Talk:Hasan Piker

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Proposal: Add at least a sentence mentioning the shock collar controversy

Despite being one of Hasan's biggest (if not the biggest) controversy in Hasan's careear there is not one mention of the controversy here is a article from a reliable scource by wikipedia's standards

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/peta-responds-hasan-piker-dog-abuse-controversy-1236396303/

meta.wikimedia.org/hollywoodreporter.com Nik6942010 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It does seem a bit silly that such a big controversy is omitted from this article, but alas the RfC resulted in no consensus. — Czello ^(music) 08:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No. It’s an allegation with no evidence. We don’t deal in rumour-mongering. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

its not rumor mongering there are reliable sources that have covered the story another one being

https://thehill.com/video/hasan-piker-accused-of-mistreating-dog-on-stream-with-shock-collar-denies-allegations-rising/11152442/ Nik6942010 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a rumour. It's an allegation with no evidence.

We don't add those to BLP unless there's an exceptionally good reason, and "people online claimed he did it" coverage isn't an exceptionally good reason. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

"exceptionally good reason" = when the subject is a right-winger ~2026-98941-9 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No, but what is a good reason is that it was an exceptionally large amount of people that caught mainstream attention for days at a time. As far an allegations go, those are definitely mentioned (such as sex abuse allegations) so long as it is made clear that those are allegations and not proven. ~2026-22537-62 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

For additional info, there was an RFC about it. Talk:Hasan_Piker/Archive_4 ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

When people look for the shock collar allegation they go to google and then they click whatever the fist link they find is, if it's not on Wikipedia they'll go to another site that covers it. It's better that they get their information from a well-balanced and fact checked source rather than something else.

That's why it's important to mention the allegations and also mention how they're just accusations. Nordinha (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You would need to start another RfC as the recent one resulted in no consensus which defaults to excluding the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting that the closing statement for that RfC doesn't actually mention why there's no consensus, and based on what arguments there is none. It just says "no consensus" and that's it. Cortador (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

"Piker has been described as Twitch's "de facto political commentator", using an unabashedly ideological framing"

Someone tell me what this means because i have no clue Trade (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be a quote from one academic study, based on the reception section of the article. I don't think it really belongs in the lead, not least because it's quite confusing out of context. I'm going to remove it. Another sentence in the lead summing up his large cultural impact wouldn't be a bad thing I think but this one isn't very good. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"de facto" definitely isn't the right term here, plus the sentence reads more like a sentence fragment. I would interpret the intended meaning here is to say he is the "default" or "go-to" politics channel on Twitch, which his viewership would suggest. This still reads like something you'd find in his opening bio rather than in the "Reception" portion of his page. I'd suggest removing this sentence, as the 2nd sentence of this same paragraph is a better introduction to the "Reception" paragraph. Jamesbroispx (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2026

===== Cuba ===== Should be changed to ==== Cuba ==== to match other section headers PaperClipEater (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done msk 20:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Shock collar

How could this article manage to avoid mentioning the incident for which this guy is most famous? Ridiculous! ~2026-18281-73 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

At least last time we had an RFC about it, there wasn't much coverage of it in high-quality sources; the sources that did discuss it only mentioned it briefly as an unproven allegation, and many of them focused more on the unusualness of JD Vance talking about it than on Piker. Basically, the sources don't really support the idea that it's a significant part of his biography, let alone the thing he's most famous for. Maybe more sources have appeared since then, but in a quick search I'm not seeing them - it seems to have been a blip. --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The factuality of "champagne socialism"

@CeltBrowne Are you seriously trying to say that the New York Times is factually reporting that Piker is a "champagne socialist." If the NYT is not labeling this as opinion then they're being shoddy. Again. Per WP:BRD please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No. What I am stating is that the New York Times noted that criticisms levelled at Piker during the Cuba trip included terms such as "champagne socialist" and "comunista de caviar" in the wider context of the ongoing poverty there. The Wikivoice does not state this portion as a "fact", it states it as a criticism that was raised.

As has been discussed on this talk page before, there is a marked difference between "John is X", and "Critics have described John as X". Both are allowed on Wikipedia, within parameters.

If you had a problem with my edit, you should not have reverted it in whole, as you do not seem to be disputing the portion regarding Yoani Sánchez. On Wikipedia, when you disagree with part of an edit instead of the whole portion, you should either tweak the edit or suggest a new rendering on the talk page, not revert the edit in whole.

