Talk:Hasan Piker/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposal: Add a "Feud With Ethan Klein" Section

I propose adding a Feud with Ethan Klein Section as his feud with Ethan plays a good part in Hasan's career and so people can know details and why Ethan and Hasan don't like each other.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2543638/ethan-confronts-hasanabi-on-why-he-vanished-from-content-cop

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2543910/hasan-piker-and-ethan-klein-debate-goes-viral-after-feud-and-content-nuke-fallout

https://www.indy100.com/news/hasan-piker-ethan-klein-debate-reaction-podcast-2671889337

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2504551/hasanabi-vs-ethan-klein-streamers-in-heated-feud-over-political-differences

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2525833/ethan-klein-slams-hasan-piker-over-china-comments

https://www.soapcentral.com/pop-culture/why-hasanabi-lash-ethan-klein-calling-racist-complete-drama-explained Nik6942010 (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those sources demonstrate long-term importance to his career. --Hipal (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to explain Hasan's career you have to mention Ethan more as Ethan is accusing Hasan of having positive feelings for terrorist organizations which can have a long term impact on Hasan's career Nik6942010 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Which references indicate so, that meet all WP:BLPRS criteria? The Express Tribune, SoapCentral, and Indy100 don't appear to do so. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

tribune has debated reliability as per , not sure quite what to make of it. rest of the sourcing probably does not meet BLPRS.

arguably, we could probably include there is a feud between the two, though we don't need a full on section

we should not state that hasan has positive feelings for terrorist orgs, that clearly breaks BLP. Nik69 should take note that WP:ARBECR could apply here. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to the express tribune Wikipedia has used the tribune as a source for published Wikipedia articles involving internet celebrities. Nik6942010 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it is good to at least include his fued with Ethan someone where in the article Nik6942010 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that both creators have had numerous online feuds over their careers. I don't see why this feud in particular should have special attention, especially when the sources provided are tabloid outlets at best. Yue🌙 22:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel his fued with Ehban should be included at least somewhere in the article as it plays a good part in his online career and you missing a good portion of his online career is you don't at least mention that he has his feud with Ethan. Nik6942010 (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

added a sentence. I dont know enough to know if more is WP:DUE, but gut feeling is the feud is WP:GOSSIP at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Without a better source, I don't think it meets BLP criteria. --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for neutral-point-of-view (NPOV) review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After reading the current Hasan Piker biography and scanning the last few months of edits, I see several recurring issues that may require outside attention:

Sources and verifiability (WP:RS / WP:BLP). A number of citations come from overtly partisan commentary sites, while coverage in high-quality mainstream sources is sometimes removed or down-weighted. Balance and due weight (WP:DUE / WP:NPOV). The article gives considerable detail on streaming metrics and charitable work but provides only brief mention of well-sourced controversies and criticisms that have been widely reported. Concentrated editorial control (WP:OWN). A small cluster of editors performs most reverts and frequently undoes good-faith additions without substantive talk-page discussion. E.g.@Hipal

Because this is a biography of a living person, maintaining strict neutrality is especially important. I would like to request:

A fresh NPOV/BLP review by uninvolved editors (or escalation to WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN if appropriate). An informal audit of recent editing behaviour to ensure compliance with consensus-building norms.

I am happy to help locate reliable secondary sources—both favourable and critical—so the article can reflect the full range of significant views in proper proportion.

Thanks for considering this request. Dtrows (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking someone else to do a lot of work on the article. Maybe it would be easier to discuss the specifics you think need to be changed, or what should be removed (such as random internet arguments). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

frequently undoes good-faith additions without substantive talk-page discussion See WP:BLP. The onus is on those seeking inclusion.

Yes, the article needs considerable work. The sourcing appears poor, and POV/NOT problems exist throughout.

I encourage Dtrows and anyone else to identify high-quality references suitable for BLP info that should be added or used more prominently, such as Talk:Hasan_Piker#NYT_article. This article should be written around what in-depth sources we have, rather than the many shallow articles we are using that are fueled by the need for clicks. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Following a full read-through of the current article (rev. 30 May 2025) and its 2023–25 edit log, I have identified several neutrality and due-weight problems that can be solved with well-sourced, minimal edits. All proposals below conform to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:LEAD.

1. Lead section – one-sentence summary of repeated suspensions

Piker has been suspended from Twitch five times between 2019 and 2025 for hateful- or violent-speech violations; several mainstream outlets have described portions of his rhetoric as “extremist.”

This is entirely verifiable from the body text proposed below, satisfying WP:LEAD.

2. Retitle and streamline **“Suspensions”** → **“Controversies and suspensions”**

Create a concise, chronological list; 1–2 sentences each, strictly sourced to high-quality, mainstream coverage:

• **2019 (24 Aug)** – “America deserved 9/11” / Rep. Dan Crenshaw remarks; 7-day ban.

:

• **2021 (16 Dec)** – Repeated use of slur “cracker”; 7-day ban.

:

• **2025 (3 Mar)** – “Kill Rick Scott” remark; 24-hour suspension.

:

• **2025 (24 May)** – Display of alleged D.C. embassy-shooting manifesto; 24-hour suspension for “improper handling of extremist content.”

:

3. Attributed “extremist” label (per WP:LABEL)

• Fox News Digital described Piker’s commentary on the 2024 Gaza conflict as “extremist.”*

:

4. Due-weight rationale

The article currently devotes about three times more prose to fund-raising activities than to a six-year record of policy violations. Expanding the section above and echoing it in the lead restores balance and ensures that a casual reader—e.g., a parent evaluating the channel—does not overlook the repeated sanctions.

5. Implementation plan

• If needed I can draft the exact wording at **User:Dtrows/Hasan sandbox** and ping this page for copy-editing.
• If editors have higher-quality or contradictory RS, please add them here so we can reach consensus.
• If there is still concern about neutrality after these fixes, I am open to filing a short-form request at WP:NPOVN.

Personal note for transparency

My support for these edits is purely about achieving balanced coverage. A casual reader—e.g. a parent deciding whether the channel is suitable for a child—should be able to see, at a glance, that the subject has been repeatedly sanctioned for violent / hateful rhetoric.

Dtrows (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"My support for these edits is purely about achieving balanced coverage." – and it's a single-purpose sockpuppet account that gets blocked after less than 24 hours lol

If the reason is genuine and in good faith, then you shouldn't need to make a new account just to propose it. Neutrality is a goal we should all work towards, but socking to propose it is so unnecessarily suspicious. Yue🌙 06:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Two things.

