Talk:H3h3Productions

@Garen67541: I'm not sure why you reverted my changes to this section. I don't think it made sense to have such a large philanthropy section based on a single source, and the reasoning you gave in your edit summary was simply that the source was reliable - which doesn't address the policy I linked, WP:DUE.

Also, a recent addition seems to give unproportional emphasis to a minor aspect of the overall topic. As I previously said in my edit summary - per WP:RSP with the Daily Dot, we should Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. There's only a single source that you cited that isn't tabloid-like or entertainment-based that has reported on the insults Ethan said about the K-Pop fandom. I could maybe see this section differently if it was written a little more neutrally, including additional context like the twitter hashtag response by K-Pop fans. But your emphasis seems to be on keeping focus on the quote.

Other things sourced in the article have refs to mainstream media and news sources, so this seems more like a one-sentence controversy to me, or one that can be summarized without a quote. I don't see the need for an extended quote from Ethan, when we don't usually do that for articles unless there was widespread media coverage. Despite all of that, Ethan has said a number of things, including other controversial opinions - why include a quote to this one, which didn't get very much media attention?

Anyways, could we please have a discussion, per WP:BRD? I also want to let you know about the 3 Revert Rule on Wikipedia, in case you haven't heard of it before, which says someone can't revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on any one article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi I think the quote is the most important part of the article and should be included, it is a controversial thing to say.

It is mentioned in the below two sources which are both confirmed sources on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

^{[1] [2]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garen67541 (talk • contribs)

@Garen67541: I wanted to explain my edit. There are obviously many reasons that content should be removed from an article. Rules are particularly stringent when writing a Biography of a living person. Using reliable sources becomes especially important so that information is correct. Using a generally reliable source from WP:RSP is basically the best way to go especially for controversial claims. This you have done. However there are other reasons for removing information even when it is reliably sourced. One those is mentioned next to The Daily Dot's entry at RSP: Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. Due weight basically it means that we should summarise the main points covered by reliable sources, and ensure we don't give undue weight (prose) to - as it relates to this case - minor aspects of its subject. Quoted from the policy: For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. In this case I viewed this as an isolated event, verifiable and (somewhat) impartial, but disproportionate to h3h3Productions and the Klein's overall significance. What didn't help was the citation to his youtube video as it is a WP:Primary source. Primary sources have may different reasons for not being used, one of them being that they require independent experts (journalists) to evaluate or interpret meaning beyond the obvious. And to support a controversial claim, secondary sources are required. Despite this, on reviewing my decision, I think that the two reliable sources that you provided above constitute due weight for an inclusion (albeit slim).

If you ever question my edits or the edits of anyone on Wikipedia, use the talk page to discuss them. If you're ignored, then you can assume consensus for your preferred version. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with your assessment will likely join the discussion and you can convince them of your opinion. If you're not ignored, while I know your time on Wikipedia has taught you different, they might agree. I would be very willing to hear your opinion on the inclusion/exclusion of this material or other material on other pages.