Your piping to List of The New York Times controversies suggest you dispute the reliably of the New York Times. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the New York Times is a perennial good reliable source. Local talk pages cannot overrule Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You'd have to take it up with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you wished to dispute their reliability. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree it should be trimmed. The source appears to mention the "champagne socialist" criticism in passing, and it does not clearly attribute that label to specific or notable critics. Since this is not a claim the New York Times is making in its own voice, I do not think this is really an NYT reliability issue. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea how this article has been spotless from the common champagne socialist criticism until today. Even if the merits of the arguments are murky, it's still so weird it wasn't here. Either way, I concur that all that really needs to stay is the Yoani Sánchez criticisms. My newer edit referencing the Reason article in the reception section covers the champagne socialism critique just enough, in my opinion. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I've now trimmed the contested wording. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

+1. I'll add that my reasoning is based on the frailty of "some labelling"; could be construed as an invocation of weasel words. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Reason magazine is grossly undue here. Nobody other than a few right-libertarians cares about their opinion and, of course, they don't like socialists. They're a right-wing culture war magazine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Eh, probably. But I feel like this article is missing something without mentioning champagne socialist at least once in any context. That's what I wanted to achieve. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I support inclusion if we can find an additional reliable source to satisfy WP:DUE. WP:REASONNEWS treats Reason as generally reliable, and this is a claim the authors make in their own voice rather than an unattributed or third-party allegation reported in passing. WP:YESBIAS also applies here: possible ideological bias alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude material from an otherwise usable reliable source. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My search brought back one passing mention in a GQ article; "One of the main things people criticize Piker for—besides the whole Champagne socialist thing, which is overblown—is taking criticism poorly." This is besides the million NYP articles, lol. Might not be possible for this, atleast from me. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

NYP is covered under WP:NEWYORKPOST. This is the problem with the whole "champagne socialist" thing. It's just empty words that conservative platforms like. That's why GQ - a normal mainstream outlet - acts so dismissive of it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, a passing mention in GQ, attributed to unnamed critics, is probably not enough on its own. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Trust me Simonn223, I know about our consensus on that paper ;] This is probably a dead end for now though. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To summarize: Piker goes to Cuba and gets criticized for staying in a five star hotel. Seems like the regular NOTNEWS problems of this article. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I support removal of the whole Cuba section per WP:NOTNEWS. Right now this looks more like recent-event coverage than a significant part of the biography. If later secondary coverage discusses this trip in retrospect, it can be added back. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hipal, for someone who has constantly stressed that this article needs the highest level of sourcing, you cannot in good faith also now turn around and try to strike down content from a dedicated news article from one of the largest and most well-known newspapers in the world. Regardless of what people want to throw around here, It's a listed as a perennial good source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is not a source-reliability derived issue. While my main concern is the "champagne socialism" WP:LABEL I do agree with Hipal here, notwithstanding the very low opinion I have of NYT, that this does seem like a WP:NOTNEWS situation. Man stays at hotel. Film at 11. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

We could both spin this however we like ("Political commentator goes to authoritarian country and endorses repressive government"), but ultimately what should decide these things is the strength of the sources, and how they characterise the event, not Wikipedia editors. Otherwise, for example, Trump supporters could just "NOTNEWS" and "UNDUE" every Wikipedia edit on a Trump article they didn't like, a tactic which would destroy the utility of Wikipedia.

A perennial good source has given Piker's aspect of this story dedicated coverage, while the broader topic of the trip has been covered by several good sources. It cannot simply be handwaved away. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

("Political commentator goes to authoritarian country and endorses repressive government") is getting increasingly distant from discussing article content as such a claim would be entirely unsupportable in wikivoice with current sources. I'll remind you of WP:NOTFORUM. You still aren't addressing the WP:NOTNEWS argument. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You've completely misread what I've written. I wasn't suggesting, for a moment, the inclusion of that text. It was an counter-example of how an editor can spin the narrative from one extreme to other, as you did when you characterised the event as dryly as possible when you described it as "Man stays at hotel. Film at 11".

I specifically addressed the WP:NOTNEWS argument by stating what is considered News should rest on the coverage by reliable, secondary sources, not the feelings of editors. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Your responses don't appear to address NOTNEWS at all, only the non-issue of RS. --Hipal (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly. I kind of increased the scope here. The original disagreement was though. Either way, no champagne socialism mention. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"then they're being shoddy. Again" What do you mean again? The NYT are always shoddy, and a pretty lousy source to begin with. The article on NYT controversies covers everything from implicit support for genocide and ethnic cleansing to poor to non-existent fact-checking and cases of journalistic fraud. They have even published fictitious interviews with people who they had failed to contact, such as Jessica Lynch's father. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. If it didn't feel like tilting at windmills I would be at WP:RS/N talking about downgrading its reliability on the regular. However consensus doesn't agree with that at the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Michigan Campaign

@CeltBrowne I have some WP:NPOV concerns about the latest addition. It appears to focus only on criticism of Piker and does not reflect what the sources say, which is that there is disagreement within the Democratic Party about whether Piker should be included or excluded.

I also have some WP:DUE concerns. The underlying event is that he campaigned in Michigan. That does not seem notable enough to support a lengthy section in the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The Michigan addition is 4 sentences worded as neutrally as I could because I knew anything less would result in a ping on the talk page. I'm not aware of any contradiction between what I wrote and what I cited; it's drawn as closely to the original text as I can get with getting into copyright issues.