One: Hasan's suspensions were for minor site policy violations and never exceeded a few days. Wikipedia is in fact not required to keep a comprehensive log of every single e-celeb's every single one day suspension over minor and non-notable slights. Hasan saying an inappropriate word and getting a suspension a few times is irrelevant in the long run. It would be irrelevant even if it happened a thousand times.

Two: Fox News is not reliable on political topics. Fox News labeling anyone who doesn't share their values an extremist is just par for the course for what they do all the time. It is not something wikipedia should take seriously. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

“Hasan saying an inappropriate word and getting a suspension a few times is irrelevant in the long run. It would be irrelevant even if it happened a thousand times”.

I find this comment both hilarious and troubling. He was last banned due to reading a terrorist’s manifesto on stream and rally his communities support for terrorist actions. Unless you truly didn’t know the context here, I’d say your comment is an example of what the original poster was trying to address.

I don’t have kids but honestly I sympathize with the initial poster’s intentions here. I’m also not a wiki editor but was reading up on Hasan and I have to say I appreciate that it appears some edits seem to have been made. 142.198.202.90 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Whoever told you he was banned for rallying support for terrorist actions is a liar and is trying to take advantage of you, hoping that you won't double-check sources.

As the article says, he was banned for *showing* the manifesto, while in the middle of denouncing it. If he'd actually been supporting terrorism, he'd have a lot bigger problems than just a day or two block. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You mean "bigger problems" like being detained and questioned about his ties to terrorists by authorities at airports? 2A02:8206:346F:AE00:402F:96B3:7128:1CB5 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

No, not random harassment by an out-of-control ICE. For one thing, they don’t block people for a single day for actually supporting terrorism.

Seriously, read the article, it doesn’t say what you were told. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't seem like someone with a neutral view or understanding of Hasan, and shouldn't be making contributions to this article if you're so heavily invested in Hasan having an overall positive image. 38.85.164.98 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Correcting you when you repeat a lie isn't about his image, you're welcome to put in anything you want about him as long as a reliable source agrees with you.

For example, when he was harassed by ICE and bragged about talking with them, a whole bunch of lawyers and experts on the judicial system said he had terrible, terrible judgement and was a bad example, you could put that in if you want? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Fox news link 404's. Plus it's Fox, not really worthwhile to use them as a source to call someone extremist. What are the other outlets that do so? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

1 - I'm unsure about the changes to the lede, though I believe we can expand upon the "extremist" portion in the article body with the new NYT ref.

2 - "Suspensions" seems fine. Note WP:CSECTION.

I agree that the Suspensions section should be streamlined. WP:KOTAKU is a poor source.

3 - Again, I think the new NYT ref can be used. I'd avoid WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Note the NYT ref avoids MOS:LABEL problems by saying some of his comments are extreme, followed by examples and then some individual perspectives.

4 - I've no comment at this time, as I've not looked at the fund-raising content with any depth.

5 - Overall, these are good suggestions. Let's see what consensus we can build before considering NPOVN. --Hipal (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue: the wording (“pro-Israeli advocates”) is not supported by the inline citations

“A campaign by pro-Israeli advocates, including the streamer Destiny, pressured advertisers to leave Twitch due to the platforming of alleged antisemitism, including Piker's political commentary of the conflict.”

Because neither source uses or supports the label, the phrase fails WP:V and introduces unsourced POV. It also risks implying motive, which breaches WP:VOICE and WP:LABEL. AbudalTheGreen (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking for a source

Hasan repeatedly referred to the 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting as the "Israeli embassy shooting" despite not taking place anywhere near the Israeli embassy. Several people on social media tried to correct him. However, I can't seem to find a source that discusses it other than clips from Twitch. Yserbius (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

You probably can't find a source because that details sounds incredibly trivial. Can you imagine how long Wikipedia articles would be if every misnomer a person made was treated like a notable political gaffe? Yue🌙 05:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't want a Wikipedia article. I am curious if there's a reliable source that mentions it. I recall many articles at the time about how people were trying to frame Jewish Museum shooting as not anti-Semitic, and part of the MO was to intentionally inaccurately refer to it as the "Israeli Embassy shooting". It's a huge issue right now, because the perpetrators conviction relies on some very specifics regarding his motive. Anyway, since Hasan was one of those who kept up the erroneous naming, I'm curious if any NPOV sources mentioned it. It's definitely worth at least a sentence at the end of the "Suspensions" section, regarding this exact topic. Yserbius (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

So you're curious (just "throwing this out there" so to speak) if there is a reliable source that shares your hypothesis that Hasan intentionally used the misnomer to dodge discussions of antisemitism? Journalists from reputable sources tend not to make unsubstantiated claims about specific individuals or organisations without concrete proof and analyses, so that's probably why you can only find Twitch clips. Yue🌙 23:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We should see what RS report on, not create theories like this and then try to justify them by looking for specific sources that might cover them. Cortador (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Not a hypothesis but a fact well-covered by multiple reputable sources.

Here are a few:

https://www.aol.com/hasan-piker-suspended-twitch-discussing-200444430.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/lefty-influencer-hasan-piker-kicked-off-twitch-after-sick-comments-about-dc-jewish-museum-shooting/ar-AA1FrFhb?ocid=BingNewsVerp

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hasan-piker-suspended-twitch-discussing-200444224.html UncaringTruth (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes there are many reliable sources. This should be added to the article but won't be because the mods are pro-Piker. Welcome to Wikipedia 2025.

The responses to you are simply political since this has been covered by many reputable sources.

Here are a few:

https://www.aol.com/hasan-piker-suspended-twitch-discussing-200444430.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/lefty-influencer-hasan-piker-kicked-off-twitch-after-sick-comments-about-dc-jewish-museum-shooting/ar-AA1FrFhb?ocid=BingNewsVerp

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hasan-piker-suspended-twitch-discussing-200444224.html UncaringTruth (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and WP:AGF.

The AOL article is from WP:THEINDEPENDENT. It's reliable, but contradicts what Yserbius claims.

The MSN article is an opinion piece, so not something appropriate for BLP information. It's also a very poor source, so doubly inappropriate. It also contradicts Yserbius' claim.

The Yahoo article is a copy of the same article as that in the AOL article.

