Talk:Ethan Klein

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

Birthdate is inaccurate. Request to change from “June 24, 1985” to “ June 24, 1920” 174.250.209.150 (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DreamRimmer (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a meme from the podcast lol. There's an ongoing joke that Ethan is actually 42, (just recently turning 43). The correct birthday is 1985 Quinnpuffer (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Insert citation regarding sentence "During the early years of their YouTube careers, they lived together in Florentin, Tel Aviv, Israel."

Citation is youtube video at timestamp 1:50

Ethan and Hila (January 10,2017 (1/10/2017)). "Trapped in Israel". Retrieved (7/16/2023). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help) Quinnpuffer (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Kate the mochii (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Zahra, Mehak (October 21, 2021). "Ethan Klein reacts to Trisha Paytas joking about his Tourette's, but TikTok took it down - Dankanator". Retrieved June 23, 2023. 176.241.243.120 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have actually gone ahead and marked the claim as needing a citation because a site called "Dankanator" is unsurprisingly unreliable, and I could not find any reliable text sources supporting the claim. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 08:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit complex; I hope I am doing this correctly. I propose to bring together the content related to Ethan and Hila Klein in two stages, allowing other editors to approve each phase or parts of the proposed process.

FIRST PHASE: I propose merging H3 Podcast and h3h3Productions into Ethan Klein. This will strengthen the Ethan Klein article, reduce repetition, improve upkeep, and eliminate the need for users to search for fragmented information in underdeveloped articles, which may come across as disrespectful to their ability to handle more comprehensive content.

There needs to be a controversy section that contains an exhaustive list of his controversies and feuds. He's been discussed widely across the news and social media and it's misleading to not at least have a semi-exhaustive list of why. This is especially important given how high profile some of these ongoing feuds are. A lot of people are currently learning about him for the first time and his Wikipedia page is deceptively incomplete. (I am not trying to imply that this is intentional by using the terms "deceptively" or "misleading" by the way.)

Some subreddits have attempted to compile exhaustive lists of his controversies, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/h3snark/wiki/index/h3directory/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1iqh43c/ https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1ijbvh4/ 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:F6D7:5DFD:EB59:BDF7 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Refer to WP:DETAIL, the topics highlighted on those reddit pages contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Reddit is also considered a generally unreliable source as per WP:RSPREDDIT. A quick look also reveals that the lists you linked contain quote-mining and are generally in bad faith. Kacekdjpich (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you cite Reddit or even use it at all. I provided those links to 1) show that there's serious interest in him on topics that aren't covered on his Wikipedia page and 2) to show you part of why these controversies exist. You're free to ignore every link I shared and I'd actually encourage doing so for anyone that does not need an introduction to. Please do verify things on your own and cite the proper sources. I actually don't care how it's framed as long as it's covered. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:DCC:357D:15:C763 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The popular interest on Ethan Klein's feuds/controversies seemingly has not translated into coverage by reliable sources. If you search the various controversies cataloged in these Reddit posts, almost all of the coverage is done by Sportskeeda, which is considered unreliable for its low editorial oversight (WP:SPORTSKEEDA). ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Dextero and many other sources in the References section do say more, but what they say has largely been covered in other Wikipedia pages. So you are correct, the recent controversies are not getting that much attention from reliable sources. I did not actually realize this so thank you for the explanation. 2603:8000:7F0:B1D0:46BC:C396:3536:9DBD (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The article should mention his fued with Idubbbz after released a content cop. It should mention what Idubbbz is accusing Ethan of, Ethans response, and the content deputy.

https://www.dexerto.com/youtube/idubbbz-steps-away-from-creator-clash-amid-content-battle-with-ethan-klein-3189698/

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2540383/idubbbz-releases-content-cop-on-ethan-klein-sparking-backlash-and-claims-of-betrayal

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2541322/ethan-klein-says-human-skulls-were-mailed-during-cps-visit-and-fbi-launched-investigation

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2540483/ethan-klein-reacts-to-idubbbzs-new-content-cop-episode-on-h3-podcast-and-youtube-drama Nik6942010 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

none of these are reliable sources, Dexerto In particular has been exposed for using Artificial Intelligence to make up articles for them to publish, not every internet beef is worth recording on Wikipedia, this one certainly isn’t. InternetEnigma (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Isreali American means he was born in Isreal and became an American citizen. This is the same BS where people say "African American" because they think its "inappropriate" to say black. You don't refer to people by their citizenship status, you refer to people based on the country they were born. I am not "Irish American" I am just an American. If you weren't born there you don't get to claim nationality. 24.103.201.98 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This might be the dumbest thing I’ve read all week - thanks. By that logic, I guess Asian-Americans, African-Americas, etc. don’t exist because how can someone be born in two places? SampleUsername (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