I also wanted to say that my favourite policies on Wikipedia surround the civilty of its editors (WP:5P4). One I'd like you to aquaint yourself with is assume good faith. Just as I will with you, it would be noble of you to assume that editors are here to improve the article. When you imply that I am a meat puppet, or disparage my edits without trying to discuss it with me, it doesn't promote a collaborative environment. I hope your time on Wikipedia is just begining because I'm afraid to say, there are a lot more problems on Wikipedia that need your help. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince: So, I don't see why Ethan's anti-Catholic controversy should not be mentioned in the controversy section? It caused some rift between his supporters and Keemstar, and was a big deal, even being criticized by the likes of Paul Joseph Watson. Can we talk about this? --65.94.99.221 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Your additions did not include a reliable source, so are not able to be included, especially in a Biography of a Living Person (BLP). Please see WP:RS and WP:BLP for the relevant policies. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to show how they deal with the fanbase in their social media platforms?, There's been word going around that if anything controversial happens, (even when they say criticisms are allowed) when they are addressed within sites such as Reddit, their posts will be removed^[1] and in some cases the users will get banned without warning for bringing the topic up, and although there are ways to contact the brand, the moderators never responds and no auto-generated replies are sent out informing users if their messages reached them, so users will be ghosted (No responds).. this sort of information could be useful for further discussions. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We rely on reliable sourcing in BLP to verify and inform such additions, not the word going around. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Word = people speaking, sources included shows people getting banned for criticising Ethan, an article is 'word' as it was typed by a journalist and there is no reason not to use centennialbeauty as a reliable source as the article writes an in-depth, unbias argument highlighting the issue at hand, if you can prove centennialbeauty is not a credible source, I'll understand your viewpoint. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The source does not show or mention people getting banned for criticising Ethan. The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove it's reliable or credible, not me. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In March 2022, after Will Smith's controversial slap towards Chris Rock at the Oscars, Ethan wrote on his twitter "If you defend your wife with violence in anger, then you probably argue with your wife in violence w anger.". However, there were some people from the black community voicing their opinions with Paige Christie saying "Ethan needs to employ a black person so that a discussion about the nuances of assimilation, race discussion, mysognioir & other racial stereotypes and micro aggressions.. The lived experiences aren’t going to be something they can understand and honestly he needs some help.”, Paige also mentioned that whenever other black people criticised them on their reddit site, (despite them encouraging critical messages), their messages were deleted.^[1]

In April 2022, discussing James Charles' recent online purchase history of sanity products on an episode of the H3 Podcast, both Ethan Klein and Dan Swerdlove mocked James' sexuality by insinuating that he was a 'power bottom' in the bedroom, a phrase that many of his LGBT fanbase took offence to. Referring to the negative feedback, Mr. Swerdlove shouted "I'm so fu**ing frustrated”, furthermore, one caller; 'Matt' lectured them on how offensive the remark was. Ethan would later apologise for the remarks, although he later followed those apologies with two further joke apologies which some people felt they illegitimised his first apology.^[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

CentennialBeauty is not a reliable source. ––FormalDude talk 07:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Explain why it is not a credible source? Hogyncymru (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a self-published source, there's no author listed, there's no corroborating information, and the site accepts paid content. ––FormalDude talk 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

None of the info above are true then, My bad. (sarcasm) Hogyncymru (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. ––FormalDude talk 23:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. And welcome to Wikipedia. CentennialBeauty appears to be not a reliable source (WP:RS) You should also take a look at WP:VNT SMBMovieFan - (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to what's been said, it's highly debatable whether these 'controversies' would be WP:DUE given the WP:BLP criteria. They exist for a reason: Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Comments by utterly random Twitter users would likely not qualify. DFlhb (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Raejensen, reversion explanation. You've only managed to cite that: Hila runs Teddy Fresh, that someone named Dan Swerdlove is a producer, that someone named Zach Louis has released music, that someone named Yung Fika streams on Twitch. These pieces of information mostly have no link to h3h3productions or h3podcast and many are primary sources. All the information in an article needs to be verifiable in reliable secondary sources. Otherwise it's considered original research, which is not allowed. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Veikk0.ma: can you explain how you improved the paragraph with your edits? Twitter is not exactly an independent secondary source. I'm open for suggestions but I liked it better the way it was. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I though the improvements were obvious, but I guess I'll explain.

Most of the content in the paragraph was either not relevant to the subject matter or not helpful to the reader. Unless there are further developments that make it relevant (like a defamation lawsuit or something like that), I don't see a reason to include quotes from the tweets themselves.

The statement about "clearly indicating it was a parody account" is outright false since it omits the "bio and header" part of the sentence present in two of the articles you used as a source. And even with that qualifier it would be misleading readers, because the only definition of "clearly indicating" that's relevant in the context of the suspension is what's mentioned in Twitter's policies.