So that's two articles that contradict the claim, only one of which is reliable and usable for BLP content which is already being used for coverage of the ban. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/hasan-piker-hit-with-twitch-ban-over-improper-handling-of-terrorist-propaganda-related-to-israeli-embassy-shooting-comments/ UncaringTruth (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:MEDIAITE, and it appears to contradict the claim like the source already in use. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2025

Change "twenty-second-most-subscribed" to "twenty-first-most-subscribed" in the first paragraph, since HasanAbi is currently ranked 21st on the List of most-subscribed Twitch channels page. Fadedkayden (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Typo

Paragraph about his father says he is a founding member of the conversative Future Party in Turkey. 38.145.197.8 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting this! TeoTB (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2025

WHERE IS THE INFORMATION ABOUT HIM CALLING FOR THE DEATH OF A USA SITTING POLITICIAN ??

WHERE is the info about him calling for his millions of listeners to gut their enemies(top enemy of Hasan listeners: maga republicans) and let their guts splay on stage ? He cried out "gut them!" ..but it's not on your site. Where is the info about him saying to kill capitalists and "let the streets run red with their blood" ??

His show is the epitome of violent incitement. ..and you defend him. AcademicsForProsperityOfAll (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS for those claims? Kaotac (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify which politician you are referring to? The article does mention his calling for the death of Rick Scott:

On February 28, 2025, Piker stated that if Republicans "cared about Medicare fraud, or Medicaid fraud, [they] would kill Rick Scott", in a reference to Scott's involvement in Medicare and Medicaid fraud when he was the CEO of Columbia/HCA. Piker was banned for 24 hours by Twitch on March 3 in relation to the comment.

Regarding "gut their enemies," I believe this is in regards to Piker stating "You need to be gutting [your oponents]. You need to be shanking these mother f***ers, and letting their f***ing, letting their intestines just writhe on stage." I haven't found any WP:RS for those claims.

Regarding "let the streets run red with their blood," if this in reference to Piker saying: “Kill them, murder them, let the streets soak in their red capitalist blood,” I also could not find any secondary sources discussing this claim. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation does interview Piker where it is mentioned, but since it's an interview rather than an article I don't think it'd be appropriate to include. John Kinslow (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Sweet n Sour Podcast Hiatus

Pokimane has announced that she will restructure her organization following her staff's refusal to upload a podcast episode featuring Hasan. In the interim, her podcast with LilyPichu will be on Hiatus. There are numerous discussions regarding if and how to include the shock collar controversy on Hasan's page, but this situation is a unique case. Public reactions to the controversy have now had tangible consequences independent of Hasan's culpability. People have lost their jobs, and a show's production has been paused.

Complex Networks has published an article on this: https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/backwoodsaltar/pokimane-hasanabi-podcast-episode-blocked-of-fear-it-would-cause-drama They aren't listed under our perennial sources, but I feel that their recap of the controversy is valid. The author remains impartial and avoids strong language; they understand that this is an ongoing topic. Hammer128 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Does the page have an editor in chief? An editorial process or guidelines? The giant banner on top called “Shop” is not encouraging User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor in chief is Aria Hughes: https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/complex-aria-hughes-noah-callahan-bever-1236002582/

I'm trying to find information about their editorial process, but "Complex Networks Editorial Process" is hard to search for. They couldn't have chosen a worse name. Hammer128 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If this is the old buzzfeed celebrity site, as per that variety article, it feels rather gossipy.
iirc the WP:RSP for buzzfeed sites besides buzzfeed news was low.

I think if it were the news division, rsp says thats high.
aria hughes does seem to have some journalist experience. I'd say im on the fence, and no longer have a strong opinion either way on whether its due for inclusion. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Complex network appears to be some sort of storefront that posts celebrity gossip to break up the obvious advertisements for their drop-shipping arrangement. This doesn't look particularly reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Their site map is not particularly inspiring; nothing like an editorial policy, no staff are mentioned, but an assload of clicky articles ("Best New Balance Sneakers", "Best Air Jordan 1s", "Best Nike Air Foamposite Ones of All Time"). jp×g🗯️ 08:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

L.A.-based Ntwrk said that with Complex, it intends to build a “next-generation content and shopping experience” that it described as a “new destination for ‘superfan’ culture that will define the future of commerce, digital media and music.” Wowzers! It's a "next-generation content and shopping experience"!!! jp×g🗯️ 08:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So yeah a storefront with some clickbait content. Honestly for pressing and vital news like why Pokemane delayed a podcast episode it's about the quality I would expect. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Piker no longer streams 10 hours a day, going down to about 7-8 now.

Piker no longer streams 10 hours a day, going down to about 7-8 now. I'm not sure when he made the change but he's said this publicly, claiming it was just a matter of getting older. Sorry for the lack of a source. Jhakkl (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you find a reference? Should we qualify existing content in the mean time? --Hipal (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this really relevant at all Trade (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah arguably doesnt matter for any figure User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(BLP violation removed) 89.236.182.66 (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2025

(BLP violation removed) 2601:244:8400:2D00:2458:6451:50FC:5374 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Please establish consensus first--Trade (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2025

Add controversies section to included (BLP violation removed). 99.233.159.220 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow that. WP:NOCRIT Sibshops (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You're quoting an essay, not an official policy. NPOV requires wikipedia to report on both positive and negative news - incl. the dog collar incident and others. Else, this will just become a fawning panegyric of HP - definitely not an NPOV biography. The actual issue with the dog collar incident (and you could instead have referenced that) is the sources, as per discussion above. Khuft (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. I guess it's more accurate to say it's standard practice to avoid adding a controversies section. Even the most controversial figures don't have one. Sibshops (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with that. Controversies should ideally be weaved into the biography, and appear chronologically, instead of being dumped into a catch-all grievance section. Khuft (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you want something to be added to the article you will need to provide the exact text of your proposed addition, with reliable sources. Day Creature (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2025

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

Piker typically spends around 10 hours a day streaming in his studio.

+

• Why it should be changed:

Concensus established in that it isn't relevant. (And currently inaccurate)

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Talk:Hasan_Piker#Piker_no_longer_streams_10_hours_a_day,_going_down_to_about_7-8_now.

Sibshops (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

References

 Done The source states he "can spend up to 10 hours a day", not "typically" – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2025

Controversies Section for Hasan Piker

Why is it Hasan Piker doesn't have a Controversies section?

Considering he's (BLP violation removed) infamously said "American deserved 9/11"

Yet Ethan Klein does have one currently, It seems only fair that if Ethan Klein is getting one then SURELY Hasan Piker who's said things extremely more controversial and radical should get one as well. HiddenSimply (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nubzor [T][C] 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM sections are generally unuseful. see that essay. Most of what could be constituted as a controversy section is in the suspensions section.