The Michigan edit is sourced to the New York Times, Politico, Michigan Advance and the Bulwark. I could have also added CNN (The Lead with Jake Tapper, aired 31 March 2026) and this 28 March article (scroll down, features Piker addressing the articles directly) [1] and MSNBC/MS Now [2], but refrained. All these reliable secondary sources are all reporting the same thing; concerns raised about Piker during Michigan. Presenting a version of events not found in the sources would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, not "fixing" WP:NPOV.

WP:DUE relates to minority views being presented as majority views on Wikipedia. A view shared/reported by the New York Times, Politico, Michigan Advance, the Bulwark, CNN and MSNBC/MS Now is not a "minority" view. It is the majority view. There are, to my knowledge, no sources contradicting these reports, never-mind more sources offering a different account of what's happening than what I've cited. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not WP:FALSEBALANCE because the balance is supported by the sources.

For example, the lead sentence in Politico is:

Hasan Piker’s new role as a midterm surrogate and potential influence on the 2028 presidential race is driving a wedge in the Democratic Party.

Using only the criticism from the articles that describes disagreement within the Democratic Party is an WP:NPOV issue.

For WP:DUE, the concern is not whether the criticism is a minority view. The concern is how much WP:WEIGHT he should have in the article. There is one line describing what he did, which was campaign for a candidate, and several lines of reactions and commentary. That amount of detail does not necessarily seem due for campaign support.

Maybe :

For the Democratic Party primaries in Michigan, Piker campaigned for Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Members of the Democratic Party both supported and criticized his involvement as a midterm surrogate.

And maybe move it to the American Politics section. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I added this to the article since @Bluethricecreamman stated below a brief mention may be warranted. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure it's due mention but your version is at least much more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Im ok with it. I think we could include that he is divisive in the michigan primary due to his anti-Israel stance. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll hold off for now since there doesn't seem to be strong consensus to expand further. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sibshops, thank you for adding a new rendering of the text rather than simply reverting the text. However, there remain major problems with the new rendering.

1. You removed several sources covering these events. Given that WP:DUE/WEIGHT is constantly invoked on this talkpage, and these sources are proof that the addition was in fact DUE, this was a mistake in my view. It also gives the reader less accessibility to sources covering the exact same story, which is also not good.

2. Your rendering of the text, as I've now noted on the article, has major WHO and WHY issues, issues the previous rendering of the text didn't have.

3. Users have suggest that the original rendering was a "Coat-rack attack". That was not the intent at all. The intent was to note Piker's Michigan involvement and note, as several major reliable sources did, that there is unease within the Democratic Party regarding Piker. Piker himself addressed this issue in a number of sources. That aspect of the story should be covered in the rendering.

4. Some users have suggested that the sources must give examples of Piker being antisemitic (???). We, nor the sources, are not here to litigate whether Piker is or is not antisemitic. That's not what we're discussing. What we're discussing is the verifiable fact, based on reliable secondary sources and addressed by Piker himself, that there is an unease with him within the Democratic Party in 2026. That's a fundamental component of the edit which was removed and needs to be restored.

As I have done many times before on this article/talk page before, I am happy to work with other editors on a rendering that works for everyone. However, just as a reminder going forward, as per WP:Consensus and WP:What is consensus?, everyone includes myself, not "everyone contributes to a new rendering except for CeltBrowne, who gets no input", respectfully. Therefore I would not describe the current rendering in the article as having consensus. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne Those are fair points. What do you think would be a good rendering of the text?

For 1, I tried to use what seemed like the strongest source. Politico appeared to be reported coverage rather than an opinion piece.

For 2, I saw your {{Who}} tag earlier and was having trouble solving that because the sources name a large number of people on both sides, including Andrabi, Litman, Chakrabarti, Khanna, El-Sayed, McMorrow, Stevens, Booker, Gallego, Slotkin, Third Way, and possibly Newsom and Emanuel, among others. I was not sure how to address that without turning it into a laundry list.

For 3, maybe this is better handled in a reception section separate from the campaign statement, rather than as "Piker campaigned for candidate X, and by the way he was criticized as antisemitic," especially since that issue is already covered elsewhere in the article.

For 4, I agree that the disagreement within the Democratic Party is relevant. My concern is more with how the text is rendered. It seems stronger to rely on what a secondary source itself states, rather than selecting quotations within a secondary source. For a contentious claim, I think it is better if the secondary source is the one making the characterization. For example, "According to Politico/CNN, Hasan is X,Y,Z." and not "According to person X, reported in politico, Hasan is X,Y,Z." ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Sibshops for being open to consensus building; Wikipedia is much less stressful when editors are happy to work together (genuinely).

