Talk:H3h3Productions/Archive 1

Untitled
Where is the source for the h3h3productions? I didn't find anything about their partnership with "Freedom!"


 * There are a few sources that I found about them partnering with "Freedom!":
 * Their Social Blade page
 * Although they didn't state it directly, they told a Reddit user some advice for him about contacting them.
 * Pateca (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.204.118.226 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Mungus
The fact that the channel interviewed the person involved does not make it a controversy surrounding h3h3. This doesn't qualify to be in the Controversy section of the article, unlike the legal issues. If it's really wanted, it could belong in a 'Notable guests' section or something, but as it stands it does not really make any sense. It would qualify if they got into legal issues or were denounced by people of significance or a large number of viewers. If this is the case then sources should be added, but otherwise the above stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdClose (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved it from Controversies to Channel.&mdash; JJBers (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hilas mothers descendants?
Is there a viable source within the same video (of which Hila said that her father is from Libya) that says that her mother is of Turkish Jewish descent (or Bolivian Jewish descent previously)? This seems to be shuffling all over the place and it is being heavily inconsistent. --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Former attorneys or current attorneys?
The quote in question that an IP user and I have been having an edit war over in regards to whether Ethan was referring to Morrison & Lee or their new attorneys goes something along the lines of: "...Well, let me just start by saying we had to switch attorneys. It was not working out with our previous attorneys. And we got the first month, the first month, this is one months work, here, this was the bill we got..." (at the 1:57 mark of the source video, We're Still Being Sued) I would generally believe that he was referring to Morrison & Lee, not his current attorneys, mainly because he was talking about the costs of Morrison & Lee in that situation and why they dropped the law firm as representatives, rather than the new law firm. Further in the video, he also talked about the services they DID, implying they are not doing services with Ethan and Hila anymore (At the 2:19 mark). Based on the grammar, I think the law firm was Ethan talking about was Morrison & Lee and my edit on their former attorneys should stay up. --PootisHeavy (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking this to the discussion section and hopefully ending the edit war constructively. The lawyer switch occurred beginning of November 2016. The receipt that was shown at the 1:57 mark in the source video was from December 2016, as you can see more clearly in h3h3's twitter post: https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/825438104379023361 . Since therefore this is without doubt the December invoice and Ethan said in the video this was the bill of "the first month", it can only be the invoice of the first month from the new attorneys. Therefore nothing in this video indicates that the lawyer switch was due to cost, in fact it happend despite the new lawyers being expensive. --80.108.8.19 (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Proof that the lawyer switch happened in November: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUahTUQ4WMw&feature=youtu.be&t=449 (video citing the court filing) 80.108.8.19 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since 66.87.68.148 concurs and has already edited the article, I have removed the disputed tag. 80.108.8.19 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Guests section/paragraph proposal
I propose the following text for a Guests section or possibly simply a paragraph under the YouTube Career section - the former being recently blanked due to possibly promotional text. This includes an alternative version of the "Podcast" paragraph from the "YouTube Career" section, also recently removed for the same reason. Rationale is below. Any suggestions are appreciated.

In 2016, the couple made a series of videos with Rudy Pantoja Jr., a man involved in a controversy with activist Zarna Joshi. A crowdfunding effort initiated by the couple to help Pantoja pay for his medical bills raised over USD 150,000. Rudy would later announce his candidacy for the City Council of Seattle.

On December 20, 2016, h3h3Productions started a podcast, titled the H3 Podcast. Guests include Justin Roiland, the co-creator of Rick & Morty, and Youtubers such as PewDiePie, Philip DeFranco, Vsauce, and others.

