Talk:Cody Ko

I've reverted edits related to this two or three times. So far, the only decent source we have on the Ko-Mongeau controversy is this Rolling Stone article. Should we add it in? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's gaining more traction now, I'm not sure if there's any further sources that meet Wikipedia's standards, but there are more articles now and a video from a prominent YouTube creator (again not sure if that meets any standards) by DeAngelo Wallace. 67.161.208.227 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We need a third opinion for this from a more experienced user. I'm a fan of D'Angelo and I've watched his video, but we'd have to adhere to the WP:BLP policy or wait for further sources. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 02:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there need to be multiple reliable sources documenting the incident. A self-published video on YouTube is not going to be reliable for a criminal accusation. – notwally (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter the outcome, if he is completely innocent this is still a major event and should be listed. The paragraph does not state he is guilty of anything it just describes what has happened. Not showing this makes no sense because if you search his name you get hundreds of results and videos and articles covering what is happening, except on wiki apparently. Maybe make the paragraph just a sentence or something but it should be mentioned at the very least Henryballs (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Henryballs: See this page, WP:RGW:

"You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually 'ride the crest of the wave' ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be 'behind the curve'."

I do believe Tana and D'Angelo, but Wikipedia can't cover things that don't have secondary sources, which for something like this usually includes new articles. If it hasn't reached the mainstream news cycle yet, we probably can't cover controversies like this yet. Sources need to be of the highest quality for controversies on biographies of living persons. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 21:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion." We are not reporting that Cody Slept with a minor, we are reporting that many major major youtubers have reported on it along with like 20 internet news sites. How is this not mainstream the videos on it have upwards of 10 million views. In 5 years this controversy no matter the verdict will be still very notable. This quote is on the wiki right now: "In June 2016, Ko starred in the Vine-produced series Camp Unplug alongside twelve other Viners.". If this tidbit of useless information is on the wiki than how in the world is allegations of a crime not relevant? You people keep saying that the discussion needs to finish but the discussion is finished, there are more than enough sources of the ALLEGATIONS to go ahead with a change. Richard Jewell did not set off a bomb in Centennial Olympic Park in 1996, but that doesn't mean the allegations against him aren't relevant. Ive always thought wiki should be an unbiased collection on pertinent information. You are right it is NOT up to us to decide Codys guilt in the matter, but that is EXACTLY what you are doing by wiping any mention of it. I think for any other celebrity that allegations of this size would be discussed immediately and you make me sick with your inaction. Henryballs (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Henryballs, stop with your personal attacks against the other editor. Also, once again, self-published YouTube videos are not reliable sources for this type of information and therefore not relevant to whether we include content in a Wikipedia article. – notwally (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You missed the point read it again Henryballs (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Henryballs: The reliability of these sources are being discussed, and a paragraph is being drafted below. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 01:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Henryballs: I am reverting the additions because this talk page discussion has not yet ended. Talk page discussions must run their course for a consensus to emerge on 1) if it should be included and 2) what to write in the page. This is how decisions on Wikipedia work. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 22:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted here that this situation has been brought to the BLP noticeboard, where someone else has noted that even the use of Rolling Stone here at all may be a problem per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be for politics. For culture, see WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE 2A02:C7C:2EFC:1A01:BCA4:6737:8CF8:33CF (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd wait until firm evidence is released by multiple reliable sources or Cody himself makes a statement/response regarding the situation. Pie GGuy (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pie GGuy @Notwally @NatGertler: There have been more articles released by The Mary Sue and Complex, but I'm not sure how reliable they are for controversies such as this. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Mary Sue is generally judged as reliable -- notably biased, but accurate. Perhaps it's just my old man eyes, but articles filled with who said what on their self-published YouTube video about what other people said on their podcast do not fill me with a warm "this is news, not gossip" feeling, particularly when it comes to allegations about lawbreaking. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those two sources are particularly high quality for use on contentious statements about living people. Similar to Rolling Stone, they are entertainment focused and can include more tabloid type of reporting on celebrity gossip. Serious accusations require a higher quality of sourcing than information that is not contentious. – notwally (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoever is in charge of this Wikipedia page is actively protecting an alleged criminal. There is so much info on the ko-mongeau situation. For it not to be apart of the article is reckless. It is our job to serve the people with facts. WestonH233 (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. The only evident facts at this point are that allegations were made against him, he has not responded, and other social media personalities have commented on his lack of response. We have to be very careful what we include in the article about that. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems the controversy itself merits a mention. It's gained enough traction now that, regardless of whether the story gets picked up by major news outlets, it will make it onto Ko's page eventually. -> Update to this: we now have a Distractify article on the subject. While Distractify certainly isn't the NYT or anything, it's high-profile enough to have its own WP article. Meanwhile, Wallace's video has over 1.6m views in one day. It's getting increasingly weird that Ko's page makes no mention of this. --JaneOstensible (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it does not matter the views that self-published YouTube videos receive. We have strict policies when it comes to allegations of crimes against living people. – notwally (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

