Talk:Wilbur Soot

Abuse Allegations
He addressed the allegations personally (and was community noted on twitter). This should at least have mention that he was accused of abuse Melofy (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Looking at the page, there seems to have been an edit dispute over a lack of secondary sources covering the topic. I went ahead and found some sources that recount what occurred, however, all, except Dexerto is conveniently considered unreliable. I feel that just because the sources are not considered too reliable that does not mean that we cannot use them, especially when all they are doing is recounting what occurred. Could be a case of WP:IGNORE in my opinion, as I feel this limits the improvement of Wikipedia in this specific case. Not0nshoree (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean could we use the fact that he himself adressed them as we used that before in other articles? and even with like Josh Giddey the first reports weren't the most reliable but since they were posted they included a footnote on it until reliable scources picked up on it. Abuse allegations are serious and should be adressed Melofy (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and since there is no deadline on Wikipedia, there is no rush to report any information which is not published by a reliable source on a Biography of a Living Person article, because BLP articles require a higher burden of proof than regular articles. A list of community-vetted sources can be consulted at WP:RSP and an indicative list of video-game related sources at WP:VG/RS. From a cursory search on Google News, outside of tabloids, no reliable outlet seems to have covered the abuse allegations/controversy: Dexerto is not suitable for BLPs per community consensus (see WP:RSP); Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable (see WP:SPORTSKEEDA); Distractify is generally unreliable (see here); and both The Sun'' UK and US are deprecated (see WP:THESUN).
 * While we could include Wilbur Soot's own statement as long as it complies with WP:ABOUTSELF, it would have to be included in a manner sufficient to make the reader understand what it is about while complying with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies, which I think is hard to do. If you have any willingness to try to write something just from this statement, then feel free to pitch something here. Pilaz (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As many of his fellow content creators have pointed out in the replies, the "apology" is so vague it really doesn't mean anything, so it seems pointless to include something like "Gold posted an explanation and an apology to an ex-girlfriend on Twitter" in the article. Readers not in the know would probably say "OK, so? People apologise to ex-girlfriends all the time". Users will continue to try to add Shubble's name in there if we have it. We certainly can't say "Gold apologised to ex-girlfriend YouTuber Shubble after she alleged he had abused her" just because everybody knows that's who he was talking about with a lack of secondary sourcing, so I've removed the "update article" tag. If there were secondary sourcing and the article was missing that information, I feel like the tag would be valid.  Ss  112   14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The apology states "A series of allegations have been made over my conduct from an ex-girlfriend" and "The allegations of abuse, particularly in the form of biting, deeply shocked me."
 * It seems to be relatively clear what his response is regarding.
 * I think that it is far more egregious to exclude this than to use the apology itself as a source. BromoPhenethylamine (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to be relatively clear what his response is regarding. Only to people already immersed in the world of Minecraft YouTube. Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader, who we can't expect to have any particular pre-existing knowledge of Soot's personal life.  If readers have to know about allegations by Shubble that we cannot cite in order to understand what the article is saying, that's not helpful and is a sign we should wait for reliable sources to report on this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have zero involvement in the world of Minecraft YouTube and found it pretty easy to follow without knowing who the people involved are. But I see your point regarding the allegations being uncitable due to no reliable secondary source existing. BromoPhenethylamine (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The US sun has touched on it, could that be included as a source? 178.22.207.152 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The US Sun isn’t considered a reliable source so editors will probably remove it. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 11:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How feasible is the article by the Mirror US as a secondary source for this? There are also articles by a few student-run medias (Quinnipac and US Mass Dartmouth), but I'm unfamiliar with the policies for those kinds of sources in this regard.
 * Either way it seems that something should be included. On cursory search, he has not been active or producing anything elsewhere online, which to me suggests that this controversy is relevant to other areas of the overall biography and should at minimum be mentioned. RockLizards (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus on Mirror (WP:DAILYMIRROR), but I should note that it's a tabloid newspaper. For student-run medias, see WP:RSSM: They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. Spinixster   (trout me!)  11:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally support using Quinnipac as a secondary source, let's get this added. It's very past due as a well regarded and highly relevant topic that the subject of the article has himself addressed. daylon124 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The piece in Quinnipac is an editorial essay about online personas tied to the controversy. Considering student media is already considered a sub-par choice for sources, I would think that would disqualify its use here. Altruisticmeta (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the piece in the UMassD Torch is written by a staff writer. Still a student, but not quite the op-ed of the Quinnipiac Chronicle. Pilaz (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not a quality article either. A brief read through shows biased language everywhere, commentary from the author and a call to action to the reader regarding the controversy. Considering this falls under the bio of a living person standard, the UMass article doesn't resemble a professional source Altruisticmeta (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say, I don’t have a source to add (I’m very new to Wikipedia editing), but it’s been since March of 2024, and the fact there’s no mention of what happened is odd to me. There has to be a reliable source somewhere, right? PixelPalettes (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
You need to add about the abuse he did against his ex girlfriend 2407:7000:9530:3400:48E7:3A54:4C9A:FD12 (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference list and Bibliography
Should these be standardised/collated, I believe it should be one or the other (src REF), and IMO we should keep references and diff in the single bibliography entry.

Hoping for other opinions.

A random meerkat (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, notes and bibliography should be together. Also, IMO the breakdown of the statistics of the secondary channels is excessive, and I remember that somebody said in edit summaries that they thought it was too long. Pilaz (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilaz Should I add an edit request now? I'm not totally familiar with the process. A random meerkat (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024
66.81.168.160 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wilbur’s birthday is wrong
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)