Guests sections or paragraphs are commonplace on Wikipedia articles on talk shows and podcasts, (e.g. StarTalk (podcast), The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Rush Limbaugh Show, Another Round (podcast)). Notice the proposal above is very similar in format to the ones in the aforementioned articles. For the first paragraph I believe there are enough sources to stablish the relative notability of the subject. For the second section the notability of the guests is evident, the wikilinks helping with that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I object, for two reasons, maybe three. First of all, this smells way too much like promotion, the dropping of famous names to beef up the show's image--and the second proposed paragraph lacks all verification. Second, that other articles have this too doesn't make it a good thing; plus, these guys are not Oprah. As for that first paragraph: the person mentioned in there is a non-celebrity, a possibly barely notable person whose article I just deleted because it contained a huge BLP violation--and the sourcing is hardly up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then get to work because you have nearly every article on Wikipedia on talk shows to "fix"... It doesn't look promotional at all, not here, not on the StartTalk podcast, not on the Oprah Winfrey show. Important guests of a talk show is encyclopedic content on an article about a talk show. If lack of verification is the issue then links to the podcast can be added - please see WP:SELFPUB. And yeah, of course "it's not Oprah", that's why I added examples of smaller talk shows also. The sourcing for the first paragraph is sufficient, though I don't really care about it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this e-celeb relevant? Why does he need a Wikipedia article?
This internet celebrity has done nothing noteworthy, all he does is talk about other people's videos and meta-discussion about his own youtube channel. At least with other Youtube channels they are making creative and original content, but this one isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEDMNinja (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEBCRIT. I think the original state of the article could have been deleted, but since then the lawsuit and WaPo issues have solidified the channels notability. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 18:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t there be an article about him? The more information there is, the better. Tommi414 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Protect this page
There seems to be consistent vandalism to this page. I'd suggest protecting it for awhile. Sparkster6 (talk) 12:29 AM, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Broken references
References 10-18 are broken. They are named sources but aren't defined in the article. Does anyone know what the sources were, or if they were even properly defined at any point? Alduin2000 (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind it was my mistake, I've fixed it now. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What are the sources for the associated acts?
Just because someone has appeared or are featured on someone elses channel does not mean they are not guests and are instead coworkers. Where are sources for all the associated channels? Balupton (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think associated acts should be acts they have closely worked with (e.g. Jacksepticeye signed under PewDiePie's network until it was cancelled so PewDiePie is an associated act). This should be cited in the body of the article. Any YouTubers etc. not cited as closely working with h3 in the body of the article (WP:LEDE) or sourced in the infobox should be removed. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hila Klein
Why is there only a segment about Ethan? Hila should be showed as well. Tommi414 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding incident of Old Spice dropping him as a sponsor?
Could the fact that Old Spice dropped Ethan Klein for using racial slurs be fitted somewhere in this article? I understand the Keemstar article included the fact that he was dropped by G-Fuel as a sponsor and Ethan being dropped by Old Spice was an indirect response to that incident. Uelly (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Teddy Fresh
There are multiple issues with the Teddy Fresh page which may cause it to be deleted or be turned into a redirect yet again, I'm posting this here to notify authors who may be able to assist in improving the page and providing better sources.

If the page is deleted, I believe at a bare minimum the brand requires its own section on this page as the company is a separate entity. Steel-Centurion (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2021 Changes and possible consequences
As seen through both Revision History and Nikocado ATTACKS Ethan & MrBeast Sued By Netflix - After Dark #60 Podcast (Title as of 05:54 27 November 2021). This page can be a target of vandalism by both good faith, in which new users will leave irrelevant content, and bad faith, users using bad sources (or no source at all).

