Talk:Destiny (streamer)

Request for edits to semi-protected article, 15 August 2023

At this page and at the main article, I request that those maintaining its protected status take the following actions:

At this page:

• In reply to this edit, please introduce the standard request and response markup, so that request section headers are standardised, and response boxes begin appearing. Justification: This results in clear demarcation of request-reply content from other Talk page engagements, allowing efficient scanning for the decisions/statuses of mediated edits. Note, this markup and formatting is in keeping with WP's modus operandi for requests made at this type of protected Talk page.

At the article page:

• 1, Regarding citation "33. Breland, Ali...". Combine this with the earlier appearance of this citation. (It is a duplicate citation.) Justification: It is standard WP citation practice to present sources once, and use the

}} Wez46 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Destiny should be added to the categories of "American anti-fascists" and "American anti-communists."

That is all. NesserWiki (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Do you have a source for both claims? FortunateSons (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments/views on Islam?

Over the past year, Bonell has received death threats for his comments on Islam and Muhhamed. He has also refered to himself as "Islamophobic" on one occasion. Is this worth mentioning? 2601:CF:4500:5470:B7F7:B273:5595:F491 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources mention this? Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In this video from November 15 2024, Destiny states he hates arabs: https://x.com/Acid_Communist/status/1857546424646353079 Hrodrik (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a satirical remark, that is not an actual position Bonnell holds. He has stated that he is against Islam but has nothing against muslims. 91.157.74.12 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Laughed at innocent man being murdered

Why was the update that Destiny laughed at an innocent man that was killed during the attempted assignation of President Trump removed. This is relevant information to Dentiny’s character or lack there of. 2600:1700:70E0:B9F0:71B9:17EB:AE75:8FB8 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source will be needed before the article can cover this subject, especially since it is a biography of a living person.

So far, it does not appear that any reliable sources have covered the issue yet—potentially we could do some WP:ABOUTSELF coverage from Destiny’s own posts, but there would need to be consensus on how much weight the issue deserves. Zylostr (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Is destiny himself not a reliable source? 2600:8800:2F02:400:371C:CF79:65C3:B848 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

He'd be reliable for if he said it, but not if it matters. Secondary sources are necessary to demonstrate it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Destiny is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia profile. His own words should be enough demonstration that it’s noteworthy. In his opening he is considered a political commentator. Where is a secondary source confirming that he is a political commentator and that it’s noteworthy for his account. WhowinsIwins (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't it matter because it resulted in his temporary banning from Kick? His banning from Twitch following controversial trans-activist remarks is already being covered.

I agree that a secondary source is necessary to demonstrate noteworthiness and (more importantly imo) credibility, but it looks like "Dextero.com" has covered this. Modest Nidoking (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we know if "Dextero is considered a reliable source? The fact that Destiny made light of the killing of a bystander was covered in the following article: [1]https://www.dexerto.com/kick/destiny-thanks-trainwreck-for-helping-get-his-hate-speech-kick-ban-lifted-2835592/ 2603:7080:402:D900:CC30:A083:FB94:BD94 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Dexerto is definitely not reliable enough for contentious stuff like this in a BLP. Shapeyness (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is contentious. It is addressing controversial statements that Destiny made that got him temporarily removed from Kick, but the fact that he made those controversial statements is not actually contentious. Modest Nidoking (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but Dexerto is a very low quality source, it's not useful for establishing due weight here imo. Shapeyness (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that the due weight comes from the fact that his comments resulted in a temporary ban from kick, affecting his main job as a streamer. Furthermore, due to the fact that he is a niche, internet celebrity most of the sources that talk about him at all are not high quality (and yet they are already in use). Kotaku and Dotesports are used when talking about why he was banned from Twitch, despite the fact that neither of these-as far as I could see-are verified as generally reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

There are other sources that discuss this controversy:

[2]https://thatparkplace.com/elon-musk-appears-to-demonetize-streamer-destiny-on-x-after-hateful-posts-about-murder-victim-corey-comperatore/

https://www.latestly.com/socially/social-viral/streamer-destiny-is-banned-on-kick-steven-kenneth-bonnell-loses-his-streaming-channel-after-allegedly-mocking-deceased-firefighter-corey-comperatore-6116491.html#google_vignette

https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1924497/Piers-Morgan-fumes-you-are-inhuman-controversial-interview Modest Nidoking (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: it appears that a Pakistani WP:NEWSORG, The Express Tribune, has picked up the story, but the article seems to be of low quality, containing errors like claiming that the firefighter who was killed was "shot in the ear". I'm not sure that it's of good enough quality for BLP purposes, although it could potentially lend due weight to Destiny's primary source statements.Zylostr (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I interpreted the above discussion as not supporting the addition of a paragraph about Bonnell's comments about the assassination attempt. It was added anyway, on 2024-07-30, but it only sourced Bonnell's X posts and Sportskeeda (unrealiable). Then a couple of people edited it to try to improve it, but it still only relied on Bonnell's X posts. Seeing as the paragraph was poorly sourced and hadn't had further discussion here, I removed it citing WP:BLPREMOVE. But then @Lovecel added it again, saying

Please stop deleting giant sections you don't agree with. It is directly sourced from his statement. Start a talk page discussion if you disagree with the consensus.