That controversies section is pretty clearly written by a devoted Ethan Klein hater and needs some revision if not deleted entirely - but I think most obviously is the claim that Ethan Klein made "antisemitic remarks". The obvious context there is that Ethan Klein is Jewish. The idea that a Jewish guy is secretly antisemitic because he made an edgy joke is a little bit insane to think of. That part ought to be excised entirely. Ftrhi (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

That controversy section needs significant work regardless. if there arent at least two high quality refs per each claim as per WP:PUBLICFIGURES, a negative claim should be removed User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It's wild that there's snarker narratives on Wikipedia. There's a group of people that are obsessed over Ethan Klein, and they'll do anything do defame him. The Wikipedia page has been under constant attack.

After the cancellation of the Leftovers podcast with Hasan Piker, Ethan came under attack from the former's fan base. We're currently in the second year of their harassment campaign. They've constructed most of the narratives found in the "controversies" section. It's ridiculous to capitulate to a group of people that's obsessed with snarking a Jewish American over being Jewish, and it borders on the line of antisemitism. Suup10 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

"Snarker" is used by Ethan Klein and his audience to target and marginalize anyone offering criticism about Ethan Klein. 184.101.80.190 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

"Snarker" is not used to target and marginalize anyone offering criticism about Ethan Klein. It specifically refers to bad-faith criticism sourced from snark subreddits, Tik Toks, and other unreliable sources of information. Plenty of people have criticized Ethan, including his own crew, without being called "snarkers". 2601:803:47E:E5E0:3DA5:4740:6AA3:5BA3 (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's the exact rhetoric that snarkers use. Snarking is an obsessive form of defamation under the guise of fair criticism. Look at every other streamer. Think about their controversies. It's obvious that something's off here.

These narratives were set up by the users of subreddits "h3snark" and "leftoversh3". After the literal snark subreddit was banned, it's users ran to the "leftoversh3" subreddit. A quick look at these forums makes it clear that their communities are hardly a bastion of honesty. The controversies section should be removed, and this page needs to be put on lockdown. Suup10 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Which part do you think is dishonest?

the pedo troll reddit accounts real at least for sure 2601:241:8A00:4FF0:FC6A:23EC:5BA5:A96 (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It's dishonest to act like these are big controversies. The most benign drama gets pushed forward in the hopes of publicly defaming Ethan Klein, Hila Klein, or anyone who works with them. It'd set a weird precedent to have such "controversies" listed for every other streamer/youtuber. Almost makes you wonder why no one targeted edited their pages. Good try, r/leftoversh3 users, but the plot got foiled once again. Suup10 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh no the Snarkers!! No one knowns what or who that is but Ethan himself and his dying cadre of fans ~2025-41784-47 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Imo, the precedent should be set. Controversies are about people's reactions, a viral reddit post is proof of controversy, it does not need to reach the mainstream media circles in which the controversial people we're talking about are not even known. That standard is contextualy inadequate.

The random placement of controversies in other section is imo much more criticizable, it mixes very factual infos with a sudden info about people's perception. Such info is not supposed to be taken at face value, and another section more appropriate to the info would make that much clearer.

I see a lot of arguments based on the idea that it's not how it's been done before. Shouldn't the arguments be for or against the idea, instead of just being against something new ? Taking what does not exist now in order to justify that it should keep not existing after is very unconvincing.

I understand your worries of a double standard, but I don't think anyone here made the argument that a controversy section for other streamers should not exist. And as you've read, I personaly will make the opposite argument : it should exist for everyone of those very big streamers and should not be put in more general sections.

Do remember controversies are descriptions of people's reactions, if many people participate in the dispute, debate or else, then it's controversial, whether or not the mainstream media world, or the world of published scientific papers does not know about it. Viral tweets, facebooks posts, youtube comment section, etc. All those things prove controversies.

Those "benign dramas" have and have had a huge impact on this content creator's views and overall presence on the internet. It, to this day results in personal responses by the content creator himself. I believe it is relevant for a wikipedia article to talk about something that anyone would realize after five minutes spent on the net looking the person up.

It does not have to be, or to be seen as, an accusation. It should be a report about the most impactful ways a content creator is discussed and the most impactful things that are disccussed about him.