Should this page be locked to avoid what happened to the Ryan Kavanaugh page? Tirinaldi (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? What do you think will happen? What are the problems you are seeing? --SVTCobra 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * h3h3productions and Triller are currently in a legal dispute. Ryan Kavanaugh is the face of Triller on h3podcast. Ethan gives his views on both the App and Ryan leading to an online discussion. Lately this discussion brought users to Wikipedia. It is not known (as far as I know) who are editing pages (Ryan and h3h3) with biased content, We can see editis ranging from this one to this rollback. Basically, expect users targeting this page, which *can* create a unnecessary backlog to editors. My main point is lack of reputation.Tirinaldi (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the Ryan Kavanaugh situation (lots of accounts were blocked). I am not sure why this latest podcast would bring a surge. Nevertheless, if you do feel an increase in protection is needed, your best resource is Requests for page protection. There you can explain the level of protection needed and have the ear of people who can actually do it. --SVTCobra 02:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm raising a possible concern. As you mentioned, there's no real reason for now. Thanks for point the correct path. Tirinaldi (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Klein (from h3h3) only a few hours ago mentioned on his podcast that there have been or maybe attacks to his/h3h3productions wiki page. That maybe the reason why an increase occurs. Both sides are hyper focused on their respective enemies wiki pages at the moment. Wait and watch. Royaleditorviii (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Comma
Comma is missing in the first sentence. 2601:41:C580:A90:EC3F:905E:2286:B7E (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SVTCobra 22:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Link
Ethan Klien should be a hyperlink to his wiki page. 99.15.88.169 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Ethan doesn't have a separate page. Frankly, I am surprised that Hila does. I guess someone feels that 'Teddy Fresh' sets her far enough apart from h3h3 to warrant such a page. --SVTCobra 02:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What is this article about?
It seems is removing content related to the Kleins themselves. I would argue, especially from the extensive coverage on the Kleins from the sources, that this is not the correct approach to take to this article. The article is about H3H3 production, which is both a YouTube channel and a means of referring to the Kleins. If anything, Ethan and Hila Klein should be bolded in the introductory sentence to indicate the topic is the Kleins and their YouTube channel. I wanted to start a discussion here, since just removing content while shifting the direction of the article does not seem like a productive use of time. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely think this is a fair assessment of the situation. I am mostly basing my interpretation of the scope of the article to be one that conforms with the youtube channel (considering the article's name). While the name remains what it is, I would argue that we are mainly covering the channel and not the person. That being said, I think the article content may be better represented under the name Ethan Klein. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While this is made more of a problem by the fact that Hila Klein has an article (which is it's own topic), the sources seem to either use H3h3 productions as short hand for the couple or just talk about the couple or Ethan with brief mentions of the channel for context. Regardless, both the channel and the Kleins (as a couple) are clearly notable for an article. Splitting them into separate articles would have too much overlap and not serve our readers well. Therefore, I would say the best solution is to have this article be about the subject of H3H3 productions, which includes a YouTube channel and the Klein couple and their activities. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will revert my recent edit, but what other edits were you concerned about? Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I reverted the only other edit (section title of "Personal lives") that seemed relevant, so I think it all matches our discussion now. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great :) Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of cited statement.
Hi, you recently removed the statement, "Rogan's fans responded with fatphobic and anti-semetic comments." , which was cited with this source:. The cited article includes the sentence, "After Klein, who is Jewish, criticized Rogan for pushing vaccine hesitancy, Rogan's fans flooded Twitter with fatphobic and antisemitic remarks" at the top. Could you please revert your edit? Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The cited source doesn't contain any evidence of the claim, let alone justify the descriptor "flooded". This falls beneath Wikipedia's editorial standards, which are most important given the controversial nature of the claims. I don't think a reversion is appropriate until a better source (ideally primary) is identified. I searched and couldn't find one. Justdweezil (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's editorial standards call for secondary sources not primary ones. WP:PSTS. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for Ethan Klein
Is there an issue with the separation of h3heproductions from Ethan Klein specifically? Ethan's spouse Hila Klein has a separate page and h3heproductions is specifically different than the two primary stake holders of the company (Ethan and Hila) Bitoflippant (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Split H3h3Productions into Ethan Klein
I propose that this article be split into two separate articles, H3h3Productions, and Ethan Klein. Ethan Klein is now more notable than his podcast, H3 Podcast. This is shown by such articles in Rolling Stone and Jerusalem Post. The article is getting fairly long with 42,141 bytes. Finally, others in similar situations and positions have their own Wikipedia articles: Hasan Piker (Who works on the H3 Podcast), Ethan's wife Hila Klein, and Philip DeFranco who has a similar position on YouTube with his podcast. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons outline above -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment !voting on your own nomination seems a little off. I don't think the sources that you've provided demonstrate that Ethan Klein passes WP:BIO and the rest of your rationale is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , Is there a specific section that you'd like to split off of this article? Maybe the section about Ethan's Twitter account? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would split off Ethan's personal life, twitter, and the lawsuits against him. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * support looks like he passes WP:BIO and this article has gotten quite large. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to follow up on this split proposal when I had a little more time to go through the sources. I would say that you could do an uncontroversial split at this point as it's been a week with very little participation. I think it's also pretty clear that Ethan Klein is notable based on the sources in this article. I think these sources in particular would be the most helpful in establishing notability and writing a separate article on Ethan: In The Know, Insider, TechCrunch, Vulture, and Time. Most of these sources are explicitly listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable (The TechCrunch piece is written by staff and the Insider piece is in the culture section) and they all spend quite a bit of time focusing on Ethan specifically. I would split off the entire Twitter section because it's about Ethan and his Twitter account, not h3h3Productions. I would also split off the entire Personal Life section because "h3h3Productions" does not have a personal life. I would be careful with what is or isn' t split from the rest of the Controversies and lawsuits section as some of that appears to be related to h3h3Productions and not just Ethan. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)