Talk:Asmongold: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

 

Line 28: Line 28:

|12={{cite web |date=November 13, 2025 |title=Right-wing streamer Asmongold on podcasts hosting Nick Fuentes: “Nick brings in views. … That’s why he gets invited.” |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nick-fuentes/right-wing-streamer-asmongold-podcasts-hosting-nick-fuentes-nick-brings-views-thats |website=[[Media Matters for America]] |archive-url= |archive-date=}}

|12={{cite web |date=November 13, 2025 |title=Right-wing streamer Asmongold on podcasts hosting Nick Fuentes: “Nick brings in views. … That’s why he gets invited.” |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nick-fuentes/right-wing-streamer-asmongold-podcasts-hosting-nick-fuentes-nick-brings-views-thats |website=[[Media Matters for America]] |archive-url= |archive-date=}}

|13={{cite web |date=November 20, 2025 |title=Asmongold says collaborating with Nick Fuentes is “not a matter of if, but when” |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nick-fuentes/asmongold-says-collaborating-nick-fuentes-not-matter-if-when |website=[[Media Matters for America]] |archive-url= |archive-date=}}

|13={{cite web |date=November 20, 2025 |title=Asmongold says collaborating with Nick Fuentes is “not a matter of if, but when” |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nick-fuentes/asmongold-says-collaborating-nick-fuentes-not-matter-if-when |website=[[Media Matters for America]] |archive-url= |archive-date=}}

|14={{cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=A. |last2=Whyke |first2=T. W. |last3=Song |first3=Z. |date=2025 |title=Cultural overflow vs. cultural export: Black Myth: Wukong and the evolution of Chinese gaming in global creative industries |journal=Creative Industries Journal |pages=1–19 |doi=10.1080/17510694.2025.2583652}}

|15={{cite journal |last=Ruch |first=Adam |date=2025 |title=Forced: Perceptions of “Woke” Politics in Video Games |journal=International Journal of Communication |volume=19 |pages=2008–2027 |issn=1932–8036}}

|16={{cite conference |last1=Locatelli |first1=Marcelo Sartori |last2=Costa |first2=Arthur S. da |last3=Thome |first3=Victor |last4=Vasconcelos |first4=Marisa |last5=Almeida |first5=Virgilio |date=2025 |title=From Inclusion to Contention: Analyzing DEI and “Woke” Narratives on Reddit |conference=Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining}}

}}

}}

If you are so passionate about including that moniker, you need to find better sources. The only reliable source that is cited is the Atlantic, but the writer is a culture critic and it clearly falls under “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces”. The other two are from somewhat obscure gaming magazines. In its current form, it’s an NPOV and BLP violation, as the other editor recently noted.

WP:RS is clear, a reliable source should not be used for a statement of fact if the source is editorial and opinion commentary, which in this case it is. Please see WP:NEWSOPED, where it is written plainly: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.”

I really don’t see why all the back and forth on this edit. If other editors are so certain he is right-wing, find more reliable sources to support it, or else re-write the article so that the Atlantic article about him being part of a group of other “right-leaning” streamers is correctly attributed to that editor or author of the Atlantic, rather than as a statement of fact. Until then, the term “Right-Wing” should be removed. 107.218.124.222 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the three sources for this:

None of these sources appear to be unreliable, nor are they opeds or editorials. Grayfell (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s break this down. The three sources, all opinion articles, are the sourcing for blanket defining this guy as “right-wing” as a statement of fact. And how was that determined? In these ways:

  1. The op-ed in The Atlantic, from this single paragraph (pro tip: starting a paragraph with “Sometimes I’d start to wonder” is a great way to identify that something is an opinion piece): “Sometimes I’d start to wonder what I was doing spending time listening to Asmongold at all. Then I’d notice that 60,000 people were watching live, or I’d go to his YouTube page and see that the viewership for any given clip from his streams ranges from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. He may sound like just some guy on the couch—but now he, and many other guys on the couch, have captured a slice of the voting public, and have ties to political figures of influence. Not all gaming streamers are alike; Piker, who’s been hyped as the potential “Joe Rogan of the left” in news coverage since the election, delivers heady Marxist theory and wonkish research on geopolitics in a tone of frat-boy exuberance. But Asmongold is the more popular figure, and he’s one member of a larger, right-leaning ecosystem.” And how do we know that he’s a member of a right-leaning ecosystem? Because Spencer Kornhaber, pop culture columnist at the atlantic, thinks he is.
  2. The second source that was used to justify the label was the article from gamedeveloper.com, which while attempting to be a little more journalist in tone, is filled with editorializing. The sole justification is that none other than unknown writer Bryant Francis (who?) simply deemed it so, by declaring that: “Around that time, content creators and Steam users in the far-right ecosystem began a campaign targeting work-for-hire game narrative studio Sweet Baby Inc.” and then: “One such creator was streamer and Mad Mushroom cofounder “Asmongold,” who repeatedly discussed the campaign in a number of 2024 videos, agreeing with the claims” There’s nothing else in this article about Asmongold, because the article isn’t even about him. And the entire crux of using this article as a source is this: Anyone that criticized the narrative studio Sweet Baby Inc. was de facto right-wing, and oh by the way, Asmongold also criticized them on his stream. Therefore, Asmongold is right wing. Logic checks out. There’s no fallacies there, right? RIGHT?
  3. And lastly, the last “source” for declaring as a statement of fact that Asmongold is a purely right-wing political commentator is the highly esteemed “aftermath.site” website, where the author of the op-ed shares his opinion that Asmongold has “leaned further into far-right politics”. You can find this in the paragraph section, of the article you claim is not an op-ed, titled “The Asmongold Problem”. You can’t make this stuff up.
And that’s it. Those three things are the entire justification for universally declaring in the opening introduction of a living person bio that they are “Right-Wing” in the entirety of their political commentary. Give me a break. 107.218.124.222 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not opinions just because you don’t like what they say, and the Atlantic often publishes longer-form journalism which uses includes the journalists perspective and conversational elements. These elements are more prominent in New Journalism, but they have existed for about as long as journalism itself has. This style of writing is not the same as opinion content, and the purpose of that article is not to advance any particular opinion or cause.
If we’re sharing pro-tips, than be aware that ‘op-ed’ isn’t the same thing as ‘opinion’, and using them interchangeably weakens an already weak argument.
‘The Asmongold Problem’ was referring to when Asmongold went on a racist tirade, which created a problem for companies he is or was involved with. This tirade caused OTK issue a statement distancing themselves from Hoyt’s views, and then Hoyt stepped-downed from his leadership position with the group. What is this if not a problem? Good lord. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are absolutely opinion pieces. I can’t speak for others, but I neither like nor dislike what these opinions have to say, and nothing I have read above would imply the previous points were based on personal feelings about the content of the sources. What I dislike is that they are not reliable sources for a living person biography for use as a STATEMENT OF FACT. They violate every written policy about how to use opinion sources and the care that should be taken when writing and editing living person bios. A living person bio should ALWAYS err on the side of neutrality in cases when there is even the slightest of doubts. There is ample evidence to show that there is legitimate, good faith concerns as to the sourcing being used to make a blanket statement of fact in the intro of this living person bio. For that reason alone, the “right-wing” term should be removed to restore total neutrality to the article until which time a consensus can be reached. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if this person is or is not right-wing, and by using poor sourcing to make a statement of fact like this, that is what they are trying to do.
No amount of attempts to define obvious opinions in an article as “New Journalism” is going to change the fact that the Atlantic article, while ironically being the most reliable source used, is actually the most egregious of the sources in terms of its blending of opinion into the article, making it entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a STATEMENT OF FACT in a living person bio. The other two sources are not reliable at all. Whether or not you think they are opinion doesn’t even actually matter. One is only listed as a reliable source for topics of game development, making them, again, entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a statement of fact about someone’s political leanings. And the last source, aftermath.site, is not listed as a reliable source at all, and as a relatively unknown, obscure gaming news site with very low reach and unknown journalistic standards, it is, again, completely inappropriate to use as a source for a statement of fact in a living person bio.
