Talk:Sam Hyde

Evidence of being alt-right?
This is the second time I've asked this question, since I was not answered previously. What is the evidence of Sam Hyde being connected to the alt-right? It's not demonstrated by the sources. Several of the news sites repeated allegations made without evidence by BuzzFeed News (which is now defunct due to multiple credibility issues) and the Hollywood Reporter interviewer came to an opposing conclusion after talking to Hyde.￼ RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're seeing that in the Hollywood Reporter interview. But even so, Buzzfeed News is considered a reliable source and if as you say many other sources echo their sentiment, on balance the description of alt-right would stick. --Pokelova (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * BuzzFeed News is absolutely not considered a reliable source. They are a punchline Internet-wide. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No he means in WP:Reliable sources (though I would agree with you), also see Reliable sources/Perennial sources Tweedle (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I want to repeat that I was asking about evidence provided by reliable sources, not whether news sources had reported a claim. I've struggled to find actual evidence backing up these allegations. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that the evidence isn't demonstrated. Regardless, it's not really our job to question what reliable sources say. If you have an issue with that, take it up with a policy noticeboard. --Pokelova (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I watched a video with Harley Morenstein saying that he doesn't think Sam Hyde is alt-right. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Aren't noticeboards more for if someone aggressively edit wars on an article than a content dispute with no intense party on either side? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some noticeboards are for wrangling unruly editors, others are for policy discussion, like for example if you wanted to challenge Buzzfeed News' status as reliable. --Pokelova (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply being a reliable source wasn't the point I was trying to make, and even reliable sources make mistakes. If a claim isn't proven by evidence, what difference does it make if a reliable source reports it? Also, I wasn't interested in discussing whether BuzzFeed News is considered reliable, though I'd be very surprised if it were considered to be reliable due to their repeated history of having their credibility challenged and stories turning out to be misleadingly reported or flat out wrong, like Jamie Kennedy saying on his YouTube channel that BuzzFeed News edited his comments to remove context when they interviewed him about a movie he'd acted in that he admitted was politically biased and didn't agree with. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to was the interviewer saying that as someone Jewish and gay, he thought Sam Hyde's show was funny and a part later where the interviewer said that Sam has been described as someone who "never [drops character], that [Hyde is a] Andy Kaufman-style performance-art comic who sometimes says racist or anti-gay things" for provocation rather than hatred. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should ask the clearer question that if there's not any evidence that Hyde is a member of the alt-right than why is this page and the MDE: World Peace page categorized under the alt-right category? Let's forget the word "connection" since it's confusing the issue. Is the categorization on these pages for the same reason that Pepe the Frog is categorized under alt-right? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it possible that someone who never drops character said and  and was able to deny the allegations of coded racist messages needing to be removed? Also if all these statements from him were actually somehow part of the character he never drops rather than responses from Hyde the person, why are we repeating them as if they are responses from Hyde? I.E. You can't have it both ways, you can't imply that perhaps he never denied he donated the $5000 etc because he never drops character while simultaneously claiming we should mention these statements from Hyde. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that he never drops character. I've seen videos where he's not in character. It was the journalist that said that he never drops character. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay but how is that relevant in any way to how we can improve this article? The simple fact is if he does sometimes drop character, then his never dropping character cannot be an excuse for why he's never bothered to explain certain things like his donation to Anglin. So someone's untrue by your own admission claim that he never drops character is irrelevant. Indeed it suggests we should not trust this person since they make claims which are untrue or at least excessively hyperbolic and therefore unhelpful. So putting aside I'm fairly sure they're not an RS anyway, why do you bring someone up who is so utterly useless to our ability to improve this article by your own admission of what they've said? Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alleged donation to Anglin. He never said that he actually donated to Anglin. Also, the journalist saying that he never drops character was the Hollywood Reporter interviewer whose interview with Hyde is cited in the article, so what are you saying is an unreliable source? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the claim of Sam Hyde being alt-right originated from one of his fans' annual mass shooting hoaxes because years ago, Bill O'Reilly tweeted that "white supremacist Sam Hyde" was responsible for a mass shooting. There's a screenshot in the Jabroney video I linked to in another discussion below. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the big deal. The article seems fair to me. AsyarSaronen (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d6wge/an_overcrowded_islamic_center_in_murfreesboro/c0yuidh/?context=3
 * There you go, that's his reddit account being an utter racist. That's literally already on my copy/paste from just wanting to see who this dude is.