pls see the new thread, there are multiple reliable sources now! the allegations need to go up and stay up Purplerain234 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We now have four reliable sources for the Cody Ko SA allegations: Rolling Stone, Elle, Slate, and Complex. As such, it is now time to make the edits to the Wikipedia page and allow them to stand. It is unfair to act as though there aren't enough "reliable sources" when we have several and can properly cite them all. Several other pieces of biographical information have 1)less sources and 2)less reliable sources. There is no reason that the allegations should not be on the Wiki page other than personal bias, which is NOT allowed. Neutrality applies both ways. Stop protecting abusers and let someone make the changes to the page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/tana-mongeau-cody-ko-underage-hookup-1235045694/ https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/complexstaff3/dangelo-wallace-cody-ko-tana-mongeau-allegation https://slate.com/culture/2024/07/cody-ko-tana-mongeau-allegations-d-angelo-wallace-youtube.html https://www.elle.com.au/culture/celebrity/tana-mongeau-cody-ko-drama-explained/ Believev1ct1ms (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Found more from The US Sun, J-14, Distractify, and I'm sure there's even more, y'all need to add the relevant information to the wiki page.

https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/dangleo-wallace-cody-ko-tana-594087

https://www.distractify.com/p/cody-ko-tana-mongeau-allegations

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/11932306/dangelo-wallace-cody-ko-tana-mongeau-youtube//

https://www.j-14.com/posts/cody-ko-controversy-tana-mongeaus-allegations-explained/ Purplerain234 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

also mentioning the allegations is unavoidable in that it is hugely relevant to his career. these articles are enough to put that he has been accused of stat r but has remained silent imo Purplerain234 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Be careful of assuming that because these are newspapers, they are reliable. See WP:THESUN -- we had a referendum here that deprecated that as a source. The Mirror is uncertain as a reliable source. Distractify is generally considered unreliable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

okay, wb the other four already mentioned!? issue still stands and is not going away Kjhuiiirrr (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think all the sources except for Elle and Slate were discussed already. The problem is that none of them are the highest quality, and the articles are written more like gossip reporting than crime reporting, with the information coming from a single source that is not reliable enough to use, with no new information added by the other sources. Wikipedia has a high standard for what is included when it comes to allegations of crimes against living people (see, for example, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Of course, that also has to sometimes be balanced with the fact that some of the highest quality sources do not reguarly report on certain topics, such as YouTube influencers. It may be helpful to find sources that talk about direct impacts on the article subject's career (e.g., cancelled projects, dropped from agencies). – notwally (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop suppressing a legitimate controversy and allow these to be added they are credible news sources. Right now the page reads like a puff PR piece written by the subject. Stop shying away from adding legitimate critical controversial news. 75.11.10.129 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you friends with Cody or something? 86.43.160.219 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

