Talk:Destiny (streamer)

Request for edits to semi-protected article, 15 August 2023
At this page and at the main article, I request that those maintaining its protected status take the following actions:
 * At this page:


 * In reply to this edit, please introduce the standard request and response markup, so that request section headers are standardised, and response boxes begin appearing. Justification: This results in clear demarcation of request-reply content from other Talk page engagements, allowing efficient scanning for the decisions/statuses of mediated edits. Note, this markup and formatting is in keeping with WP's modus operandi for requests made at this type of protected Talk page.
 * At the article page:


 * 1, Regarding citation "33. Breland, Ali...". Combine this with the earlier appearance of this citation. (It is a duplicate citation.) Justification: It is standard WP citation practice to present sources once, and use the  or other markup, to avoid padding reflists with repeat references.
 * 2, Regarding the sentence,
 * "Bonnell and Göransson married in December 2021." which cites "32. Göransson, Melina. .I am married!'. Twitter. Archived from the original on December 27, 2021. Retrieved January 1, 2022."
 * Supplement this citation with a further citation, or add the inline tag, following this sentence and citation. Justification: This source does not fully support the sentence to which it was attached, by any standard of scholarly citation. (The source presents one brief sentence—"I am married!"—which, although dated, does not speak to actual aspects of sentence content, including both whom she married, and the official date of the ceremony/filing—versus when she chose to disclose the outcome of the ceremony/filing, as these dates are not necessarily coincident.) It is WP:OR on the part of editors (and subsequently, readers), to engage in any significant research or intellectual reasoning to surmise a presented fact; a source is needed that states and thus actually supports this sentence.


 * 2, Regarding the sentence,
 * "Bonnell is openly bisexual and currently in an open marriage with Swedish streamer Melina Göransson.", citing references "[6][30][31]".
 * Check this sentence against source [6] (an independent, third-party publication), and if the sentence is not fully supported, add the inline tag to any part of the sentence that is not supported. That is, restrict sources [30] and [31] to playing a supplementary role. Justification. See WP:RSSELF and the following request's justification.


 * 3, Regarding the source presentation overall. The preceding irregularities (and the preceding citation checking that revealed the issues) suggest that the overall approach to the citing of sources applied at the Destiny article require review. In particular, it may be by clustering sources at ends of sentences or paragraphs, we have created the impression that WP:VERIFY is satisfied in specific cases where it is not (i.e., creating the impression, "Surely, if 3 sources appear, the content of each part of the sentence must be supported.", when content is actually not fully supported). At the same time, clustering sources has, alongside the article's semi-protection, practically reduced actual verification activities. (Any time an activity is made more onerous/less efficient, we've observed participation in the activity to drop, and this is common sensical.) In particular, in the review, I request:
 * (a) checking each sentence supported by a single citation for the correspondence of the information presented to that source;
 * (b) ensuring that social media sources are used in accord with the WP:RSSELF guidelines (i.e., only filling supplementary, rather than sole-source roles), but also
 * (c) that when clusters of citations are used in support of sentence/paragraph coverage, the sentence/paragraph should be checked for full content coverage and proper use of self-disclosed information (as was asked in Request 2 above, regarding personal disclosures by the subject himself, and Ms Göransson).
 * Justification: As with Request 2 above, the aim is to comply with the WP:VERIFY policy, and the WP:RELIABLE guideline, WP:RSSELF in particular.