 * "Please prove to me that racism is racism" should just get you banned tbh. CrickedBack (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archive, I noticed that this issue was previously brought up before I did. How is there still not a resolution? I'd just like a basic answer, like "although there's no evidence that Sam Hyde himself is alt-right, his comedy is enjoyed by some people in the alt-right, so we think the categorization is appropriate". Is that the reason behind the categorization on here and Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace? If that was the reason I would at least understand. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree with Pokelova here. RockabillyRaccoon, BuzzFeed News is BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed News is an entirely different branch of the company with their own totally separate managerial and editorial processes. They were very good and always were. They were shut down due to budget issues, not credibility issues. If a lot of reliable sources report something, we say it. It doesn't matter that you are personally unconvinced by the sources, because we report things that are verifiable, not the truth. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I wasn't conflating BuzzFeed News with BuzzFeed, I was saying that no one I know considers BuzzFeed News a reliable source, because they are manipulative, biased and dishonest. I understand what you are trying to convey here, but the response you gave about BuzzFeed did not address what I actually said. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create a discussion over at WP:RSP if you think Buzzfeed News is not a RS and have adequate evidence. Until that point, statements like "no one I know considers BuzzFeed News a reliable source" and falsehoods like "defunct due to multiple credibility issues" will hold no ground here, and consensus has been reached to include that he is connected with the alt-right. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'm asking for evidence. Not clickbait articles but concrete evidence. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And 3 of us now have repeated that the evidence presented is enough. If you are so certain Hyde isn't alt-right, then there must be a reliable source that reports otherwise. Unless you provide one, we have no reason to believe that the sources we have are incorrect. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It was pointed out that one of those sources, Hollywood Reporter, says that he isn't alt-right. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Came here from BLPN, no opinion if the category is relevant for not, but BuzzFeed News is considered a reliable source. If you wish to challenge that I suggest opening a thread on WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes sources may have a mixed reliability and I was not interested in pursuing a discussion of the reliability of BuzzFeed News as a whole, rather than having an issue with this specific article, since it did not demonstrate evidence of it's claims. That should be the point of discussion, not whether the source is considered reliable as a whole but whether the individual articles demonstrate the claims being made. For comparison, in a scientific discussion, if a bold claim about a scientific issue is made by an article published by a reliable source, but the article does not demonstrate it's claims with evidence, then is the general reliability of the publication more relevant than the claim being made having proof? That was more of my point about the article, even though I don't have a very high opinion of BuzzFeed News personally. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources don't need to provide evidence that satisfies any particular contributor. That's the whole point of us relying on reliable secondary sources. We trust them to get it right since it's what they do. Rarely a particular article might have been challenged by other sources or have problems glaring enough for us to exclude it even if it comes from an otherwise reliable source, but this isn't supposed to happen much for sources considered generally reliable and we need something far stronger than one particular editor's dislike of the source or believe the evidence isn't strong enough. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I said that regardless of what I think of BuzzFeed News, I haven't seen a reliable source demonstrate evidence of the claims made in the article. I don't have any interest in challenging the reliability of BuzzFeed News as a source, I just question the evidence of the conclusion made in the BuzzFeed News article. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are reliable sources which bolster this characterization:
 * He's also a member of the alt-right -- his twitter account @Night_0f_Fire spewed hatred for Hillary Clinton, support for Donald Trump, called Lena Dunham a "fat pig" and mocked Black Lives Matter before being suspended -- and was involved in the Gamergate.
 * In fact, one of the show's creators and star, Sam Hyde, has espoused many alt-right views on Twitter. The Atlantic described the show and Hyde's tweets as "peering inside the mind of a far-right Twitter troll."
 * The six-episode run of "World Peace" received steady ratings and aired the sort of sketches that, in the parlance of the alt-right, "dropped red pills." One sketch cast Hyde as a pickup artist training a wheelchair-bound man in his ways, which included buying sweatpants from "the black person mall" and bestowing the secret name "David Duke."
 * Its creator, Sam Hyde, is also an outspoken proponent of the alt-right. “Million Dollar Extreme” was canceled after one season.
 * Earlier this week, Adult Swim confirmed that they’ve canceled their new show Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace not long after Brett Gelman severed ties with the network over the “alt-right” show as well as their treatment of women
 * Mr. Hyde is a real person, an absurdist comedian whose jokes often lean far right politically.