Ethan Klein should not have a controversy section either, its a laundry list of complaints instead of being integrated well into proper encyclopedia sections. That article needs more work honestly. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead addition

Imo this is notable enough for the lead Piker was born to Turkish parents in New Brunswick, New Jersey, but grew up in Istanbul and was raised as a Muslim.. Could be inserted in front of "Piker started streaming on [...]" FMSky (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe there's a general consensus against birth information in the lede beyond date of birth. Including it is a common problem. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal, Hiya, can you please tell me why there is consensus against birth information in the lead section? 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the religion and place where someone grew up notable for a poltical commentator? FMSky (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a simple and common problem, so it may have never been discussed at any depth in years (and overwhelmed by more relevant discussions of general inclusion of religious upbringing), rather it's just deleted outright whenever encountered. See WP:LEDE, WP:MOSLEDE, and MOS:BLPLEAD. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC) --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! just want to add if any one else ask this question in the future, use the MOS:CONTEXTBIO shortcut 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Admittedly I have read a lot about Piker @FMSky from what I know it is disingenuous to label Piker as a "Muslim" because in multiple interviews he has described himself as "Culturally Muslim" essentially non-practicing but raised around the religion--so probably cannot put that in the lead. I think the more relevant info about his family is that he has a Turkish background and was raised wealthy--his father is the dormer vice president of Sabinci Holding. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Given the discussions, putting any mention of the suspensions in the lede shouldn't be considered.

Generally, self-descriptions are UNDUE and SOAP without proper context and high-quality, clearly independent, references. Putting self-descriptions in the lede is almost never DUE. Instead, third-party descriptions should be used, though even then, WP:LABEL problems need to be avoided. --Hipal (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dog collar controversy again

Withdrawn

Its more than due at this point, even PETA was chimed in. I propose something like this.

Piker faced heavy backlash across social media in October 2025, after a viral clip appeared to show him using a shock collar on his dog during a livestream. In the clip, the dog can be seen yelping immediately after Piker reaches for something on his desk. Piker denied the claims, arguing that the collar was a vibrational collar that contained an Apple Airtag. It also drew criticism from PETA, which argued that "positive reinforcement is a far more effective training method and doesn’t betray our animal companions’ trust in us."

FMSky (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Talk:Hasan_Piker#Dog_Collar_Controversy, Talk:Hasan_Piker#Shock_collar_substantiation --Hipal (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I know, and I see most people in favor of inclusion. Maybe an RFC makes sense FMSky (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Ignoring policy and general consensus will not result in consensus. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV concerns regarding Suspensions section

The section should be reduced to a few sentences per suspension, at a minimum. I'm assuming there's a reference in there that actually notes the history of suspensions, rather than being just clickbait journalism. --Hipal (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do you say the section should be shortened if you haven't bothered to assess the sourcing yet? Cortador (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about regarding the content until you make a case why there is an issue with said content. Cortador (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be--it should be expanded on particularly since he has been suspended for everything from distribution of terror material, to comments about and act of domestic terrorism, to calling for the death of a sitting politician. "Left wing influencer Hasan Piker suspended by Twitch after comments about DC shooting" https://local12.com/news/entertainment/hasan-piker-left-wing-influencer-suspended-from-twitch-after-comments-about-dc-shooting-statement-screengrab-cincinnati-company-policy-american-yaron-lischinsky-sarah-milgrim-capital-jewish-museum-shooting-manifesto-controversy and "Do you think it was reasonable for Twitch to suspend you for a day for talking about killing Rick Scott?" https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/opinion/hasan-piker-interesting-times-ross-douthat.html Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

it seems fine to me, and the sourcing seems generally reliable. Would be against overshortening, Piker has had controversies, but these were significant User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the way to go would be to have a few sentences about the things that have made mainstream news sources--like the two mentioned above and then a sentence or two for anything minor--if the dog collar controversy results in a suspension for instance (I do not think it will) but just as an example that's a bullet point. But for something like the incident with Rick Scott or the Jewish Museum shooting I think those should be expanded on. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree to shorten and incorporate with other sections. I compared to other prominent streamers Ironmouse, Kai_Cenat, Asmongold and there isn't a dedicated suspension section. Possibly put into a neutral section similar to Asmongold#Political_and_social_commentary. Sibshops (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Not comparable (BLP violation removed) FMSky (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the references for first suspension listed: The Intelligencer ref is written by a freelancer and doesn't mention the suspensions. Highsnobiety is a poor if not unreliable source. WP:KOTAKU pre 2023 is a poor source. TheWrap is fine. The Intelligencer and Highsnobiety refs were written years after the event. The Highsnobiety ref is an interview. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying, these are POV issues when there's more content than DUE, details not in the references used, cherry-picking information rather than summarizing sources, using poor sources to emphasize points not in the high-quality sources, etc. Confusing clickbait journalism with BLP-quality sources creates POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Something I think should be addressed is that no one is making an argument for why it needs to be there.

• He's not notable for his suspensions. As in it's, "Oh Hasan Piker, the left wing political twitch streamer." not "Oh Hasan Piker, the guy who was briefly suspended multiple times on twitch." The article should reflect his notability in secondary sources.
• The suspension section seems like an outlier. It is the only article among streamers that has a dedicated section for suspensions.

If the suspension was a result of his political views, they should be moved to the relevant section. Sibshops (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying all along. It's not that there is any information about his suspensions that's the problem - it is that these suspensions are kind of out there free-floating rather than being tied to his views / career / etc. more broadly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and it can be seen in the sources: It's the poorer sources that mention the suspensions.

It's Pikers views that are important, with what encyclopedic context we can put them in. --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the poor sources from the content about the first suspension, removed lengthy quotes, removed tangential content, and removed unverified content. It still needs to be reviewed to make sure it's actually summarizing the relevant content from TheWrap reference, using the other sources to fill in important details, if needed. --Hipal (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that UNDUE states, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@FMSky: Please address this content discussion. --Hipal (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

How about you start explaning why you removed this part to begin with? During a Twitch stream in August 2019, Piker mocked U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw, a SEAL Team 3 veteran who served in Afghanistan, for his support of American military interventionism overseas. Piker said of Crenshaw, "What the fuck is wrong with this dude? Didn't he go to war and like, literally lose his eye because some mujahideen, a brave fucking soldier, fucked his eye-hole with their dick?", adding that Crenshaw "deserved" his fate. It's sourced and relevant, these comments partly led to his suspension FMSky (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree its due to include. It should not hve been removed User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, FMSky, for responding to this discussion.

I've explained directly above.