But I thought the consensus was that it shouldn't be added, at least not using just Bonnell's posts as source. And isn't this where it should be discussed, before adding it to the article again? Paditor (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You think direct quotes from the personal social media account of someone famous for their personal social media account is "poor sourcing" regarding a direct quote? If you want to trim to remove any reference to people's reactions that's fine, but it clearly meets the exemptions for WP:Twitter-EL LOVECEL ^🤍 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing his Twitter posts is good to cite what he wrote, but not why it's notable. He writes a lot on Twitter and most of it's not notable. And there were a lot of things which weren't sourced when I removed it. I also didn't see any new discussion here about the problems that people already brought up, and saw the addition of the paragraph as an attempt to avoid WP:NEGOTIATE.

With that in mind, I personally don't have much of a problem with content of the paragraph now (after I changed it a little), though more reliable sources to show notability would be good. Paditor (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What is needed to allow this edit is (1) a primary source for the content and (2) a reliable secondary source to show its noteworthiness, correct? Are any of these reliable secondary sources: (1) a GameRant article</ref> about his reaction, (2) a Fox News article about his reaction, and/or (3) a That Park Place article about his reaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomPersonWhoWillContributeToWiki (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As has already been stated, Fox News is blacklisted per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. As has already been stated, "tribune.com.pk" contains obvious factual errors. "That Park Place" seems more like a blog that a reliable secondary source (there's no information on their website about who they are and if they're professional journalists or amateurs), and per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368, GameRant's reliability has been highly questioned just for entertainment news, nevermind politics. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What about the following solution: given that some information on Bonnell's views are already sourced from YouTube videos, such as some economic views as well as his claim that colleges should include both conservatives and liberals, can the information about Bonnell's tweets be added by also referencing Piers Morgan's show, since Morgan showed Bonnell's tweets on screen? RandomPersonWhoWillContributeToWiki (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Information sourced to Bonnell himself from his youtube video rests on WP:ABOUTSELF, which has very strict rules. Basically, only non-controversial statements of fact he makes about himself can be sourced to primary sources. So for example, Wikipedia will allow editors to source a streamer stating something like mundane like their birthday to a primary source, but anything more exceptional than that is contentious. The Piers Morgan Show would likely not be a good source, because those are back-and-forth debates and not a news summary, making them primary rather than secondary sources. So that would mean editors using primary sources to do original research (WP:OR), which is strictly ruled out on Wikipedia.

At the end of the day, if a reliable secondary news source like a national newspaper or a national news network had covered the story in a summary style, you could have simply used something like that. For example, the Washington Post is one of the sources already used in the article and no one here would have a problem with the reliability of that source. The Guardian is another one in there. If you had something like the Washington Post cover the story, that would be a reliable secondary source and it would also show it was a notable occurrence (because a major outlet is covering it). CeltBrowne (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

One source I haven't seen mentioned yet is The Economist who wrote in an article on July 15th (mirror):

Destiny, a leftist social-media commentator, told his 250,000 X followers that Mr Trump and his supporters will “reap what they sow, and I’m here to watch the harvest”.

quoting this tweet.

They didn't focus on it, they just gave it as an example of the rhetoric on social media after the shooting, but it still shows some notability of Bonnell's statements. Paditor (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Good find, agreed that those seem both notable and reliable LOVECEL ^🤍 00:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While the Economist is reliable, secondary source, It's one sentence in an article that is otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with Bonnell. I was very recently told by User:Hipal and User:Patar knight in Talk:Hasan Piker#New York Times citation in Reception subsection that one sentence in an reliable secondary article is not enough for a BLP article and is WP:Undue as well as cherrypicking.