You can dance around this reality all you want, but hiding behind technicalities or arguments about what defines New Journalism really does not change at all that the use of these sources to make a statement of fact in a living person bio violates both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia guidelines. Rebel Gnome (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pro tip: starting a paragraph with “Sometimes I’d start to wonder” is a great way to identify that something is an opinion piece) Ending it with “I recognize his hypnotized, single-minded mentality from my own gaming experiences. After a certain amount of playtime, what’s on-screen stops looking like a coherent world and starts looking like inputs and outputs, challenges and rewards. And when you look up, reality feels like the screen.” is also not exactly Cronkite-esque either, if you know what I’m saying. The guy literally closes his piece by admitting his flaws, his past experiences with incoherence, and his tendency to project! Marcus Markup (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that’s just “New Journalism”, so it’s all good! Rebel Gnome (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asmongold is left-leaning. Don’t believe me? Here’s some primary sources, aka his own words:
He supports Universal Basic Income
He thinks rich people should pay more taxes
He is a huge fan of Bernie Sanders 216.71.201.101 (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is his headline-grabbing bigotry towards Palestinians which has some people (including writer from The Atlantic) absolutely convinced he is “right-wing”, and that cancels out in their minds, his left-wing and libertarian views on many social issues. The implication that being a meanie is a defining aspect of being “right-wing” is a mistake pop culture critics get to make, but not serious political thinkers, or encyclopedias. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. He has said right-wing things, he has said left-wing things. If anything he sounds more akin to a shock jock or some kind of populist commentator who benefits in viewership by discussing controversial topics. But the point is it doesn’t matter what we as editors think he is, what matters is the current sourcing does not support labeling him “right wing” as a statement of fact. It’s not the job of a Wikipedia editor to make the determination one way or the other, only to find reliable sources that contribute to adding the content required to accurately, dispassionately, and fairly describe a notable person in their bio, and Wikipedia guidelines are crystal clear on how to handle living person bios when it comes to disputed points of fact that are poorly sourced. Neutrality in the article should always win out.
It’s really a disgrace that this has remained live on the article for so long. Looking over the edit log it is abundantly clear that zero consensus has ever been reached on this topic, as it’s been in a virtual edit war ever since it was added, which means the WP:ONUS should have always been on those wishing to add the right-wing moniker BEFORE it was ever included into the article, especially given the special requirements that are to be taken in living person bios specifically. Rebel Gnome (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR — Czello (music) 16:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He’s not listing those sources to say they should be included in the article, he’ just making a point that it’s a complicated subject that has nuance. Nothing changes the fact that the current sources are not appropriate to be used as a statement of fact in the way they are being used, and I have yet to hear any counter argument to that point. Rebel Gnome (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello please do not undo edits to page without discussion here first. Consensus to include the content you are trying to add has clearly not been reached, and the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve that consensus before adding it. All one needs to do it review the talk page to see that consensus has not been reached.
WP:BLP is clear that disputed content related to the neutrality of the article should be removed immediately.
The path forward is to remove the disputed content first and then achieve the consensus on talk. It is not appropriate to include the disputed content without consensus. Rebel Gnome (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty fishy when a brand new account starts spewing Wikilinks like an old pro while misrepresenting both the substance of this discussion, and the cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long time IP editor and decided to finally create a user account because I got tired of other editors reverting my edits for no other reason than the fact that it was coming from an IP address.
And I misrepresented nothing. I read the entirety of those articles that were being used as sources, and I think I outlined their flaws pretty thoroughly already here in Talk.
The loaded term was stealth edited into the intro of a living person bio as a statement of fact using questionable sources without any discussion, much less consensus. And once noticed, it remained in a virtual edit war until now. Rebel Gnome (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Grayfell. The “right-wing” had been removed. Fortunately, I was able to restore the previous status quo. Should this page perhaps be locked or something? Protectron123 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been and is no consensus for calling Hoyt “right-wing”, and the “status quo” at this point is for him to remain unlabeled. Biographies of living people have very high standards for using loaded terms to label people… please familiarize yourself with WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only you, “Marcus”, and the user “Rebel Gnome” who are opposing this long-established consensus? I think @Grayfell and @Czello are more of an authority here. I will now revert this back to what it was before. Protectron123 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus, and I’m not sure where you pulled “long-established” from. Regarding Czello, they admitted there was no consensus for inclusion here when they said, Indeed, I believed there was a consensus on the talk page from the discussion there, but in hindsight I was mistaken. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a solid consensus either way. Protectron123 (talk)

20:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, what’s your relation to @Rebel Gnome, “Marcus Markup”? Protectron123 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the implication or the scare-quoting of my user name. I will not humor such trollery. Please remember you are no longer on Rational Wiki. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Protectron123, there is no relation other than the fact that both myself and @Marcus Markup (and others that have also weighed in here in the past) seem to believe this living person biography should remain as neutral as possible and that adding anything where the sourcing is disputed should be discussed here first and consensus reached. This should be your stance too, so it’s concerning that it’s not. When I got involved on this particular article, I was honestly surprised that there was such an active and prolonged dispute over the particular “right-wing” edit and yet editors here insisted on trying to keep it live on the article anyway, despite clear guidelines about how to handle disputed content when it is related to living person biographies. The fact that we continue to have this debate about it here on Talk should answer your question about whether or not consensus has been reached. My contention from the very beginning has been that this source from The Atlantic, while perfectly fine to continue being used for this article in other ways, has never been appropriate to use as a source to make a statement of fact in a living person bio in the intro paragraph. Rebel Gnome (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear as I was tagged, I was mistaken when I said there was a consensus. In hindsight I cannot see one. — Czello (music) 20:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the “right-wing” commentator description should be restored. Grayfell had numerous, reliable sources for the edit, whereas everyone else who commented here was only relying on their personal interpretation of out-of-date statements that they apparently heard Asmongold make in the past. By Wikipedia standards, this shouldn’t be a controversy, because the “right-wing” description is the only one backed by recent, high-quality information. Hko2333 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that were cited are considered reliable for the way they were being used. That is, to make a disputed “statement of fact” in a living person bio. That’s really the crux of it in my opinion – making it a statement of fact. Simply declaring he is right wing, case closed, end of story; And basing that declaration on some weak sourcing, no less. That’s where it’s inappropriate. The reasons have been debated here ad nauseam, but I will paste part of my previous remarks again here for your reference:
“…the Atlantic article, while ironically being the most reliable source used, is actually the most egregious of the sources in terms of its blending of opinion into the article, making it entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a STATEMENT OF FACT in a living person bio. The other two sources are not reliable at all. Whether or not you think they are opinion doesn’t even actually matter. One is only listed as a reliable source for topics of game development, making them, again, entirely unsuited to be used as a source for a statement of fact about someone’s political leanings. And the last source, aftermath.site, is not listed as a reliable source at all, and as a relatively unknown, obscure gaming news site with very low reach and unknown journalistic standards, it is, again, completely inappropriate to use as a source for a statement of fact in a living person bio.” Rebel Gnome (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The below paragraph is among the worst things I’ve ever read on Wikipedia, which is particularly surprising given the high profile of the subject.