To you both:

I'm not sure that even if we ignore the poor sources that everything is verified, but let's start with the sources:

Do you disagree with the RSN/RSP assessments of the sources? --Hipal (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to find additional ones, but which source(s) exactly do you even think is unreliable? FMSky (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Here are some additional ones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 FMSky (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the potential sources.

I've already identified the poor and unreliable sources. Is there something I can clarify?

If we need more and better sources (I think we do), then we should be writing content that summarizes them, not keeping problematic content based upon problematic sources.

Looking over the five proposed sources, they are just more poor sources, similar to what we've been discussing and rejecting concerning the dog collar incident. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I saw you also removed Die Welt https://www.welt.de/kultur/plus234794652/Influencer-machen-Politik-Hass-fuer-2-810-480-Dollar.html for no apparent reason. Why do you consider this source unreliable? FMSky (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Please WP:FOC. How do you think it might help? I found it poor, like the five above, like those being rejected about the dog collar. --Hipal (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to TheWrap, not that I'm impressed with it as a source that demonstrates encyclopedic value and context. The 9/11 comment has received some lasting mention: ever so briefly in the GQ ref, and as a part of a smear campaign in the NY mayoral race. --Hipal (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

How your bad faith editing and whitewashing of this article hasn't led to a TBAN yet is beyond me. FMSky (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, if you want to bring a case do it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

This has been going on for years, there's even a separate section by another user about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hasan_Piker#Concerns_over_edits FMSky (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks against an editor are inappropriate, not evidence that such attacks are warranted. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought we might get something usable from the mentions of Piker in the NY mayoral race: https://time.com/7328157/cuomo-mamdani-nyc-mayor-race/ and https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mamdani-emotional-speech-decries-islamophobia-new-york-city/story?id=126846079 and https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8xlx53jn6o don't seem quite enough to work from. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Cracker

I'm not sure about the "cracker" content, if it's DUE at all. I'll look for more references. Does anyone have full access to the New Media and Society article to see how they frame the overall incident? --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it completely. I don't think we can cover it properly without the context that he was discussing the use of the word after two of his moderators were banned for using it. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It is due, i've restored it, he was suspended over it. I added 6 sources FMSky (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding poor sources is a BLP violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, thats why I added Washington Post, NBC News, Business Insider, Vice, Newsweek, and The Gamer. FMSky (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That's the problem: additions without concern of their reliability. This is the same problem as with the dog collar issue. --Hipal (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources FMSky (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

And quality. BLP requires high quality sources. Even when a publisher might be ok (not that all of those are, as RSP shows), an article from an ok publisher may not be fit for a BLP in general (again, as RSP shows), and articles from good publishers may still be poor and unfit for BLP use. Again, the dog collar discussions cover most all of this. --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

NBC News and WP are high quality sources, the others are fine as supporting citations. I also found this https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14614448231191776 FMSky (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

The Washington Post, NBC News refs (I was in the process of adding it), and New Media & Society seem usable. NOTNEWS still applies even to those. I didn't find anything else. The Business Insider, Vice, Newsweek , and The Gamer articles should not be used. --Hipal (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Re: The Gamer ref: The actual article isn't bad, though the RSN discussions on the publisher are mixed, and WP:VG/RS does not apply to BLP, where the quality demands are higher as shown many times over at WP:RSP. Note that it does not support the current content. --Hipal (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:VG/RS does not apply to BLP Says who? you? FMSky (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

where the quality demands are higher as shown many times over at WP:RSP. Is that unclear? --Hipal (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I highly disagree about "not news". This is an event that led to a suspension - omitting it from a section titled "Suspensions" is nonsensical FMSky (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

There should not be a section called "suspensions" at all. Even if the material is due it's a lampshade for a "controversy" section. This material, where due, should be incorporated into views or careers. @FMSky please justify cordoning off this random collection of flash-in-the-pan bits of social media silliness into a dedicated section. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

There should not be a section called "suspensions" at all. And why is that? I prefer it over a "controversy" section. Cause this type of sections actually leads to somthing we all despise - every little irrelevant nontroversy being added FMSky (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Agreed on the need to remove "Suspensions", as multiple other editors have already identified. As is, it's a way to give undue emphasis on what he did rather than working from the best sources, summarizing them properly, and focusing on the impact to Piker's life. No one is suggesting a "Controversy" section.

Re: NOTNEWS. Without better sources, especially ones that show some historical importance or other broad context, this seems a clear NOTNEWS situation. --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who thinks it's due. Maybe a WP:3O makes sense here FMSky (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal: Users Cortador (talk · contribs), Agnieszka653 (talk · contribs), Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs), 91.97.138.139 (talk · contribs), and me have all objected to removing or changing the section. Agnieszka653 even suggested an expansion. WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on FMSky (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

agree its due. and dismissing all of these reliable publishers by saying the authors are biased without any point by point analysis is also pretty wrong. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

and dismissing all of these No one is doing so.--Hipal (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

And quality. BLP requires high quality sources. Even when a publisher might be ok (not that all of those are, as RSP shows), an article from an ok publisher may not be fit for a BLP in general (again, as RSP shows), and articles from good publishers may still be poor and unfit for BLP use. Again, the dog collar discussions cover most all of this. - i dont know how to read this generously except as dismissing large portions of coverage about hasan piker from reliable sourcing. i'm not engaging with hypotheticals unless you point out exactly whats wrong with sourcing.

The Intelligencer ref is written by a freelancer and doesn't mention the suspensions. this seems wrong as well, and was what I thought had been done here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Policy is what it is, and consensus needs to be based on policy, especially in a BLP and CTOP situations.. --Hipal (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You're proving his point. Even though we literally have an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources that confirms that the sources in question are reliable, you're still complaining. FMSky (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're both mistaken, or trying to ignore BLP. Neither helps. See the dog collar discussion as well. --Hipal (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You're incorrect. This is tiresome. Please WP:FOC. Consensus is not a vote. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@FMSkyIn answer to why this material, where due, should be broken up, it's because it is just a very threadbare lampshade over a controversies section. And after the BLP violation that was removed I am somewhat concerned about your commitment to neutrality here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

pinging @Cortador, Agnieszka653, Bluethricecreamman, and 91.97.138.139: - FMSky (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sibshops:

A reminder to all that consensus is not a vote, and that BLPs have very high standards as well as being a WP:CTOP. --Hipal (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping mentions of suspensions. I just think they should be reduced to at most a paragraph not put into their own section. He's much more notable for his coverage of the Gaza war yet that's a smaller section and comes later in the article. Sibshops (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