So we have high quality RSes (NYT, WaPo, Atlantic) backing this up, but also popular culture-focused RSes like Vulture, Mashable, and Pitchfork. I would say this passes muster pretty handily. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the source review and quotes, very thoroughly done. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this actually proves that Hyde is alt-right. You're not making your case here. You're still basing this assertion based on claims made without evidence rather than providing any actual evidence. A source saying this without evidence is not proof, it's much the same as having no source. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we may just have different levels of "evidence" that we accept as reasonable in such sources. I think the quotations and events referred to in these sources easily support the assertion. You are free to have your opinion, but consensus here may be against you. (see also WP:1AM). — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus aside, where's the evidence? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just thought of something. Is All Out Fighting as reliable source? I posted an interview with Hyde from the All Out Fighting podcast's YouTube channel earlier where Hyde was out of character had said that he was apolitical or disinterested in politics. Would that be a reliable source for challenging the alt-right categorization or is the All Out Fighting podcast not considered to be a reliable source? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the podcast is reliable, but it doesn't matter because something said in an interview falls under WP:ABOUTSELF regardless of whether it's published by something reliable. We can use this to say something along the lines of "most sources agree that Hyde has expressed alt-right views, but he says he is disinterested in politics". Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * but he says he is disinterested in politics This would be WP:SYNTH, as we do not have sources which connect these two things (Hyde being alt-right and Hyde being disinterested in politics). You, an editor, have made that connection, not the sources. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not synth because it’s not in wikivoice. It’s fine to point out contradictions in sources. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * still synth. Was Hyde talking about his characterization from others of being alt-right when he said that? Also fails WP:ABOUTSELF since Hyde isn't the publisher of All Out Fighting. Matin Domin and Donagh Corby appear to be the people who edited and published this, and they are certainly not experts on Hyde. Nor, I would argue, are they independent of Hyde. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well first of all, where in ABOUTSELF says that subjects are required to have also published things they verifiably said for them to be usable that way?
 * Looking at the interview... Hyde never says anything about being apolitical, the closest thing being that he doesn't care about politics. He seems to imply that the impression he is far right reported by the news and everything solely stems from his trolling of this one guy he dislikes. Because Hyde here is in fact addressing the public perception of his political views, it isn't synthesis either. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well first of all, where in ABOUTSELF says that subjects are required to have also published things they verifiably said for them to be usable that way? Right here: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.It's not called "WP:ABOUTOTHERS". The issue is the editing, question design, and editorial judgment of the source. We also don't use ABOUTSELF to contradict what RSes say. Because people are not necessarily reliable sources for information based on how others describe them. E.g. Authors don't actually get to decide what genre their books are published under, publishers do that. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. About themselves. Hyde is the one talking. Talking about themselves. I don't see the issue here. I can now see how you could, with a strict reading of the section, interpret it to require that sources are both created and published by the subject. But actually enforcing it like this contradicts common sense. Hyde knew he was being subject to an interview. Hyde knew this interview would be published. It is obvious that it is the real Sam Hyde being interviewed. There is no reason to believe he would be lying about this. So why then, would it be any more credible if Hyde published the same video himself, rather than All Out Fighting?
 * By the logic that we don't use ABOUTSELF to contradict what the sources say, the following sentence isn't allowed:
 * "'Bob Smith was accused of motor vehicle theft by his grandparents. Smith denies this."
 * Which is pretty much a more extreme example of what we're doing here. There's no reason ABOUTSELF can't be used to contradict RSes in contexts like these if there's in-text attribution. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 22:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What about PKA (podcast)'s interview with Harley Morenstein in which Morenstein said that Hyde isn't anti-Semitic? Is PKA considered a reliable source? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is PKA considered a reliable source?No. As it has no independent editorial board, or published editorial practices or history of fact checking. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASEDSOURCES which answers many of the questions you've asked on this talk page.E.g. WP:BIASEDSOURCES: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that a major problem with covering YouTubers like Sam Hyde is that since his primary medium is Internet content, a lot of the sources interviewing him and covering him are usually going to be considered unreliable sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then those aspects are likely not WP:DUE per WP:RSUW. As an analogy, we don't cover the favorite ice cream flavors and spirit animals of K-pop artists, even though many fan sites cover these aspects with great depth. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * you literally won't accept any evidence that he's alt-right, because you're a fan of his and you know what the alt-right are. the evidence has been shown and you just deny it. 2404:4402:3306:3800:7B0D:6C42:348A:C0E1 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO "alt-right" is a deprecated term for a specific Spencerian movement, however looking at Hyde's retweets it becomes obvious what he supports. One can only be ironic for so long. Although I don't think Hyde is as extreme as his haters make him out to be, I also don't think he's as "based" as his supporters believe him to be. Also remember he has to change his "public" views to appeal to the audience he is targeting. He's a disillusioned, alienated paleolibertarian if anything.