I guess Musk's tweets about policy enforcement changes could be relevant to include, but only if there was also context on Klein's motivations for his actions. None of the sources mention why he decided to impersonate Musk, if he was influenced by Musk's tweets, or whether he was even aware of what Twitter's rules were regarding impersonating people. For example, some of the other Musk impersonators have stated that they knew they were breaking Twitter's terms of service and were doing so intentionally in order to try and prove some kind of a point. But there's been no indication as to Ethan Klein's motivations, and that post-suspension tweet he made doesn't clarify things either. So until there's more information available, I think it's better to just describe things as simply as possible, ie. he impersonated someone, this was against the rules, this is what the rules are, and that's what happened.

As for using Twitter's policy pages as the source for what Twitter's policy pages state, I don't see what other source could possibly be more authoritative and reliable. And the Archive.org link as well as Archive.org's previous captures of the page can be used to verify that these have indeed been the rules for a long time and that the rules weren't changed recently or anything like that. --Veikk0.ma 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

All the articles put the suspension in context to the tweets by Musk. Given that fact, it seems like a relevant inclusion even if we don't explicitly know his motivations. In my opinion the only relevant definition of "clearly indicating" is what's mentioned by RS. Of the reliable sources that cover the rules regarding Ethan's tweets, one states "despite clearly putting “parody account” in his bio and header", the other "but made sure to mark clearly that his tweets were parodies and his account was a parody by changing the bio and the header". Given this I should have included the additional description. There is also a comedic element to the story, the contents of the impersonated tweets; all the reliable sources cited cover the offending material by quoting it. I feel as though your version missed some key details.

The actual wording/technicality of the TOS is a different question, one that doesn't really matter unless addressed by the RS in reference to Ethan. It looks like you're synthesizing an opinion on the the validity of the block by adding the sentence about the twitter rules from twitter. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

After a night's sleep and a better perspective to the event through actually finding a decent summarizing news article on the suspension in general (most of the articles I've read so far have sucked, to be frank), I now think it's definitely possible to make the section significantly better. I still don't think quoting Klein's tweets is necessary, and I think it would just make the whole thing less clear to the reader, because what the reader thinks of the tweets not is relevant (peoples' sense of humor varies significantly, after all). I think the implication that the tweets were intended as comedic will be enough, and can be done with a sentence like "Klein was one of several comedians who received Twitter suspensions." And this article already describes Klein as a comedian, so the implication will probably be clear.

When it comes to a suspension from a platform, a core matter when it comes to discussing the authenticity of such an action (which many of these articles are doing) are the actual rules of the platform in question. Most of these articles don't seem to mention the rules the all though, and only refer to Musk's tweets about the enforcement of Twitter's rules. However, this CNBC article does mention the rules and quotes the "distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio" part as well. So if we're going to bring out viewpoints on the suspension, Twitter's rules on impersonation are most definitely relevant and mentioning them and directly referring to them isn't "synthesizing". And what the rules do and don't say isn't a "technicality", they're, well, the rules. They state what is and isn't allowed on the platform, and thus are extremely relevant in the context of suspension.

When it comes to the definition of "clearly indicating", Twitter's definition (which they explicitly define in their policy) is what Twitter is going to use when evaluating a person's actions on their platform. Therefore that's the most relevant definition in the context of a suspension, and should be mentioned in the section. However, some outlets (like Rolling Stone) seem to be bringing out their own opinions on what it means to clearly indicate a parody account on Twitter. If such views are to be included, they need to be clearly presented as an opinion of the outlet.

And speaking of Rolling Stone, this outlet should be used with care, and maybe not at all, since the consensus is that they're an unreliable source when it comes to politics and society, which this subject seems to be crossing into. So if we're going to use anything from them, it probably should be specifically attributed to Rolling Stone in the text.

When it comes to Musk's tweets, the implication made in many of the articles seems to be that "Musk tweeted something about Twitter's policies, therefore the exact wording of Musk's tweets is now the Word of God when it comes to Twitter's rules, no matter what the rules actually say". A strange viewpoint, especially since Twitter's enforcement actions clearly don't support such an interpretation. They're essentially arguing against Musk, as if Musk made the suspensions and not Twitter.