J-14 is a celebrity magazine aimed at pre-teens and teens; while it's not impossible for a teen-aimed magazine to be a reliable source, we'd kind of have to see other sources relying on it as a source to establish that; it's not the sort of thing where one would assume reliability. Rolling Stone is of concern partially because of WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, but because sexual assault claims is something it has rather famously gotten very wrong. Complex.com only seems to have been mentioned once at WP:RSN (searching for things simply cited to "complex" is an obvious search problem), and while that did not rule directly on the source, it seemed to be viewed as a source of click-baity tabloid content. Neither Slate nor Elle has an entry at the list of perennially discussed sources (in Slate's case particularly I'm a bit surprised) but discussions seem to point to a general consensus of reliability. But even if they are used, we have to stick close to what the sources say. Slate never mentions "statutory" (and mentions "rape" only in relation to another event with other people), and specifically mentions that Playlist Live events are held in different locations with different ages of consent, creating a fuzzy version of the concern. Elle similarly never mentions "statutory" or "rape". It does reference some people referring to the woman involved as "underaged", but these people do not appear to be legal experts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's enough coverage for it to be included. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@WestonH233: Wait until the discussion ends. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I believe the Slate, Mary Sue and Elle articles are reliable, don't contradict each other and don't rely on the same primary sources. Do note that Elle Australia, the source of this article, is published by Are Media and is editorially separate from the French and American operations. Elle AU and Are Media do not have a publicly available editorial policy as far as I can tell. Slate has a strong editorial background. Mary Sue is RSP listed and Slate should be too. There's also a Buzzfeed article contributed by one of their staff (who has a masters degree in digital journalism for what it's worth), though Buzzfeed is listed as contested in RSP. dyln (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• The following text was added to the Career section of the article today (well, after I touched it up a bit):

On May 30, 2024, YouTuber Tana Mongeau alleged that she had sex with Ko when she was 17 and he was 25. The allegations, as well as a follow-up video, were reported on by Rolling Stone in June 2024. On July 14, YouTuber D'Angelo Wallace posted his own commentary about the accusations, including Ko's lack of response to them.^[1]

This stays, as far as I can tell, true to what's in the Slate article. Is this text acceptable, and should it be in the Personal life section rather than Career? —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Text looks acceptable to me. I think your suggestion that, in this current form, it looks more like a personal life statement than a career one... which is not to say that there couldn't be some career information added which would change that. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence if Slate is the only source we are citing as reliable enough. Are there other sources discussed here (or any newly published ones) that editors feel could be included as additional refs? Maybe Elle or The Mary Sue? – notwally (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also agree with the inclusion of the content given the comment by dyln1 above regarding the sources. I don't know if the reference to another YouTuber is relevant, although Ko's lack of response to the accusations probably is. – notwally (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Idk why we can't use multiple sources for the allegation citation. Like maybe u think one is a lil iffy, but several in combination is kinda hard to argue against (maybe like Slate + Elle + Rolling Stone?). Idk I know there was a mention of concern about using Rolling Stone as a source, but it's used a source in combination with others on Marylin Manson's wiki page and accusations, so again, maybe the issue is trying to rely on a single source when we can use multiple Catsprout22 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I can point you to multiple iffy sources from the 1980s claiming that Elvis's death was a hoax and that he was still alive. That doesn't add up to a good source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When will this discussion end? I feel as if the pro predator people are just stalling as long as possible. Can we at least put a short one sentence mention until further info comes out? Waiting for a more reputable source makes no sense because this is a youtuber and no big newspaper actually cares so they will never make mention of it. Henryballs (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of everything ever said; we rely on coverage in reliable sources to indicate what is of import. Insulting people for being concerned about Wikipedia's standards does not move things forward. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When will this discussion end? Answer that question Nat. Why can you not understand that it is the allegations themselves that are important? Henryballs (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Henryballs, you need to stop your personal attacks towards other editors. I said this when you did it before, and I have also now posted a warning on your talk page. I strongly suggest you also strike or remove those attacks from your previous comments. – notwally (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, with the Elvis hoax as an example, we are not asking to update the wiki and say that he's dead, we are asking to update the wiki and say that there is a hoax that he is dead. Clearly, there is a dramatic difference between the two, and the same thing applies in this situation w/Cody Ko and SA allegations. I do not think that this level of intense scrutiny over sources is warranted when we are NOT trying to say that something did or did not happen, we are just wanting to acknowledge that there are allegations out there that are clearly relevant to his social media presence and future career online. Frogfrogtoad (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I get that it seems like there have been "personal attacks," but this is also an incredibly sensitive topic, and some of the responses have been pretty dismissive, so maybe everyone could be a little less on the defensive / attack? Bluecowboyhat (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic—and one that, IMO, a lot of the WP:BLP guidance tends to steer us away from including. Further, this article is under active arbitration remedies per the contentious topics procedure. The repeated addition of serious allegations that are not strongly sourced per WP:RS and, at this point, are just allegations, could lead to additional remedies being applied to the article.