For example, suspensions are mentioned in other streamer's wikipages. For example Neuro-sama#2023's mention about the holocaust denial. It's just that suspensions aren't put into one bucket. Sibshops (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The difference is Piker has multiple ones, not only one. We gotta put them somewhere FMSky (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Just to brainstorm, how about removing the whole section "Twitch" entirely? It's just the platform he streams on. It feels like Hasan Piker#Career wants to be chronological, but the suspensions section sort of breaks that chronology. Maybe we can model it like Joe Rogan. There's no section Spotify for him. We can then add the content which was removed from the Twitch section chronologically. Sibshops (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I would support this. The "suspensions" section has to go but not necessarily due material within it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

We should wait until the others I have pinged above have weighed in FMSky (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

i'm actually in slight favor of keeping suspension section. There is a lot of sourced material, that seems to be combined together, and there is not much logical grouping otherwise.
I agree with simon it feels a bit like a WP:CSECTION, but I think also it seems undue to remove the fact that hasan piker seems to be suspended on a somewhat regular basis from the service, and so often as well. at the end of the day, this is the logical grouping, its not a coattrack for every thing hasan piker has done, its all his suspensions.

if there was another logical grouping that made better sense, might make sense. my second alternative is probs removing the section header but leaving all the material in the article, like simon says. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. It would be very undue to remove the material entirely. It is relevant to the subject and his notability. Jcgaylor (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jcgaylor check out this area of the talk page: [] and read over the draft. I think the way the suspensions are incorporated here actually work well. I also want the suspensions kept on the page--so I was initially skeptical and I do think more has to be added but I don't think it's a bad first attempt. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Clear POV problems

I think we're making good progress in addressing these problems. Thank you Cortador, Agnieszka653, Bluethricecreamman, FMSky, Simonm223, Sibshops and Based5290 for participating (I hope I didn't overlook anyone). There's more to do. The rewrite of the article chronologically will be a great help. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Literally nothing about the section is non-neutral. The opposite is the case actually, there are important details being left out, such as the Dan Crewshaw feud FMSky (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for stating a POV problem that you have concerns about. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you can add a "this section is missing content" tag if you want FMSky (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How is that appropriate? --Hipal (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Cause there are controversies missing such as the Dan Crewshaw feud and the dog collar story FMSky (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the shock collar will eventually be added on as JD Vance has now said something about it--I think it's just a matter of time of waiting for "sources that are deemed green" and appropriate for BLP become available. I'd give it a few more days. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The dog caller content is unrelated. I don't know why it got brought up.

So we indicate that some people think some content needs expansion, while ignoring any other disputed area? --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Shock collar substantiation

Let me preface this by saying I am a long time subscriber of Hasan and it brings me no pleasure to write this.

Since the original storm of controversy a few days ago regarding the shock collar incident, a trove of clips have been discovered contextualizing and effectively substantiating the fact that Hasan administered a shock to his dog in order to keep her in frame.

Clips have included actual footage of the shock collar remote, numerous other instances of Hasan getting upset when his dog gets up to stretch and leaving frame to do so, other streamers confirming it's a shock collar, and videos of Hasan acknowledging he uses a shock collar as well as a video of him yanking on his dog's tail.

This story has garnered an immense amount of attention, including many hundreds of thousands of Reddit upvotes across at least five damning viral clips. YouTube videos discussing the topic gave millions of views. As we all know, the Internet does not take animal abuse lightly, and this event has hugely damaged Hasan's reputation. It is therefore absolutely relevant and necessary to include it on this page.

Again, I'm not a hater. I was a subscriber. This story is not fabricated in any way and has been well substantiated now. We need to acknowledge and document the truth here. Warts and all. Afw35 (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If you can find several reliable sources stating and/or proving that Hasan used a shock collar and there's no reliable sources making an opposing claim, then go right ahead. Please note that random social media users do not count. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason I started a new thread on this talk page is because the other one covering this topic has essentially been neutered…baseless claims of AI writing, claims that the story is blown up or fabricated, and dismissal of multiple citations that are generally approved sources for living biographies.

If I have time tonight I will take the time to write something even-handed and properly cited. Other users in the thread above have already done the work of providing multiple quality sources.

If we don't include this, in my estimation, it looks like willful obfuscation and harms wiki's goal of impartiality. Afw35 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that Newsweek for instance that I cited isn't green anymore it's yellow. I have tried adding sources from the New York Times in the past but because it's "opinion" ie an interview with Piker in the opinion section I have received warnings about using "unvetted" or weak sources. If the dog collar accusation isn't on a source that bright blinking green and not in a "questionable" part of a paper (like opinion) it will get removed. The Piker page is armed to the teeth with people protecting his reputation. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Agnieszka653 how do we escalate this? This is suppression of truth and it's antithetical to this organization's purpose. Afw35 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

We should argue that the Newsweek piece is solid enough--maybe it isn't green but essentially that this has gone from tabloid gossip to a newsworthy piece--maybe add a controversies section? I am not a Piker fan--and I actually initially argued that the shock collar situation was not page worthy--but considering how it has snowballed over the last couple of days things change. I think adding a controversy section with some other events (making it balanced) and lumping the dog collar in with that is the best approach. That way it isn't a stand alone thing giving it undue weight. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a Controversies-type section would best encapsulate it - and a Newsweek article should suffice to report on this controversy (i.e. it's not "proof" of the allegation, but it just states that there is an allegation, and that Hasan Piker has replied to that allegation.) Khuft (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. So for example, if I or someone invest the time to write this up, and it gets immediately reverted and eliminated, what then do we do? Afw35 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