For 2, I would suggest that the easiest thing might be to keep it simply to Michigan politicians/candidates.

For 3, I'm not totally against splitting it, but then I think the main thread of what's being reported won't be apparent to the reader: That while involving himself in the Michigan primaries, he ran into pushback. Again, it's not about "rethreading" past allegations: The two points I took away from the sources were the unease in the party and the specific pushback in Michigan.

For 4, based on what you're saying, it seems like my original rendering wasn't too far off. I would suggest something akin to "That same week, Politico, CNN and the Bulwark noted unease within the Democratic Party regarding Piker. Piker acknowledged this was the case, but stated he felt that while they differed in views, ultimately he and the Democratic party had the same goals" (as per CNN.com source linked further up).

I don't know how much other users do or do not want to get into the Third Way aspect. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think narrowing it to the Michigan candidates is good. Listing everyone opinion of him will just make the article into a long list of people who like/dislike him giving this too much space for reactions and commentary.

Do you have a direct link to the CNN article? When I scroll down I see a section about his his attendance at the no kings protest, is that what you were referring to?

Looking further at The Bulwark (website), I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable secondary source. It may be better to prefer generally agreed upon reliable sources.

For your draft proposal, I feel like "noting unease" doesn't full fix the {{who}} issue.

Maybe:

For the Democratic Party primaries in Michigan, Piker campaigned for Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Two of El-Sayed's opponents, Mallory McMorrow and Haley Stevens criticized Piker's involvement.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Per the CNN source [3] (Ctrl+F and "Progressive social media influencers join “No Kings” protest in Manhattan")

Piker also described his role within the Democratic party, saying despite headlines designating him an “issue” for Democrats, he believes he shares the same goals with most. “I don’t want Republicans to win in this country,” Piker said. “We can argue on the methods — maybe you think that my worldview and my values and the policies that I want, the politicians to represent, might be different from yours — but at the end of the day, I think we have the same goals.”

I think your proposed rendering is good but it still has a WHY issue at the end. Can we formulate something based on the New York Times source? So that it ends something like "criticized Piker's involvement based on past comments regarding _______________" or "criticized Piker's involvement based on comments in relation to ________________" CeltBrowne (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That is a fair point about the {{Why}}, but I do not have a good solution there. I am hesitant to go further and characterize the underlying comments attributed to the critics per WP:BLPSTYLE. It is better if a contentious characterization is made directly by a reliable secondary source. Reading over the politico and CNN and Politico articles it seems they were careful not to characterize his comments themselves and instead attribute them to critics. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the Guardian article says the {{why}} "criticism of Israel" in their own words. So it can be used to answer the why, if you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/06/michigan-senate-race-democrats ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

i saw simon reverted as well, and i agree. Seems like a coatrack section to imply antisemitism like some albatross without explicating any single incident suggesting the supposed antisemitism.

also, that nytimes article says nothing about temple israel attack, doesn't call him antisemitic, only a fierce critic of israel. Talk Show content on cnn and MSNBC is considered a WP:OPED.

this might make more sense on the Abdul El-Sayed article as part of his campaign. it would warrant barely a mention on this article. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw the edit before I saw this conversation but, yeah, it was WP:UNDUE and, frankly, seemed mostly to exist to insert that some Democrat candidates called him antisemitic citing exactly zero antisemitic statements, of course. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne your Michigan campaign addition is more neutral but still runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I think this would be more appropriate at an article about the campaign rather than a core biographical page for an internet funnyman who happens to have a political edge to his entertainment routine. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate at an article about the campaign rather than a core biographical page for an internet funnyman who happens to have a political edge to his entertainment routine

I (obviously) don't agree; I think the outlining of political activism by political commentators is natural. The Jon Stewart article, for example, extensively covers Stewart's political activism in detail, as does the Charlie Kirk article.

Also, is internet funnyman who happens to have a political edge to his entertainment routine your genuine description of Piker? Or are you describing someone else completely? Piker literally covers news and politics for the near entirety of his content, only covering pop culture if it happens to intersect with politics, and I wouldn't describe his content as funny or even attempting to be funny outside the occasional offhand joke.

Stavros Halkias is who I would describe as a "funnyman who happens to have a political edge to his entertainment routine"; reliable secondary sources note he's a comedian who does comedy shows and specials which occasionally have political comedy elements. What reliable sources would ever, ever refer to Piker as a comedian? Or simply even as a light entertainment "funny guy"? As it stats in the very lead of this article...He's a political commentator. I didn't think that was disputed. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was overly flippant calling him an "internet funnyman" when I could have referred to him as a Twitch Streamer. My point is that Piker is, ultimately, an entertainer rather than a pundit or a political fixer and I don't think that specific volunteer campaign activity is encyclopedic on the core bio page of an entertainer. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if we accepted the idea that Piker is an entertainer rather than a political commentator (which is not correct and reliable sources will reflect this), the political activism of entertainers is still something covered on Wikipedia articles. Jon Stewart's background was standup comedy and a talk show host before the Daily Show...his article covers his political activism. Brody King is a professional wrestler, his article covers his political activism. Bruce Springsteen and Dropkick Murphys are musicians, their article covers their political activism extensively, Robert Redford was an actor, their articles covers their political activism, Eddie Izzard is a "funnyman", their article covers their political activism. I could go on and on listing more examples of different kinds of entertainers with political activism sections but I imagine you can see the picture I'm painting here.