Likewise, the influx of new accounts, and particularly ones that engage in less than civil behaviour, to the discussion could lead to remedies being applied to this talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not a new account nor is this my first edit, I strongly recommend you lessen your tone or I will have to take action, this topic is very sensitive and I would hate for emotion to distract from discussions around very serious allegations. Truth is a product of discourse, let not my words betray my perspective. Henryballs (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We would want a reliable source even for saying there were Elvis hoaxes. In the case of material involving living people, we are even more cautious. I think with Slate we have a good source for saying he's been accused of having sex with a 17 year old when he was 25, but there remain things that others are saying that our policies on biographies of living persons keep us from repeating. Accusations in this realm are very much a matter where proper sourcing becomes most important. I realize there are a number of people in this conversation without much experience in Wikipedia editing, and it is often a surprise to the new editor how strong the procedures and guidelines are; we all probably rubbed against it when we started. I do appreciate the enthusiasm and the choice to join in among the volunteers of this free knowledge project, and hope folks stick around for editing beyond this particular issue. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It just feels that with the delays about adding this to his page that the page is being ruled over by the subject himself and his PR team trying to suppress this from being added to his page. There are legitimate news sources, it is time to have something mention this on his main page. 75.11.10.129 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

When will this discussion end? This is a genuine question. Henryballs (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Henryballs: Nobody is pro-predator here. I doubt most people here knew who Cody Ko was before I raised this topic on a noticeboard. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Time Magazine has now reported on this. Please explain why the allegations still haven't been included in this article. 86.43.160.219 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If Time magazine has reported on it, it definitely should be added to the article. Does everybody agree on the draft paragraph above? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler @Notwally: Here's my take on the paragraph, incorporating my suggestions. The loss of subscribers gives an example of the impact on Ko's career.

On May 30, 2024, YouTuber Tana Mongeau alleged that she had sex with Ko when she was 17 and he was 25. However, it received little attention, mainly because of Mongeau's controversial reputation online. On July 14, YouTuber D'Angelo Wallace posted a video defending Mongeau and imploring Ko to respond to her accusations. Wallace brought wider recognition to Mongeau's statements. According to Social Blade, Ko lost 160,000 subscribers in a month.^[1][2] — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence has an odd precision error and a bit of a point-of-view concern. The precision error is that, at least in these sources, the May 30 statement does not include that Ko was 25; that appears to be something later calculated by others and repeated by Mongeau. The POV concern arises from the fact that "A had sex with B" and "B had sex with A", while covering the same fact, have a (slight) difference in suggestion of control of the situation, a difference that is not in her initial statement of "slept together". So perhaps "On May 30, 2024, YouTuber Tana Mongeau stated that she and Ko had had sex when she was 17, later stating that he had been 25 at the time."

The second sentence may have to be killed all together. The claim that it received little attention is mixed between the two sources; while Time says it largely flew under the radar, Slate is highlighting the sources that did cover it (and even Time is stating significant sources like Rolling Stone covered it.) Unless I miss something in one of the articles, the end part of the sentence, that any lack of attention was due to her reputation, is not stated in either article in the publication's voice. Rather, it's stated that that's what she believes... and I think that brings us to an unneeded level of detail, particularly since the reason we're stating is not grounded in facts about Ko, who is the subject of our article here (her statement about the impact of her reputation would be a different matter in her article.) The rest is acceptable, although I think we can simplify and even make up for the removed sentences a bit just by combining the next two sentences: "Montague's statements gained wider recognition due to a July 14 video by D'Angelo Wallace defending her and imploring Ko to respond to her accusations." That would also avoid the slight implication of the placement of the final two sentences that it was D'Angelo's video that generated the audience loss, when his video was only up for a fraction of the month that the Blade measures.