We contest it--but just be prepared for that possibility. I know that Hipal wants to minimize the suspensions section--make it not as prominent--we could always barter? Roll controversies and suspensions into one section. This would also take care of the Piker-pirate-Houthis terror situation since that can be lumped into controversies as well. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone, these accusations have been refuted. It's not as clear cut as some of these comments above are making the situation seem. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Afw35 I think that's part of the problem here 'lot's of Reddit sleuths have been doing things'... and then several Tabloids have been doing 'not the best work' (even for them) to summarize and investigate this, for a person who is important, but also not super important, flamed on by other similar people and all that in the context of WP:BLP. It takes a lot of professionalism to write something substantiated in the article in that context, and we've not seen a lot of that so far, in part because the sources for it are so trash. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't mention the Reddit posts as a source, but rather as a way to indicate the scale of the situation's notoriety. When a Reddit post surpasses one hundred thousand votes it's pretty unusual and therefore an indicator of widespread awareness. Afw35 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's in conspiracy theory territory at the moment, which in itself is worth mentioning as a coordinated harassment campaign against Piker. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's kinda funny to see how WP is no longer even pretending to be unbiased and hide behind bureaucracy hoping that people will just give up/forget. Sławobóg (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think people are pretending. If claims without a reliable source were allowed it would open a floodgate of misinformation. Sibshops (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue that's grating with people is that the "claims" are pretty obvious for most people, but instead of editors jointly looking for ways to source this in an appropriate way, incl. HP's response to the allegations, the controversy as a whole is dismissed by many people here as "claims" or "speculation". Khuft (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I can see the editor's hands being tied here. Especially, because WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:NOTGOSSIP say no attacks or gossip. Sibshops (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:BLPBALANCE is an issue if we just state (with sources - see e.g below) that there is a controversy, and that he has countered them. Also, this controversy certainly rises above the level of "gossip"... we're not talking about him changing the colour of his fingernails. Khuft (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just because something is trending on a website, does not make it notable. I say this mostly based on the lack of existence of suitable sources that address the topic directly and in detail. There are many unreliable sources and original research in regard to this topic. It doesn't meet WP:NOTE Malibukenz (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tabloid magazine. It doesn't rely on gossip, spin doctors, or internet "sleuths" as credible evidence. Indeed, there is little credible evidence for most of the allegations of abuse. We should not care what a Twitch streamer says about this. We should not care what a populat reddit post says about it. We should care about what verifiable, credible sources say about it. DashJB1999 (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

such as the manufacturer of the shock collar in question confirming that the collar is a shock collar? 2607:F2C0:E98C:1B80:9963:E074:A27:E86D (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here who saw this on ANI. Given that the Hollywood Reporter and Newsweek has reported on this issue with more articles likely to come in the next week or so, I think two to three sentences detailing the controversy is due weight for inclusion on the page. No more than that as expanding on it would be lending too much weight to the controversy. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

"Given that ... more articles [are] likely to come in the next week or so ..."

Well, let's wait until that point then and assess based on actual articles that have actually gone to print, etc. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, WP:CRYSTAL is not good reason for inclusion. Sibshops (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The Newsweek and Hollywood Reporter articles already exist though. My point being; the story has already been reported by reliable sources. This at least merits some form on inclusion on the article; how much weight though can be discussed later as the story evolves. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NEWSWEEK says articles from them since 2013 are not generally reliable. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly what a hater would write.

"including many hundreds of thousands of Reddit upvotes" ...like are we being serious right now? This "controversy" is a nothing-burger being obviously pushed by certain communities online. I have my disagreements with Piker, personally, but none of the mainstream news outlets ever covered this. Notable and influential figures in politics have not denounced Piker or even acknowledged this supposed scandal. It's limited to online hubs such as Twitch and Reddit, not reality. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

https://amp.tmz.com/2025/10/16/hasan-piker-denies-dog-shock-collar-claims/

You can't get more mainstream than TMZ, which is yellow on the perennial sources page, and which has become one of the most prominent news sources in the country, despite their origins as a gossip tabloid. That article has a direct interview with Hasan himself where he acknowledges the severity of this controversy and its backlash. I know it won't pass muster for Hasan's protectors here, but it just goes to show.

"This is what a hater would write." Sure, find any way you want to dismiss the claims. The truth is that I was a listener and borderline a fan, and seeing him do this felt like betrayal.

I'm not sure what is and what is not appropriate for a talk page but my feelings on Hasan are basically that there is a dearth of young, incisive, left leaning political voices in our country today. Hasan has great political takes and is a very effective communicator of progressive ideas. Seeing him administer an electrical shock to his dog because she was moving out of frame for his stream straight up enraged me. It's not just that it was strange and cruel, it was that the act revealed something dark and sinister about someone who really needs to be above reproach…for the good of our political climate

Go back and watch the clip. His dog gets up to stretch and he's immediately frustrated, complaining that his dog is acting like a "baby" because she got up from her bed. Hasan the commands his dog to return to its bed, he reaches for something on his desk and the dog screams.

Forget about the shock collar and just answer for me one thing about the moment before the shock: why would Hasan get frustrated that his dog got up from its bed to stretch? Afw35 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be asking editors to give weight to content based upon personal biases and poor sources (WP:TMZ). That's inappropriate. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, what about the following source, from a Spanish newspaper: abc.es? It's not on the list of accepted sources, but that's likely because that list focuses on English language sources. The Wikipedia article on that newspaper calls it "one of Spain's three newspapers of record" (ABC (newspaper)). Khuft (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe it still violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it uses weasel words to attribute the attack to an anonymous person. Sibshops (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

ah, I was just replying to your comment above. See there for my comment on gossip. To me, your point sounds pretty much like wiki-lawyering. Of course they wouldn't name individual people since the controversy has involved countless people making those allegations. And they do cite PETA at the end of the article. Khuft (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

And note, too, that at the end the article cites HP's response. So it's pretty even-handed. Khuft (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

PETA isn't making the claim, however. They just issued a general statement of not to use shock collars. Since the claim is still coming from anonymous or unreliable sources, it's still gossip. Sibshops (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Now you're just wiki-lawyering. Khuft (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's wiki-lawyering to ask for the person or source for the claim.

For example, a source would look like this:

American Journalist, Taylor Lorenz, investigated the shock collar controversy and found no creditable evidence a shock was administered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaAlBfNnJY (Note: that since this is self-published it doesn't meet the wikipedia editoral standards. I'm just using it as an example.)Sibshops (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz has also repeatedly called Hasan Piker "hot" and gushed about him on air--clearly she has a few biases in Piker's favor. In addition she was pushed out of two major newspapers for bullying teenagers online and emotionally manipulating interview subjects. She is not an ethically sound source or journalist. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that self-published material isn't a reliable source. I'm just saying that even if it comes from a reliable source, if it is gossip, it's not worthy of inclusion. Sibshops (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, continue to defend him. The fact that pro-HP youtubers are rushing to publishing debunking videos just shows this is indeed a controversy that goes beyond gossip. Anyway, the original qualm was that no reputable enough media had reported the controversy. I shared one that did, ABC in Spain. Now you are moving the goalpost - sorry, but that's post-truth type behaviour I'm more used to seeing on other sides of the political spectrum. Khuft (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making personal attacks and aspersions about other editors. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)2601:985:4101:E9FD:1F3:C646:2999:B466 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The ABC article is very weak to demonstrate WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Gossip is just repeated claims without a source for the claim. It's still gossip, no matter how big it gets. Sibshops (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sibshops is either arguing in bad faith or doesn't understand what gossip means. This isn't hearsay or rumor, it's an event documented on video and now well substantiated and contextualized by other clips and evidence, as well as widely reported on by legitimate news sites. By this user's logic you could have a video of Hasan punching his dog in the face and it would be "gossip." Absolutely ridiculous line of argumentation. Afw35 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If the best you can find is opinion articles and a news article from a Spanish newspaper of unknowns provenance it's probably not due inclusion. At all. Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Afw35: So where are all of the reliable sources that show these allegations are substantiated? You gotta provide solid sources with journalistic integrity, because there is a high bar for inclusion of gossipy things on a BLP. 172.58.10.83 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The Hill is literally a greenlisted site on the perennial sources page. However, despite my strong moral convictions I've given up on this topic as it's become clear to me there are exists a team of dedicated users who will destroy any additions that document this very real controversy. Afw35 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A single segment of "reporter reads Twitter in lieu of the news" on The Hill is not WP:SIGCOV and is effectively pure opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, it's a segment of a video report, not a published article, much less a BLP-quality article. --Hipal (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Why am I getting notifications on this? I haven’t posted in this thread. Generikuser (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you subscribe to this thread? Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