I'm sorry, but your point doesn't follow any precedent on Wikipedia CeltBrowne (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you're missing a key point though. Not a single one of the people you've listed includes a dedicated section something as granular as a senate election. For instance Springsteen's endorsement of Obama in a presidential election takes up about the same space you want to commit to the El-Sayed senate run. This is hardly proportionate. And that points back to my WP:NOTNEWS concern - this is too granular and too much WP:RECENTISM. We should be looking at broader strokes for his political positions, not a blow-by-blow of every time he endorses a candidate. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You compared the succinctness and "granular-ness" of what's on the Piker article compared to the Springsteen article. I'll do likewise:

• The current rendering of Piker in Michigan is 512 characters long (sans citation notes)
• Springteen's political activism section includes a 1663 character-long description (also discounting citation notes) of an interaction with Trump from just this week
• Springteen's political activism section also includes 1936 character-long section on his reaction to the Killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in January of this year

I think we've kept things comparatively brief. The 512 characters also touches on the broader topic of his relationship with the Democratic party rather than just focusing on a sole story.

At any rate, a third editor (Sibshops) is of the view that it's fine to cover the Michigan story in a condensed way, so that's the tie-breaker for the moment. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Views on Tibet

Piker's views on China's annexation of Tibet should be mentioned under the China paragraph in the "World affairs and conflicts" section ~2026-57090-9 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Got a source for those views? Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2026

Turkish American ~2026-23295-23 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. Mellk (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2026 (2)

Change Hasan piker is an American twitcher To Hasan piker is a Turkish American twitcher personality ~2026-23295-23 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hasan coverage

Page views for this article have gone from an average of 2,000 per day to about 13,000 per day in the span of 2 months. In lieu of the extended confirmed protection, wanted to note that this article will become even more focused on and wondeeing how to include the appearances that have caused the increase in profile, such as: 2 appearances on Piers Morgan Live, CNN has done 2 pieces on him, (1 by Jake Tapper, 1 by Dana Bash, and an interview with Donie O'Sullivan, and another interview about Cuba) a podcast appearance on Pod Save America, 2 appearances on The Majority Report, an appearance on I've Had It, an article in The Guardian, an op-ed by Ezra Klein for The New York Times, and a segment on Laura Ingraham's The Ingraham Angle, a segment on Fox and Friends, and Newsmax coverage. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hm... Not much can be done here, in my opinion. Most of what is listed is interviews, podcasts, opinion articles, or discussion panels, which are generally primary sources and not easily used in a BLP. If there were independent secondary sources discussing the increase in profile, that could be used to add something. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Someone being featured in something doesn't automatically make anything in those pieces relevant or notable for appearing in an article. Certainly not opinion pieces. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

All I can say is that we should continue stringently adhering to WP:NOTNEWS and to the guidance for creating WP:BLP articles. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I attempted to remove the corresponding changes to the article due to the lack of secondary sources clearly verifying the claim, but Rambling Rambler got it first. --Hipal (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks rather than sending frankly absurd "warnings" to my talk page[4] and just carrying on, maybe take note of the several editors here who've questioned the suitability of such material and gain consensus first. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@User:Rambling Rambler. You did not properly use the edit summary (H:FIES) and now you are assuming bad faith(WP:ABF) for my warranted warning and calling it "harassment." Please learn Wikipedia policy. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@User:Rambling Rambler: here is where you assume bad faith and say I "harassed" you for adding an appropriate low lever warning: ([5]) - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler's edit summary was accurate, they deleted the addition of an op-ed and the use of the NYPost as a source. @R9tgokunks I suggest you discuss the additions you'd like to make here rather than using warn templates to make a point. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pretzel Quetzal:, incorrect. they reverted my improvements of the article creating a new section indiciating Piker's increased exposure starting last year. Fairly clear they don't want me making any edits to the article at all. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks I don't think the NYT article by itself is notable enough to be mentioned. People write articles about political figures all the time, maybe it's a good source if needed but its not especially worth mentioning.

