# Talk:Syndicate (Internet personality)

More-or-less exactly 50% of this article is lengthy treatment of "controversies", and the sexual assault allegations section in particular is awkwardly written/ formatted. Given the length of his career, this balance seems wrong, with a disproportionate focus on negative aspects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.191.185 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 

I agree with this. Tom has far more internet ventures than just being "controversial". Having the "Controversies" section be the biggest in the article therefore gives WP:UNDUE to the subject's career. It also seems like many people share similar thoughts as well. I won't, however, favor removing part of or the entire section, such as these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, since they are cited by many reliable sources. I would suggest that users should add more general or biographical information about his life and career instead of blanking or removing the other section to gain due weight. Sparkl (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@78.145.191.185: Well that dream became a reality. You're welcome dude. Sparkltalk 20:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be fixed here anymore from what I can tell. If anyone wants to, feel free to share your opinions and thoughts on the article. The Twitter sources should cover WP:ABOUTSELF as far as I'm aware of. Sparkltalk 21:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is it somehow desirable NOT to include the more-or-less essential contextual facts that: a) Kaitlin Witcher has been a social media influencer (YouTuber, Twitch streamer etc) for like a decade and has been known as "Piddleass" that whole time (even her URLs/ usernames retaining this where she uses her own name more), and b) the fact that Natalie Casanova is universally known as "ZombiUnicorn" and has been a consistently VERY controversial individual in terms of interactions with others online? Seems like someone has some kind of motivation in keeping this sort of basic detail out, but unclear why.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.18 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 

Regarding the reversion of this edit: Dexerto, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, although "a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism" "may be used as a source on a case by case basis". Witcher's own Twitch user page gives her moniker also, as does her Tiktok etc. Ergo, the Dexerto source is correct, thus reliable in this instance.
With regard to Casanova, Polygon is rated "generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics" so its account of the -quite prominent- Bully Hunters debacle is fine. The archived "esportsobserver" site I agree is of poor quality but can be safely omitted in light of the recognised quality of the Polygon source. Additionally, a "PC Gamer" site article has been added in support, "PC Gamer" being a noted long-standing publication (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Gamer). In conclusion, context with regard to the long well-known identities of these women who have chosen to be social media figures is perfectly acceptable.
On a matter of style, the current locution "In 2012, Cassell dated his former partner, Kaitlin Witcher" is redundant and ugly. What could she be but his "former partner" if... they dated in 2012? Identifying her as a social media influencer- per the, as established, acceptable source- obviates the awkward phrasing AND contextualises the entire situation better than, as appears to be the case otherwise, throwing out the name of a random non-notable girl.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.18 (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 

I think that the policy on biographies of living persons means that references cited in such biographies need to be unquestionably reliable, not publications "that rarely engage[s] in serious journalism" which "may be used as a source on a case by case basis." I also question whether the additions are really needed in an encyclopedia article. Having reverted twice today, I'll leave the question for others to review and weigh in on, should they choose. Geoff |  Who, me? 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
My November edit to this section added a few things to add context to the situation, while also removing irrelevant information. I added that the allegations were from when Cassell and Casanova filmed the Legends of Gaming Show. Additionally, I added that Cassell stated all activity was consensual.
I removed the details about Casanova, as they are irrelevant to the allegations. Using slurs that led to a cancelled project would not invalidate allegations, particularly given the added context I mentioned.
I did remove the phrase about the MeToo movement, but I will re-add that as I can see that is relevant context. Hopefully this clarifies my edit, so that it does not get reverted again for removal of context. (Edit: I misremembered that the information was unsourced, which was not the case). Chris9086 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)