Make sense? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Bay40k (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to chase perfection as I think this is pretty good, but is it worth mentioning where Tana made these allegations? The Time article states: "Mongeau addressed the allegation after the live event on a June episode of Cancelled." Also is it worth mentioning that it was witnessed by Gabbie Hanna as also stated in the Time article? dyln (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The details on the statement are messy to unstreamline (i.e., she said one thing at one time and then more at another time) and breaking down the detail on that doesn't really give us more information about the person who is the subject of this article. If this was an article about the imbroglio, that would be a different matter.

Time doesn't say that Hanna saw the incident. It says that Keemstar says that Hanna said off-the-record that she witnessed kissing. That is both several steps removed from Time saying Hanna saw them have sex, and falls under gossip. Keemstar in particular cannot be treated as some sort of trustworthy and ethical reporter, as he was reporting things he himself said were told to him off the record. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Social Blade mentioned the Time article? If not, then we would need a citation to their statistics.

(Also, a style note: if all-caps are used for stylistic reasons, MOS says reduce it to title case. That is the case for Time.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The Social Blade statistic is mentioned in the Time article, so it can be included here Hazyco (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the coverage is enough for it to be included in the article, right? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@User:Vortex3247 IMO, yes. Waiting to see what NatGertler and Notwally have to say. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr. Gertler, I did not see the notice on your userpage about you trying to retire from editing. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Worry not too much about it; the retirement is not sticking nearly so well as expected when I posted that, and matters of WP:BLP tend to be where attention is most called for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My preference would be to include the first sentence along with a reference to the initial source and a second sentence that says Ko has not responded to the allegations. Something like:

"On May 30, 2024, YouTuber Tana Mongeau alleged on her podcast Cancelled that she and Ko had sex when she was 17 and he was 25. Ko has not reponded to the allegations."

I share the concerns with the mention of Mongeau's "controversial reputation" causing the allegation to receive little attention and don't think that should be included. I think the inclusion of the reference to D'Angelo Wallace and Social Blade won't have a noteworthy lasting significance, but I would not object if other editors feel differently. – notwally (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've noted before, Mongeau did not make the allegation of Ko being 25 on that podcast, at least not per Slate (and unless they share.a birthdate, establishing her age does not precisely establish his.) The second sentence would call for an "as of" noted to the most recent source we have that makes this statement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

On May 30, 2024, YouTuber Tana Mongeau alleged on her podcast Cancelled that she and Ko had sex when she was 17 and he was 25. In Florida, where Mongeau said the incident occurred, this would constitute statutory rape. As of July^[update], Ko has not responded to the allegations. According to Social Blade, Ko's YouTube channel lost 160,000 subscribers in a month.

How about this? As I said, the statistic shows a clear career impact. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 02:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No, on May 30, Tana did not allege that the event occurred when Ko was 25. That allegation arose later. I pointed this out in the very message you're responding to. Let us not simplify the narrative by creating false facts. This is not a docudrama. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So, per Time: “This isn’t just some crazy tea. I hooked up with Cody Ko when I was 17 and he was 25,” she said.

What if we add: In another episode, she clarified that Ko would have been 25. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Clarified" assumes accuracy. I think we can keep things simple by not needing to be so precise (it's easy when dealing with things that are in the news to put an exact date on everything, but in many cases it does not lead to understanding, and in the longer term looks fussy "In 2024, YouTuber Tana Mongeau stated on her podcast Cancelled that she and Ko had sex in Florida when she was 17 and he was 25. Florida law forbids sex where one partner is under 18 and the other over 24. This allegation, which drew attention both among fellow YouTubers and in the larger media, was not immediately responded to by Ko. According to Social Blade, Ko's YouTube channel lost 160,000 subscribers in a month." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks fine. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool so can this please be added now or what? Seems very silly to keep putting it off now that Time has reported on it. 86.43.160.219 (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

here's my twocents: former r/CodyKo mods admitting to the Daily Dot they deleted posts relating to TM situation. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/cody-ko-reddit-censorship/ Chchcheckit (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind adding it to the article please User:Vortex3427? dyln (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

With no lingering general objection to covering the topic voiced in the wake of the Time publication, and no specific objection raised to this text, I have added it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone mind clarifying when he started working for Victorious and when he started working for Fullscreen? ReadThePlotBeforeWatching (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

sub count in opening paragraph hasn't been updated since 2023... wonder why 2605:AD80:4F:903E:34D4:38F6:F917:70B1 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)