In any case, this media saltiness muddies the waters and makes it more difficult to get to the actual facts. Which, as far as I've been able to decipher, are as follows:

1. Twitter announced that Twitter verification would become a paid subscription service.
2. Some currently verified people got mad about that, started impersonating Musk without specifying themselves as parody accounts in a way that complied with Twitter's rules, and got themselves suspended.
3. After this wave of impersonators , Musk publicly announced that in light of the verification change, Twitter would start to permanently suspend non-parody impersonators without warning, instead of the previous policy enforcement of letting first-time offenders off with a warning (not a rule change, just an enforcement change).
4. Even more people get mad and start impersonating Musk. Just as before, impersonators that didn't comply with Twitter's rules for distinguishing themselves get suspended. This included Ethan Klein.

Since Klein's suspension is part of a larger sequence of events, I think it would make sense to write a section about them on the Twitter verification page and link to that from this article's section with Template:See also. This way we can keep this section relatively succinct and more specific to Klein's suspension. --Veikk0.ma 09:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Good night sleep for me too. Yes I like your inclusion of the comedy aspect. I agree that rollingstones should be arrtibuted in text. Clearly there's some interplay between the official twitter policy and the Muskian policy given sentences like "As of Sunday evening, Twitter had not yet updated its terms of service to reflect Musk’s direction.". Therefore there is an extent to which the Musk's tweets are law/policy. Given that, many sources are questioning the ban in-terms of the wording that Musk used in his tweet "any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended" with perspectives like 'Klein made it pretty clear it was a parody account'. I think that when refering to the twitter policy, it should be cited to a RS like NBC. I don't distinguish between a policy change and an enforcement change, given the enforcement rules are specified on the policy page. I agree with your 'just the facts' timeline, however in context to Ethan, only point 3 & 4 matter IMO. Yes a section on the twitter verification page would make sense. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I cannot imagine this needs to be this detailed or even needs to be included at all. The topic doesn't even fully have to do with H3, but is really just an anecdote about the topic that H3 got grouped in. This is at least how it seems to me, perhaps I'm wrong. Kdog5454 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't even have a source for the claim that h3h3Productions supported PewDiePie in the incident, and the rest of the material has nothing to do with the channel. I will remove the entire section. Meters (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources very much say that the channel was intimately involved and supported PewDiePie. The Thought Catalog source says "H3H3 productions have also chimed in on the issue, stating that PewDiePie is not a racist nor an anti-Semite". After this, the Adage source about the change at YouTube says that one of the channels affected negatively by it is h3h3Productions. After this, the Polygon source about the WSJ accusation said that the channel used by Ethan to give updates about it was h3h3Productions. I am restoring the passage. Connor Behan (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any source for the channel being defunct besides them not uploading videos since 2020? I had a look and couldn't find anything. I added citations required in the article for now. HopefulLuck (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ethan has said in some episodes that the h3h3productions is no longer active. Here's such an example from almost two years ago where he called the channel dead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dL6xb_8MOk&t=462 2A02:85F:E4A8:CB25:84D9:77C5:9483:3473 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ethan Klein which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The section assertively concludes with "it provided a significant and persuasive argument to be cited in future cases relating to fair use on YouTube". Using past tense ("it provided") implies the case already had an impact on following similar cases. This is not the case. The cited source is a conjecture made right after the conclusion of the case. The cited source says "it can be considered persuasive and used in future cases arguing fair use defense to a copyright infringement claim". This means that "it has potential to", not that "it provided". To keep this section as is, the cited source should be about the examples of other cases that refers to this case. To my knowledge, there is no such example. Shungqar (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I propose that the section Legal disputes with Triller and Ryan Kavanaugh be moved to H3 Podcast. As far as I am aware, the original h3h3productions channel has no connection to the collection of lawsuits filed by Triller and Ryan Kavanaugh against either the H3 Podcast or Ethan Klein beyond the fact that they each in some capacity involve Ethan Klein himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanastronaut (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)