[a former logging editor, and professor] 2601:246:C200:2895:B1C7:439B:91B:9A58 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For the first section, since you created this section, and seem to know your way around Wiki formatting and jargon, you are also capable of adding the appropriate templates yourself.
 * For the second section, I have consolidated the duplicate refs mentioned at point #1. For (the first) #2, a better source would be nice, but I don't consider this worth a template, and I don't particularly want to encourage inexperienced editors to start poking around WP:BLPPRIMARY sources to find a replacement. This isn't contested, it's public knowledge, and it's not an extraordinary or promotional claim. If others want a template for it, sure, go for it.
 * For the rest, your requests are detailed, but they are far too broad in scope, since you are also capable of checking each reference yourself. If you have a specific suggestion, make it. Any extended confirmed editor can edit this page, so as a courtesy to other volunteer editors, please be succinct. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the rest, your requests are detailed, but they are far too broad in scope, since you are also capable of checking each reference yourself. If you have a specific suggestion, make it. Any extended confirmed editor can edit this page, so as a courtesy to other volunteer editors, please be succinct. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Differ. These tools are not as readily available to me as they are to you, and so it is far more efficient to allow the one with the tool-belt to reach for what is needed (than the participant sans tool-belt). So this is untrue, or I would have done so—having taken the long time to try attempt to explain and persuade regarding requested edits. Besides, the responsibility for properly setting up a protected page for continued improvement lies with those restricting access (i.e., to provide proper tools for requesting changes). 2601:246:C200:2895:B1C7:439B:91B:9A58 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am glad the effort resulted in one improvement, even if it is the least important with regard to safe-guarding less experienced readers. 2601:246:C200:2895:B1C7:439B:91B:9A58 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, you opt to submit to a motivation for control over other editors, perceiving them less able than yourself—"I don't particularly want to encourage inexperienced editors"—rather than place a simple inline tag that would invite all editors, including those with deep experience, to find better sources. Incredible. Your reply suggests, "it's good enough for me, so it is good enough," which is contrary to WP principles.
 * Again, per the earlier justification for Requests 2 and 3, this is a matter of over-reliance on Twitter and other non-independent, non-third-party, self-published information sources, contrary to the letter and spirit of WP:RSSELF. I conclude your individual decision is to allow this article's sourcing to remain to your personal standard, in departure from BLP principles—that "any material challenged... must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source", WP:BLP, and that content must comply with points 2 and 5 of WP:BLPSELFPUB—which it does not, as any description of a relationship references a third-party, making claims for them unsupported by independent citation (what I asked for), and does so based primarily if not entirely on poor sources. So, this Request 2 for the improvement remains, until others can weigh in on this analysis of the status quo, in light of WP principles and guidelines.2601:246:C200:2895:B1C7:439B:91B:9A58 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At least, in not being succinct in the justifications for my requests, I can be quite certain (i) that this article would evolve in directions more in accord with WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, etc., were it not held in protection by a sub-group of editors at WP (since the very sort of edits requested here are done, routinely, every day, at other articles that are unrestricted, and are edits that stand broad scrutiny over time, and (b) that I cannot have done more to persuade someone either too busy (or unpersuadable), to see the value in moving away from self-publications as sources, and to begin do standard, value-adding edits in accord with WP policies. 2601:246:C200:2895:B1C7:439B:91B:9A58 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will look in from time to time to see if the article remains under protection/control. 'Til then, it's all yours to source as you see fit. (No one I know here would, one by one, propose citation issue corrections here, when the perspective underlying the response to Request 2 came back as it did.) 2601:246:C200:2895:B1C7:439B:91B:9A58 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please do not break up other people's comments to insert your own. Per WP:TPG, new comments should go below old ones. My response was a single comment, with a single signature, and was intended to be read that way. You may, when it's not too confusing, add comments inbetween separate comments, as long as indenting makes it clear who you are responding to and your edits do not remove of obfuscate signatures. This was not such a case. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation, and should be understandable to other readers. Adding your owm comments in the middle of mine removes my signature and makes an already lengthy discussion extremely hard to follow for any new editors.
 * As a courtesy, I have moved your comments to the end of the discussion, becasue the alternative would be to revert it completely.
 * Again, this talk page is a record of the conversation among editors who share a common goal. Casting aspersions over other editors won't get you very far.
 * Regarding the 'better source' template, this is a volunteer project, and I chose not to make that edit. If another extended confirmed editor choses to, so be it.
 * If you wish to make specific, actionable proposals, do so. If you wish to propose new sources, do so. The way to fix the article isn't to use many words to point out the obvious problems, it is instead to propose actionable ways to fix that problem. In this case, the simples way to do that is to propose new sources. Your effort would be better spent doing this work rather than typing out 8k of vague suggestions and wiki-jargon. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Add part saying he moved to kick
Specifically something like:

On June 27, 2023, Bonell announced a non-exclusive 12-month partnership with Kick for an undisclosed 7-figure amount.