His stream with Zohran is already mentioned lower down in the article, maybe there could be a short sentence added here about it but nothing beyond that. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair point, removed. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about recent edits

Off topic, please focus on content. Take disputes about editor conduct somewhere else. Cadddr (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I added numerous improvements and they were reverted by user, without properly indicating such and not raising it on the talk page first. The user then accused me of harassment for re-adding my improvements and calling out them improperly using edit summarries. Tjhey have now blanket reverted other improvements I have made and claimed I need to take all of them to talk despite not raising concerns about most of them and again improperly using the edit summary. I am one step removed from taking this to ANI. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Rather than writing this mock ANI report section here, please do exactly that and see how far it gets you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You also blanket reverted other user's @Pretzel Quetzal: helpful edits and did not indicate you removed their content. You are not engaging in good faith or appropriate behavior. Taking it to ANI. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

They literally added my edits back right after. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler:, @Pretzel Quetzal:, you cited Mediatie, which is a blog, and blogs are not usable sources. Not sure why Rambling Rambler let that slide versus my content sourced with CBS, New York Times, Guardian, etc. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe actually check what material was added before you're making yet more baseless remarks about myself and now others. @Pretzel Quetzal introduced content cited by CBC and Rolling Stone.[6] The Mediatie cite was already present. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I made no baseless remarks. You being aggressive and it feels like WP:HOUNDING and you reverted me 2 times and then accused me of harassment for issuing a warning as you did a blanket revert and did not indicate all changes I made to the article in your edit summary. You did it two times. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll find another source. I think it was there prior to our edits. Also I think you just reverted to an earlier version that still includes the Mediaite source. But you've now reverted that edit so I'm not sure quite sure what you're doing here. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pretzel Quetzal: I reverted as to not break 1RR accidentally. Also, please post new comments at the bottom of the discussion as per talk guidelines. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Mate, you're not even using the reply button properly to actually put comments after the person you're replying to meaning we don't know who you're actually responding to.

I wouldn't chuck yet more stones about everyone else's supposedly inappropriately behaviour... Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs) me being disabled and having difficulty using technology and the reply function is not comparable to breaking wiki policy and being aggressive and assuming bad faith and edit warring and personally attacking me.(like you just did) NEVER assume an editors ability. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: I assume you are fully aware of the bold , revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold edit. Rambling Rambler reverted your edits with an explanation of why an op-ed and NYPost article are not adequate sources. You started the discussion above which five editors now have joined in opposing your edits. You then made a number of more bold edits despite the talk discussion being general sceptical, and Rambling Rambler reverted them pointing to the talk page, encouraging you to engage in that discussion first.

I really suggest you don't waste anyone's time at ANI. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, but assuming bad faith and not issuing proper edit summaries and edit warring from Rambling Rambler (talk · contribs) needs to change. they also broke 1RR in reverting me 2 times. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks @Rambling Rambler Frankly, I think both of you violated 1RR, so maybe everyone here can tone things down a couple notches and focus on content? (R9tgokunks did undo their second revert after I reminded them, but the point is that I think you both made mistakes.) Cadddr (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr: - difference is that I was not edit warring. @Rambling Rambler: reverted me 2 times. I only reverted them once. My second revert was the content by Pretzel Quetzal (talk · contribs), which was unrelated to my edits, and I reverted myself. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true ([7] [8]), but is it really worth arguing about that? You're just continuing to escalate this, and it's not productive. Cadddr (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr: It is. Please use the page history properly. My reversion you cite was around content added by Pretzel Quetzal, not Rambling Rambler. Not sure why you're diluting that. Again, difference is that I was not edit warring. Rambling Rambler reverted me 2 times. I only reverted them once. My second revert was the content by Pretzel Quetzal, which I was confused by and then reverted.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I may have misread the page history. But again, is arguing about this really productive? Cadddr (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, just stop squabbling. R9tgokunks please stop pinging me, just please drop the matter. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I would happily have a discussion based on the content. It's very hard to do that when we're in a talk page subsection I notice has been rather hurriedly changed from the previous name of "User:Rambling Rambler blanket reverts, assuming bad faith, edit warring..." Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed, but it actually wasn't R9tgokunks who renamed the section to "User:Rambling Rambler blanket reverts, assuming bad faith, edit warring...". R9tgokunks actually left a message on the talk page of the user who did that: User talk:Hipal#Concerns about your editing a section heading. Oops, my bad, I read the diff backwards. I thought Hipal changed it from "Concerns about..." to the inflammatory heading, but it was the other way around. Ignore my comment. Cadddr (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr yes I've seen that and thanked them for it. The fact they're now also having a go at Hipal for removing said inappropriate subheading I think speaks volumes and I don't need to add anything further... Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

you thanked them for breaking Wikipedia policy? Very strange. See: WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN: Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who created it, if possible. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That you want to happily have a discussion about content seems odd when you blanket reverted all the improvements I made and claimed that every single content addition (over 3 different additions with multiple sources) each had an objection on the talk page, which is not true. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Content additions and article improvements reverted and claimed to have objections - none found, actual discussion here

User:Rambling Rambler claimed in this edit where they blanket reverted my additions for a 2nd time, and the improvements added by other users, that Other people have raised questions about such material, take it to talk'. There are no such discussions as claimed. I am creating this discussion since no one did so and the reverting editor also failed to do so. Despite what reverting editor says below, the only concern was around the New York Times source, not content additions.

