Talk:Vaush

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

lol why isnt vauch's goblin porn incident not mentioned on this page? 73.236.47.63 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone should document the Vaush loli/horse controversy 97.120.148.97 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree Tetragrammaton9 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a source [1] 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

wegotthiscovered.com is not a reliable source. Yue ✉ 18:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As has been discussed on this talk page briefly, Vaush's "goblin porn" incident has not been covered on the page. To cut through the euphemisms, Ian (as I will be referring to Vaush from hereon out), has been caught "accidentally [opening] a private folder of his, which contained drawn images, including underage looking girls and horses." He has other controversies, but so far I haven't found a reliable source that talks about them. Should I find them, I'll happily link them later on. Pellertson (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

 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. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

yonkerstimes.com is not a reliable source. Yue ✉ 18:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

theres multiple instances where he has talked about the age of consent, horse cock and even got caught with CP on a live stream. there isnt just one instance of this, dude legit is a degenerate ~2026-75310-0 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's true but Wikipedia doesn't want to get sued by people. So articles about living people (on WIkipedia they call 'em Biographies of Living People, or BLP for short) are really strict on what they can include. You can check out WP:BLP to see restrictions on what that is but, even though he did messed up stuff, we can't include them unless they are published in reliable sources. Even then, some editors may not want to (they don't want Wikipedia to get sued). Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 22:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I am wondering whether other people also agree, but I think that 7 YouTube videos from the subject of this page is too many. The first use of primary citation 5 isn't appropriate, we need secondary sources determining what is due. There are 5 lines cited to it in its second instance, which is UNDUE because it is only supported by a primary source. Source 3 isn't needed, there is a secondary source already supporting what it claims. 6 and 7 are his remarks surrounding a controversy of his, I am not sure whether or not these should be used, which is why I bring them up. Otherwise, the primary sources seem to be fine for ABOUTSELF User:Easternsahara 20:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree ~2025-43664-94 (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed most of them per my edit summary. Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 22:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have re-added these for now so there can be some more discussion. I think most of these uses are ok. Primary sources can be used with care so long as they are reliable and not used excessively and indiscriminately (which would be undue weight). The primary sources used in the article are reliable enough since they are backing up info about Vaush's statements and beliefs. I believe they are also due weight, since they are expanding on info already in the article, or included in an interview with a relatively high profile journalist (see WP:INTERVIEW for some considerations about reliability and due weight for interviews). Shapeyness (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Owen Jones is a journalist, but the video is on his own channel (it is WP:SELFPUBLISHED). Not sure whether journalists are considered experts at interviews, but, more importantly, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This can mean to remove it. Let's be conservative and assume that it means self-published sources are considered primary in this context. WP:PRIMARY guidelines 5 and 7 are relevant here. Yeah, only 2 sentences but this ain't due if no one else reports on it.

Also the sources for the university graduation: why do we cite a YT video, where people are given their diplomas, when we have a better source already?

The responses to the statements he made can be kept if you find other BLPs whose self-published sources are used as responses for their controversies. Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 02:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This isn't relevant here since the statements are coming from Vaush himself.

On PRIMARY guidelines 5 and 7, the article isn't entirely based on primary sources and caution has been taken on where they are used. Again, the considerations outlined in WP:INTERVIEW were taken into account for the use of interviews and other primary sources expand on information already in the article to ensure due weight. I don't mind the university graduation primary source being removed though.

The responses to the statements he made can be kept if you find other BLPs whose self-published sources are used as responses for their controversies Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT, arguments should be based on sources, policy etc., not what other pages do.

I'm interested to hear what others think, but my opinion is that these uses are within policy and provide useful encyclopedic information. That has also been the consensus previously (see archive 1 for more discussions), although of course consensus can change and those discussions were not necessarily big discussions with input from lots of editors. Shapeyness (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)