To validate your frustration, I totally get that. Like in cryptocurrency wiki pages, there is so much more crypto-supporting sources than crypto-critical sources, and in my opinion, the supporting sources feel like they are advocating for crypto instead of being impartial. So because of this the wikipage feels like it's partial, too. But there's nothing to be done, it's sort of just part of the inherent limitation of verifiability on wikipedia. Sibshops (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems rather strange that there is 0 mention of the alleged dog shocking incident, even if the person in question denies it, given the amount of reputable media coverage on this topic. Triplefour (talk)

That's because no one bothered to make a RfC about it until now. When IPs and new accounts keeps engaging in edit warring and complaining on the talk page all that accomplished is to get both protected

Removal of content

Hipal has repeatedly removed sourced information from this article over the course of the last year without establishing any kind of consent on the talk page (quite the contrary). The vast majority of the removed information can be described as shining a negative light on Piker. The user clearly has an axe to grind and this is a case of WP:TE and WP:DE. They recently began scrubbing the article of information regarding Piker's multitude of suspensions. I'd be glad if someone with more credentials than me could revert the edits until Hipal manages to establish consent, before I, as a mere IP user, revert the changes and kick off an edit war. 91.97.138.139 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we need a new strategy...also he did start a talk page about getting rid of the section about suspension. I am advocating for a controversies section. I think that's the way to go. Ethan Klein has one--so should Hasan Piker. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections are not best practice. I would oppose creating one here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Then what would the best strategy be for making the page more balanced? Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop trying to shoe-horn every nothing-burger Twitter controversy into a BLP page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything on the page regarding the dog controversy. My concern is with the suspensions. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If the suspensions have a significant impact on his biography then their inclusion should be organic. If they have not then they should not be included. This is an overview of the life of a living person. We don't dig into every minor picadillo. 16:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing happens "organically" on wikipedia, it happens from discussions like this. Ratgomery (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not at all what I meant. What I am saying is that criticism should be included in sections related to the biographical topics the criticism is related to. So, ex, suspensions would be covered under a section like "career" rather than being ghettoized. Simonm223 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal The article has been fully protected due to edit warring. Please do not continue to edit war on this talk page. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to oblige per my talk page header. Thanks for asking.

This article was protected at my request, then heavily redacted afterward for "Serious BLP violations".

This talk page has also been protected and heavily redated for the same reasons. Maybe it's time to do so again. Meanwhile I'll try to WP:DFTT. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Since when has the talk page been redacted? Trade (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

These "trims" by Hipal are borderline TBAN worthy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Piker&diff=prev&oldid=1316638151 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Piker&diff=prev&oldid=1316819543 FMSky (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This user is unable to make constructive edits to this article. Jcgaylor (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Just adding my thoughts that it's quite odd that this singular user "Hipal" seems to think they're the gatekeeper of this article, removing multiple additions in a seemingly attempt to sterilise any potential negatively perceived additions. Is this what Wikipedia is for? Repeatedly removing content under the guise of a consensus that seemingly doesn't exist? Triplefour (talk)

WP:FOC, WP:AGF, WP:NPA. --Hipal (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please do somthing about this editor? FMSky (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. @Hipal: In the interest of fulfilling FOC, I will say that both the Intelligencer and the National Review mention his feud with Crenshaw several years after the incident. While I agree with the removal of the Kotaku source (that's a gaming site) and giving it a bit less weight than the "America deserved 9/11" stuff, I think total removal is a bit much. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The Intelligencer ref is still in. It's an interview, so not something very good for us to work from in determining what is DUE and encyclopedic.

WP:NATIONALREVIEW.

I'd hoped there would be a usable source for the 9/11 content from the NY mayoral race coverage, but I've yet to find it. Regardless, it seems DUE. The Crenshaw content has received much more pushback against inclusion, and from the sources looks too much like Piker just being provocative to get publicity. --Hipal (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Possible career section rewrite

This is a rough draft, but what are people's thoughts on a Career section rewrite to be chronological instead of a bucket of topics? I didn't remove or shorten any of the text mentioning suspensions.

User:Sibshops/Hasan_Piker_career_reorg

If people like it I can clean it up.

The idea is to model it after Joe Rogan#Career. Sibshops (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Very good start. Thank you. Chronological is the way to go. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, I get the appeal of a chronological section but I feel this hides his controversies too much... FMSky (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I prefer this version... (btw, since you aren't WP:XC yet, you're not supposed to edit anything related to Palestine/Israel. so not sure how that would work in this situation.) Rainsage (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't make the edit. Someone else would have to split up the large Twitch category to separate sections.

2018–present: Twitch

To:

• Early Twitch career and crossover from TYT (2018–2019)
• Breakout and election-cycle coverage (2020)
• Platform growth and moderation debates (2021–2022)
• Gaza-war coverage and advertiser backlash (2023–2025)

Then the suspensions section would naturally be eliminated. Sibshops (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you did a good job of adding the controversies into the body. It flows well. Only one I think you should probably add that I didn't see was the interview with the Yemeni Pirate. That did generate a lot of coverage and backlash. But I like how you included Rick Scott, the Capital Jewish Museum, and 9/11 comments. If this is how the suspensions and controversies are going to be covered conceptually I think it's good. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I decided to reduce the scope. I just started by moving sections around and will work forward from there. Sibshops (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)