• 1. changing

=== 2020-present: Prominence on Twitch ===

to

=== 2020–2025: Prominence on Twitch ===

• 2. Adding a new section

=== 2025-present: Wider public exposure ===

and adding "Piker's public profile increased around 2025 as he started using his platform for more public engagements." to the intro.

• 3. and adding to the section:

A [[New York Times]] style section article from 12 April, 2025 titled "A Progressive Mind in a MAGA Body" increased Piker's profile and in early 2025, Piker featured then relatively unknown NYC mayoral candidate [[Zohran Mamdani]], whose appearance was used by online commentators and electoral opponent [[Andrew Cuomo]] as a negative campaign talking point. Mamdani went on to win the [[2025 New York City mayoral election|mayoral election later that year]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Crosbie |first=Jack |date=April 27, 2025 |title=A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere’ |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/27/style/hasan-piker-twitch-youtube.html |access-date=2026-04-16 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 17, 2025 |title="Caught a wild stray": Hasan Piker reacts to Andrew Cuomo demanding Zohran Mamdani denounce him during NYC mayoral debate |url=https://dailydot.com/andrew-cuomo-demands-zohran-mamdani-denounce-hasan-piker/ |access-date=2026-04-16 |website=dailydot.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Hasan Piker on why the Democratic party fears Zohran Mamdani |url=https://www.newsweek.com/hasan-piker-carlo-versano-1600-zohran-mamdani-graham-platner-10935154 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251122114827/https://www.newsweek.com/hasan-piker-carlo-versano-1600-zohran-mamdani-graham-platner-10935154 |archive-date=2025-11-22 |access-date=2026-04-16 |work=Newsweek |language=en}}</ref>

cited with The New York Times, with both Daily Dot, and Newsweek talking about the NYT article and also Cuomo speaking about Hasan's connection with Mamdani.

• 4. and adding other content to the section:

Media coverage in 2026 noted that Piker, already popular with younger voters, had started having more guests and endorsements of candidates for political office. <ref>{{Cite news |last=Lansing |first=Nathan Taylor PembertonReporting from East |last2=Arbor |first2=Ann |last3=Mich. |date=April 8, 2026 |title=Some Democrats Shun Him, but Young Voters Want a Selfie |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/style/hasan-piker-abdul-el-sayed-michigan.html |access-date=2026-04-16 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Perkins |first=Tom |date=April 6, 2026 |title=Arab Americans in Michigan warn centrist Democrats attacking Hasan Piker: ‘They haven’t learned from 2024’ |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/06/michigan-senate-race-democrats |access-date=2026-04-16 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=April 8, 2026 |title=Democratic Senate candidate's events with Hasan Piker exposes party rift in Michigan - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hasan-piker-michigan-senate-race-abdul-el-sayed/ |access-date=2026-04-16 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

cited with The New York Times, The Guardian, and CBS News.

• 4. Fixing fundraising section to not be nested under 2020-2025

from

=== Fundraisers ===

to

====  Fundraisers ====

Additionally, Page views for this article have gone from an average of 2,000 per day to about 13,000 per day in the span of 2 months. In lieu of the extended confirmed protection that I requested that was added,I wanted to note that this article will become even more focused on and wondering how to include the appearances that have caused the increase in profile, such as: 2 appearances on Piers Morgan Live, CNN has done 2 pieces on him, (1 by Jake Tapper, 1 by Dana Bash, and an interview with Donie O'Sullivan, and another interview about Cuba) a podcast appearance on Pod Save America which has generated journalism, an appearance on I've Had It that has also done so, and an article in The Guardian, not including numerous podcast features and also pieces on networks like Fox News and Newsmax.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

- R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There are no such discussions as claimed.

It's literally two sections above this one, you've copied and pasted a massive chunk of text from it. People are clearly not in consensus above covering the coverage of him personally. Feel free to take part in discussions there if you wish to make a case of why it should be included in the article.

However this is now the second subsection on this talk page you've made about me, after the previous one was closed telling you to focus on content. Either take your endless complaints about my conduct to the appropriate forum, or bloody drop it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

R9tgokunks:

Please WP:AGF, WP:FOC, and follow WP:TALK.

Please review WP:RSP before suggesting references that might not be appropriate for use.

You may want to find {{textdiff}} helpful in identifying what you want changed. --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey Hipal. Please stop WP:FOLLOWING me and telling me to follow policy that I am already following and commenting on everything I am posting. Please also consult with users before changing their headings in talk pages and do not abuse warning templates. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal:, please also keep your comments focused on content. If you want to discuss Wiki policy in other regards, please go to my talk page and leave a constructive comment. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 23:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a separate 'Wider public exposure' section at this time. There isn't enough coverage supporting a new section and 'public exposure' is not really a career category. It does not fit neatly within the career section along side his other roles as Twitch Streamer and his time at TYT. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I see the point. Your edit moving the political content to the appropriate section is germaine to my thoughts on it. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any of this should be added because it mostly seems like original research.

