalist and not left-wing at all. Whether a YouTuber is a notable communist, anarchist etc. is a better question than who their contemporaries lump them in with.
 * If we start calling them part of TotalitarianismTube or AntifaTube, Wikipedia shouldn't call them that either because those words aren't accurate. That's why I want us to replace this article with a list of left-wing YouTubers sorted by category. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We categorise things as secondary sources do, not based on our own opinions or based on figures' descriptions of themselves. You need very good sources to describe someone as, say, a communist.BreadTube is a cluster of properties: left-wing, politics/philosophy/media analysis, video essays, lengthy, made by one individual, theatrical/cinematographic etc. Most BreadTube creators don't fall into all of these categories but into most of them. As you note, not all BreadTubers are necessary left-wing. The connection is primarily overlap in fanbase (also connections like cameos/voice roles in each others' videos). — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Biased/Loaded Language
In the second two of the first three paragraphs designed to quickly define the term for readers, the article focuses on a loaded selection and presentation of information: accused of hijacking, infighting, and invading spaces to get at young viewers. This is bad phrasing and isn't a vital part of the definition 'BreadTube' (based on what I have now read from the sources). This section could more accurately be quoted/paraphrased from:

"The name 'BreadTube' emerged organically online as a more comedic alternative to the name 'LeftTube'. [13] BreadTube has no strict definition, but can be categorized as a core group of academically minded YouTubers that produce high-concept material with high production values. [24] The movement was spawned by a few groundbreaking stars—two of the most prominent being pop-culture critic Lindsay Ellis and philosopher-entertainer Natalie Wynn in the mid-2010s in response to uncontested alt-right racist and sexist propaganda and conspiracy theories online. [11] Since then an identity has coalesced around a shared interest in spreading leftist ideology and opposing the propagation of far-right ideology online. [13] Breadtubers often focus on the same topics discussed by content creators with right-wing politics, putting their videos into the same spaces as those targeted by right-wing or far-right videos. [8]"

Source: 24. Sylvia, JJ; and Moody, Kyle. "BreadTube Rising: How Modern Creators Use Cultural Formats to Spread Countercultural Ideology." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 24.1 (2022): 

This would better define the term, origin, meaning, and evolution. If you feel the need then to include something about infighting due to diverse, contradictory views of those who identify themselves as 'BreadTube' that would be better included under 'Reception' since it isn't really part of the definition. 108.183.107.24 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not edit the article yourself to improve this? Discussion is only needed if somebody sees the changes and disagrees. From your comment here I cannot tell if I would agree or disagree with what you propose. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly because I haven't before and am not familiar with the markup. I will read up when I can and give it a go. Thanks. 108.183.107.24 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Where in hbomb video does he mention breadtube
Near the end it mentions hbomberguy's Plagiarism and You(tube) but in that video I couldn't find a single reference to Breadtube (or even "Bread"), Lefttube, or discomfort with channel labels at all. Should this be removed? Does someone have a citation with a timestamp? 2603:7000:6440:BC4E:6771:173A:36F7:11B1 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he does mention it but it's not so simple as him "rejecting the label", more joking about waking up to be told that he's in BreadTube and people hate him because of it. A four-hour video definitely needs a timestamp to be a usable source. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just came here from the hbomberguy video Plagiarism and You(tube). He says this at 1:35:30:
 * (Talking about people copying the lighting style of another Youtuber) "This is a whole style of video now. By style, I mean one person did it first and then a bunch of boring people ripped her off. Stealing from lots of places is inspiration, but stealing from one place is plagiarism, unless you call it the BreadTube style, and then its fine. I don't even know what a BreadTube is. I just woke up one day and was told that I was in it and that people hated me for being in it. I don't even know what it is! Anyway - " Then he continues his discussion of the topic. 66.169.124.34 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Reword the article: bias is evident
The article makes polarising and demonstrably false claims, most notably that the left are opposed to liberty and that some left leaning popular youtubers can be classified as maoists is no different to claiming that someone like Sargon of Akhad is a Hitlerite or Nazi. 193.61.243.93 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read the source that says BreadTubers typically oppose liberalism (which is a right-wing ideology) and some are Maoists? It is not the case that most BreadTubers are Maoist but the ones who call themselves Maoists and read and summarise Mao's writing in their videos are. (Whereas Sargon of Akkad isn't, to my knowledge, making videos on Mein Kampf.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

HBomberGuy
In the notable figures category Harry Brewis should be within the people who reject the "breadtube" label since he's listed as an "important" figure, he rejected it in his video "plagarism and (you)tube". 5.13.22.255 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See . — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)