Either it is the case that one that sentence in a reliable secondary source is enough, in which case an alteration needs to be made to Hasan Piker, or it's not, in which case the one sentence mention in the Economist source isn't enough for Destiny (streamer). It cannot be correct for one BLP article and incorrect for another. @Hipal: and @Patar knight:, do you want to weigh in on this? CeltBrowne (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt_CipOPPs0&pp=ygUUZGVzdGlueSBwaWVycyBtb3JnYW4%3D This is a direct, source link to the episode of Piers Morgan's show where you can watch him laugh about the firefighter who died protecting his family. 24.178.214.122 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

He also elaborates further that any one who is dumb enough to attend a Trump rally gets what they deserve. 24.178.214.122 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is notable and you are free to add it, but be aware there are more guidelines when it comes to linking video (see here) LOVECEL ^🤍 20:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out in this thread, debates of any sort (from Piers Morgan or otherwise), are examples of primary rather than reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources are typically not used in BLP articles. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't rely on primary sources for the general biography part of BLP but the idea that we can't use a primary source to extract an exact quote from someone, especially one so controversial and notable is ludicrous. LOVECEL ^🤍 21:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources to decide which quotes are notable and which aren't. The subject of the article has had 1,000s of debates with 10,000 "quotes". Picking one over the other goes down the road of original research. If a reliable, secondary source like the Economist thinks a quote is specific notable, that's fair game (and has been included in the article). CeltBrowne (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Renouncing progressivism.

Destiny has since renounced Progressivism, and now considers himself just a "Centre Left Liberal". Should probably be added. 2601:CF:4500:5470:30F:998F:355B:617B (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinions on "Political Views" Section

I think for a political streamer it is not worth separating "career" and "political views". (I removed this headline in February) There is far too much overlap between the section for example the sentence

In March 2024, he appeared on the Lex Fridman Podcast in a debate with Norman Finkelstein, historian Benny Morris, and political analyst Mouin Rabbani regarding the Israeli–Hamas conflict

is now twice in the text. His twitch ban is also in "political Views" and in "Career". Why is his debate with Finkelstein in "political Views" and in "Career" but his Richard D. Wolff debate is only in "Career"?

Therefore I think this differentiation does not help the reader as there is not a clear separation. IPPON01 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone give a reason why citing the personal social media posts of someone famous for their personal social media is insufficient for BLP?

Wikipedia:Twitter-EL in cases of no other sources it's clearly allowed, but we seem to be having a lot of edit warring. LOVECEL ^🤍 03:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is notability (Wikipedia:Notability). The subject of the article tweets almost every day; why are these comments any more noteworthy than anything else they've said? On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable secondary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) deem is notable. We as individual editors don't get to pick what is or is not notable from someone's social media accounts. Even for someone as high profile as Donald Trump, we cannot pick whatever social media posts that person makes and craft narratives around that. I couldn't just pick a random Trump post from "Truth Social" and build a paragraph on Wikipedia around it. Reliable secondary sources need to indicate specific posts as notable. This is particularly the case on BLP articles.

Sourcing "giant chunks" of an article by citing the subject's social media isn't just terrible sourcing, it's strictly not allowed on Wikipedia on BLP articles.

As mad as the subject's comments might have made conservatives, they weren't picked up by reliable sources. If you don't have a reliable source for something on Wikipedia, it doesn't make it in. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But WP:Notability "does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.", so it isn't relevant here right?

I think the problem is that we can't really know if we're being neutral in our selection of specific quotes when Bonnell posts and streams so much.

The tweets could be cherrypicked or there could be context that paints Bonnell in a better light. For example:

1. The text said that one of the tweets was a joke, but this was an editors interpretation, so it was removed. But what if it was a joke?
2. One of the tweets was a reply to another tweet, which is now deleted (and I don't know how to see Twitter archives). What if the original tweet was important to understand Bonnell's reply?

Paditor (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on notability but which one is the one you want the archive for? Give the link and I can get the context. As for neutrality that's probably a real issue however I'm not sure it's surmountable here. Destiny has talked about how the edgy debate bro is the persona he want's to maintain, and so even if it's not really reflective of how he actually is I think that its fairly reflective of how he acts publicly. But not sure how to add that without it being essentially speculation and more editor interpretation. LOVECEL ^🤍 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Include Destiny's opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RFy6yZfdyM go to 41:50 for the source Solzhenevsky (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Too parasocial?

This article goes so deep into his personal life (his son, divorce, etc.) with so many shaky sources like youtube videos and tweets. Is that really necessary? Maybe it would be better to cover only the main facts about him and leave the gossip out. Badbluebus (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Anyone else find it suspicious that his associated are the most extreme right wing people he has debated with, some only once? It seems like whoever wrote it wants Destiny associated with these beliefs that he well, is obviously against. 2603:9001:2800:A26:E968:EA7D:A2DB:3E02 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)