 * TL;DR I think the statement on the introduction should be "past allegations of association with the alt-right" or "allegations of association with far-right individuals and/or groups", or "allegations of associations with [insert specific unfavourable views]" AsyarSaronen (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously this video isn't a reliable source at all, but check out this review of World Peace as it presents context for both why the group could be seen as being alt-right, and why the reviewer doesn't think that the group are alt-right. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You are not going to gain consensus at this point. We do not have to satisfy your understanding of the quality, reliability, and use of the sources provided, and providing a litany of unreliable sources and interviews is not going to help your case. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally said it wasn't a reliable source. I wasn't suggesting a source, I was trying to show that there was evidence that the BuzzFeed article's accusations are unfounded. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is due to Sam Hyde’s comedy often being popular with alt-right communities, whether or not Hyde believes himself to be part of the alt-right doesn’t matter, but his impact on that community is notable since all his comedic targets are often people the alt-right happens to hate. 2601:201:8101:E5E0:C0E1:72A2:CCA6:BB00 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is due to Sam Hyde’s comedy often being popular with alt-right communities, whether or not Hyde believes himself to be part of the alt-right doesn’t matter, but his impact on that community is notable since all his comedic targets are often people the alt-right happens to hate. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Granted, it's a primary/first-party source, but nonetheless, during his appearance on Dick Masterson's podcast (The Dick Show), Sam Hyde outright refers to his political views as "alt-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordzii (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin donation possibly not actually Hyde's
I watched this piece on Hyde's career resurgence and it brings up the Anglin donation as possibly have been made by someone else in Hyde's name as a prank similar to how his fans send news organizations his picture and name every time there is a mass shooting. The maker of the video even pointed out that Hyde never actually confirmed or denied that he had actually made the donation and that he may have simply been messing with the interviewer who called him to ask about the donation by wording his response in a way that simultaneously implies he did it while offering him plausible deniability. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't consider "Jabroney"'s channel on Youtube to be particularly reliable, given our general treatment of Youtube sources. Versus the LA Times piece which we do generally consider reliable (see WP:RSP). I don't think Jabroney's investigation is high quality enough sourcing to overturn what we have from the LAT and I would oppose any inclusion of it or use of it to remove the LAT content. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to use YouTube videos as a source for citation, I'm trying to demonstrate why claims made by some sources may have not been fully vetted through investigation. A claim made without evidence in a reliable source is not much different from making a claim with no reliable source. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the interview with the LAT looks like evidence to me. Your standards for evidence appear to be quite high for negative press about Hyde. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I've just seen evidence that contradicts some of these claims. It has nothing to do with whether the commentary is negative. I want all subjects to be covered neutrally. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I've just seen evidence that contradicts some of these claims. in reliable sources? Otherwise it would be WP:OR to use this to write the article. If you'd like to dispute whether the LAT piece or this youtube show should or shouldn't be considered RSes, that seems like a conversation better had at WP:RSN. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The LA times article isn't really a source, it's an opinion piece. The writer has a personal vendetta against Sam Hyde because he was getting trolled by him. I don't think that's reliable or unbiased in any way. 2600:1700:A4A1:6B40:2832:5601:2BBA:C9DE (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we have very specific criteria for what "counts" as an opinion piece. The LA Times source was not published in an opinion area of the venue, it was editorially reviewed and fact checked by their staff. Thus, as a source it has quite a few things going for it that would counter any theoretical bias you, as an individual person, may believe it has. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023
minor edit: removing the links to the deleted fishtank page as it redirects here Telsasalsa (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  16:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sam Hydes status as the producer of Fish Tank
Sam Hydes friend Jet Neptune was the producer of Fish Tank, not Hyde himself ref WoahFlamingo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. Even the source in the article specified that Hyde was a host, and did not mention him as a producer. I fixed that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

should we really call the sam hyde is the shooter meme section "shooting and terrorism"?
he hasnt shot up anything (obviously), maybe rename it like "mass shooting hoaxes" or something Authenyo (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was kind of thinking the same thing when I saw that section title. "Mass shooting hoaxes" isn't perfect but it's certainly better than what's there now. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)