Source: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/kick-signs-destiny-under-new-7-figure-contract-with-two-big-conditions-2192169/ Max BuddyRoo (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Athiesm/views on Islam
I feel there should be more mentions of his atheism and his criticism of Islam. He has recently called himself Islamophobic, and has received many death threats. 2600:1005:B0A9:5780:4C98:4BDE:1744:8E04 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal life
He mentioned it a few times, but here is one Timestamp where he mentions the divorce is filed. Also he was married before, but not to his sons mother. (Which might not be relevant to the article) so maybe just shorten the sentence to "He has a son." --176.198.151.226 (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Another canvassing effort
The "Political views and activism" section has some info about previous canvassing operations - another one is taking place now: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/your-local-election-hq/why-a-high-profile-youtuber-and-stream-team-is-coming-to-ohio/ Shakuran13 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Instagram information
The URL in the "Instagram information" box doesn't lead to any page because there's an @ before the username. That's required in TikTok links, but not in Instagram ones. It should be fixed to

Additionally, his username is misspelled and appears written as "destinty". 5.90.151.35 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I have since fixed the Instagram information. JooneBug37 (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
This page should be added to the "American Zionists" category. MikePenceSon (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide reputable sources or establish consensus, preferably both, before reopening this request. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
Change: Bonnell was scheduled to debate Norman Finkelstein on the matter, but it was postponed.

To: In March 2024, Bonnell teamed up with Benny Morris to participate in a 2v2 debate against Norman Finkelstein and M. Rabbani on the matter. Wez46 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Destiny should be added to the categories of "American anti-fascists" and "American anti-communists."
That is all. NesserWiki (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure. Do you have a source for both claims? FortunateSons (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments/views on Islam?
Over the past year, Bonell has received death threats for his comments on Islam and Muhhamed. He has also refered to himself as "Islamophobic" on one occasion. Is this worth mentioning? 2601:CF:4500:5470:B7F7:B273:5595:F491 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Do any reliable sources mention this? Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Laughed at innocent man being murdered
Why was the update that Destiny laughed at an innocent man that was killed during the attempted assignation of President Trump removed. This is relevant information to Dentiny’s character or lack there of. 2600:1700:70E0:B9F0:71B9:17EB:AE75:8FB8 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A reliable source will be needed before the article can cover this subject, especially since it is a biography of a living person.
 * So far, it does not appear that any reliable sources have covered the issue yet—potentially we could do some WP:ABOUTSELF coverage from Destiny’s own posts, but there would need to be consensus on how much weight the issue deserves. Zylostr (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is destiny himself not a reliable source? 2600:8800:2F02:400:371C:CF79:65C3:B848 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He'd be reliable for if he said it, but not if it matters. Secondary sources are necessary to demonstrate it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Destiny is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia profile. His own words should be enough demonstration that it’s noteworthy. In his opening he is considered a political commentator. Where is a secondary source confirming that he is a political commentator and that it’s noteworthy for his account. WhowinsIwins (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: it appears that a Pakistani WP:NEWSORG, The Express Tribune, has picked up the story, but the article seems to be of low quality, containing errors like claiming that the firefighter who was killed was "shot in the ear". I'm not sure that it's of good enough quality for BLP purposes, although it could potentially lend due weight to Destiny's primary source statements.Zylostr (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Renouncing progressivism.
Destiny has since renounced Progressivism, and now considers himself just a "Centre Left Liberal". Should probably be added. 2601:CF:4500:5470:30F:998F:355B:617B (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)