Sure, valid source, but the entire passage is just a poorly strung together set of snippets from the source article. It should be deleted entirely and the article used as a citation elsewhere in the page.

Hoyt has been described as being “technodeviant”; of being part of a group of typically involuntary celibate, white, heterosexual males whose privilege is alleged to displace marginalized communities from the gaming space. His non-gaming content has been described as being “carefully constructed to largely read apolitical unless taking up a particular right-wing grievance”. The authors further said the “suggestion is that he is performing his brand for an audience, and that his statements do not adequately reflect his personal beliefs”. Reference is made to a series of misogynistic comments he made which alluded to a former girlfriend and felt “obligated to say … because his audience would want to hear them”. In 2019 while in response to the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Hoyt provided “powerful commentary on disguised racism in the design of emotes” on Twitch. 147.147.185.167 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is based on a non-notable paper written by two non-notable academics. Nobody is talking about their paper in any way and there are therefore no secondary sources. I did object to its inclusion, but my revert was reverted. The initial insertion was also peculiar in that it did not actually include the purport of the authors of the paper, but seemed tailored to include one sentence fragment: their mention of the recently-contentious term “right-wing”. In the interests of NPOV, I then added context and purport. Without at least one secondary source referring to their work, I still support complete removal of their conclusions from the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the heirarchy of RS:
Peer-reviewed academic paper > primary SPS, and non-notable niche online outlets.
As the latter are used prolificly through the article, there’s nothing wrong with including sources that discuss Asmon which have some academic rigour behind them. — Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What academic rigor are you seeing, exactly? 75.132.176.144 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with User:Marcus Markup here. there are academic papers and then there are academic papers. the pub has 0 cites and was published in a journal of SJR of 0.160. there are **undergrad** journals which are more notable. not to mention the source used is an online pdf from an AI research website.
If User:Cdjp1 thinks there are “non-notable niche online outlets” used in this article, you should bring them up and they should be removed too. this is a poor justification for including a bad academic source (and yes, speaking as an academic, there are *many* academic sources which are not reliable nor notable). not to mention this is a BLP page, which should have higher standards for sources that attempt to characterize the subject’s personality/character, which is what the pub does. Ceconhistorian (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1 Mentioning you here in case you didn’t see this when reverting. I do agree that this article has some problems with using sources not by WP:RSP, but that doesn’t excuse the inclusion of non-notable sources either. UppercutPawnch (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To claim this is a “consensus” you are adhering to is a stretch, this shows nothing close to a consensus. — Cdjp1 (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGE NAME FROM ZACK TO FULL NAME ZACHARIAH 83.233.145.75 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

asmongold is agnostic and should have a category under it 158.121.180.32 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Slomo666 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus Markup: your latest edit seems to suggest you don’t think PC Gamer is a reliable enough source for this article, is that true?

As to Media Matters, what prior discussion has been had about not using it as a source for this article? As I am unable to find any mention of Media Matters in prior discussions here. — Cdjp1 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit suggested nothing of the sort. I have no issue with PC Gamer. My edit suggested that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead, here to champion a cause. I hope I have helped clarify my POV. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert 3 edits, including the adding of PC Gamer as a source, that were made before the addition of Media Matter sources? — Cdjp1 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask again, what discussion do we have that says that Media Matters should not be used for this article? — Cdjp1 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For one: Creating a new subsection, with only entries negative about the subject, is violation of policy. I wish I had the time or patience to properly Wikilink the Wikilaw, but I do not ATM. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For two: when a problematic editor makes a problematic edit, every edit surrounding said edit gets reverted, is my policy. I am not your copy editor. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1) You say you don’t want to wikilaw, but you may have to, as your arguments don’t seem to to be inline with our P&Gs. Point 2) So, you chose to remove sources because you don’t like the editor who added them, as believe the editor to be problematic, while acknowledging you support the references? — Cdjp1 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“For once, and for all” I fully support your removing the third tier sourcing for so much of the article. It has needed an enema for a while, and thanks for administering it. Going forward, our only interaction will be should you choose to add links to sources such as “Pink News” or “Media Matters”… at that point, we’ll have to have a chat. In the meantime, please do accept my genuine thanks for un-crappifying the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t want to answer that is fine. I will continue to work to our P&Gs regarding sources and reliability, which will likely cause you annoyance, based on what we have with regards to the likes of Media Matters, until a specific discussion is had here with regards to them, as per our P&Gs. — Cdjp1 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated yesterday, it continues. Removing not just edits that they believe to be at issue, but removing all edits from other editors as they view editors as problematic, even when the edit in question is formatting references, so that they comply with the article’s referencing style. This may be disruptive. — Cdjp1 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you request to discuss sources, will you actually now discuss sources, as you said yesterday, you chose not to engage in discussing sources, instead pointing to a hypothetical future discussion? — Cdjp1 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top