In general I do believe wiki seems to consider reports of impactful claims as relevant whether or not those claims are proven. It just necessitates formulating that the claim is unproven. 2A01:E0A:556:4EB0:658D:C8A4:B198:3229 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The original basis for the controversy section being added was: "He's been discussed widely across the news and social media and it's misleading to not at least have a semi-exhaustive list of why."

While he has been widely discussed across social media, very little substantive controversy has been covered by reliable sources. If every public figure needed every social media conflict recorded as "controversy" then that would be half of every public figure's Wikipedia page.

I see no reason why Reddit, Sportskeeda, Dexerto and other unreliable sources deserve an entire section. 2601:803:47E:E5E0:3DA5:4740:6AA3:5BA3 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, looking through the sources used in this section most are links to unverified youtube videos or sources that are not advised to be used for BLP or notability as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources

The only two entries that seem noteworthy are the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph about sponsors ceasing collaboration due to slurs, sourced from Business Insider and Vice, and the 3rd paragraph, sourced from The New York Times and Ynet News.

I would suggest that everything else either be removed or a better source of notability found for each entry. 2A02:C7C:E35D:D700:5DCF:9E9A:5CBB:4DF7 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed the entire Controversy Section, and I want to clarify my reasoning. In addition to the reasons cited above, such as the sources being unreliable (using Snark subreddits as a source, which are unreliable and biased to say the least), I also want to highlight my confusion at the existence of this section for Ethan, when much more controversial figures don't have such a section. For example, Hasan Piker, Destiny, Steven Crowder, and Ben Shapiro.

It seems a "Controversies" section is not very common place on Wikipedia, as usually these controversies are included in a different named section, such as "Career" or "Reception", and they also constitute a relatively small part of the article, and not near half of it (as the aformentioned section constituted on this article).

I think the constructive way of adding this perspective back to his Wikipedia page should be as some sort of short, up to 1 paragraph addendum in the Career section, that mentions the criticism he has recieved over the years, referencing reliable sources with additional information. Ibrohard (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

k, removing youtube, dexerto, times of india.

would rather we work through sourcing and work to improve the article. Much of the sourcing regardless of this is poor, not just in that section, but throughout.

don't like the idea of blanking, but thinking thru, can't say i disagree. i see some reliable sourcing like nytimes. don't like blanking, would like to follow through with suggestions provided in WP:CRITICISM about moving this into appropriate sections.

whole article might need a rewrite. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

nvm, that controversy section is a new addition. the WP:ONUS for inclusion is on those who wanna keep it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The section seemed unnecessary and frankly juvenile. If bad jokes or poorly-aged statements are the basis of a controversy section then one would be necessary for virtually every individual in the media. SampleUsername (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah a brief section under career would make sense. 2601:241:8A00:4FF0:FC6A:23EC:5BA5:A96 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - the section is flagrantly biased and poorly presented. SampleUsername (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There is currently an influx of users coming here regarding the controversies section as the subject of the page brought attention to it on the most recent episode of their podcast and encouraged its removal. There is no evidence the sources were unreliable and are frequently used across contemporary pages. There also still is a disclaimer that remains at the top of the page regarding sources.

I am hesitant to suggest the removal of a section that was previously determined to be relevant, just because the subject of the article objected. Feel free to reinstate this section for the time being, keeping the article protected to prevent the ongoing brigading MWJacob (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i noticed there is a large influx, gonna go to WP:RFPP. however, the controversy section is new, and wikipolicy suggests WP:ONUS is on those who wanna keep a new addition.
also, controversy sections really are discouraged these days.
some of the sourcing seems to stand up, could go into appropriate sections. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

wait, actually, article is already semi-protected. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Wars have been fought on this page. Every other month or so, someone attempts a defamatory edit.

Some more comments/info:

Leftoversh3 post on the battle of the controversy section

Comment about how someone should add this section (after they made another weird edit) Suup10 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting for clarity in the discussion that the linked subreddit is entirely dedicated to speaking negatively of Klein and his channel as a whole, and it's clear there is a bias from some users who have a vested interest in the page reflecting negatively on him. At this point there do not appear to be articles from more reliable outlets, sites like Dexerto are generally regarded as tabloid publications and not a serious reliable source by site guidelines so I would personally be in favor of keeping it off unless more reliable outlets were to report on these. Ethan Klein is a particularly controversial figure at the moment among certain online circles both due to his ongoing feuds with several other popular internet figures as well as a number ongoing lawsuits, which is something to keep in mind in the midst of edit warring like this. BubbleRevolution (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

see the appropriate section, but i opened up a discussion about this page. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)