2025-present: Wider public exposure

Piker's public profile increased around 2025 as he started using his platform for more public engagements.

If we include this (the heading and the sentence), I think we need a citation directly supporting it.

A New York Times style section article from 12 April, 2025 titled "A Progressive Mind in a MAGA Body" increased Piker's profile and in early 2025, Piker featured then relatively unknown NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, whose appearance was used by online commentators and electoral opponent Andrew Cuomo as a negative campaign talking point. Mamdani went on to win the mayoral election later that year.

I think it's OR to say that the New York Times article increased Piker's profile. I agree with Pretzel Quetzal above about the Mamdani stuff: His stream with Zohran is already mentioned lower down in the article, maybe there could be a short sentence added here about it but nothing beyond that.

Media coverage in 2026 noted that Piker, already popular with younger voters, had started having more guests and endorsements of candidates for political office.

These sources talk about his endorsement of El-Sayed, but the sentence implies some sort of general trend of him having more political guests and endorsements. I think that's WP:SYNTH. Cadddr (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr:, @Sibshops: --I see the points. I agree. I'm dropping my request for the content to be added, but hopefully we can rescue the sources, somehow. Also, I think we should still move the fundraisers subsection and make it independent, as I did. (issue #4 in my post) - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding my revert

I thought an explanation of my rationale and what I meant in the edit summary with a bit more space to breathe than an edit summary was apropos. @JooneBug37 the reason I reverted your edit was because Piker giving a speech here or there is a WP:NOTNEWS violation. I'm not opposed to having his political ideology described somewhere and in some way. If he's a Leninist, fine, I've got no skin in the game of pretending popular Leninists don't exist. However rather than inferring an ideology with a NOTNEWS violation what we should be looking for is sources that describe his political ideology that are:

1. Not derived from journalistic opinion pieces.
2. Not based on inference but instead on description.
3. Reliable.

Notice WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine here if he is actually describing himself and not just putting on a performance for an audience. Alternatively an academic, book-derived or non-opinion work that describes his political ideology would also be sufficient. I hope this helps to unpack my revert rationale more clearly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne perhaps you missed the more in-depth discussion of my revert here. I would ask you to self-revert per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS when discussing a contested element of a BLP page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, I've now self-reverted as I had missed the discussion at the talk page. I don't want to get too involved as it's not my own edit and JooneBug37 hasn't given their own input yet, however, as I noted in my edit description, there are several issues with the objection being raised.

1. You called the source unreliable, but the Nation is generally reliable, per WP:THENATION
2. You called the source opinion, but I read the article to be a report in the style of a magazine
3. You suggest there's an inference of ideology, ("Leninist" or "Communist"). These terms are never used and I don't think they infer a ideological label any more than noting he's in favour of LGBTQ+ rights and gun control mark him as a "Liberal".
4. I thought JooneBug37 gave a neutral wording and used direct quotes rather than "infer".

I would prefer to see JooneBug37 discuss the edit, but I'm commenting here so that my views are counted when establishing consensus. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CeltBrowne thank you for self-reverting. Just to clarify I am not calling the source unreliable, I'm calling it undue. I also didn't call it opinion, rather the rationale for removal was WP:NOTNEWS. As I tried to elucidate above I was trying to establish bounds for including a descriptive source rather than an inferrential source for his political ideology so I was really looking at setting grounds for discussion of how to include his political ideology in a more BLP appropriate manner. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

This also appears to be undue and a case of recentism. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's a constant problem when dealing with a BLP whose career is almost exclusively built on talking. But I agree it is WP:RECENTISM and, while I was being somewhat gentle above it's obviously a WP:COATRACK to infer he's a communist. Which is why we should be using eligible description instead of inference. Frankly most Communists are not shy about admitting to being Communist. If he really is one an WP:ABOUTSELF statement should be easy to find. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, even if we are being gentle, simply saying he quoted Mao and Lenin does not really tell us much. Mellk (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem with trying to find an WP:ABOUTSELF statement here also goes back to the "whose career is almost exclusively built on talking".

When they're someone who almost exclusively makes their money from deliberately hyperbolic ranting on Twitch, it's very hard to substantiate what should be taken as a genuine statement and one that is "for effect" (or one they claim is "only a joke" after it lands poorly). Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I'd be more open to using a source that has him quoting Mao and Lenin to support that he was a Maoist or a Leninist if we started by having an aboutself statement where he says "I am a Leninist" or "I am a Maoist." Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It's fully possible to see an intellectual as relevant without being his follower. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)