# Talk:PewDiePie

To add in the section of Filmography -> Music videos, his appareance in the music video "Rasputin vs Stalin" of Epic Rap Battles of History, as Mikhail Baryshnikov. Thesorden (talk) 16:08, 4 February 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. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Felix Arvid Of Shellberg has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 22 § Felix Arvid Of Shellberg until a consensus is reached.  Rusalkii (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

He is the subject of internet related controversies and thus belongs in this category 87.114.4.246 (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree Flarehayr (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The article has generally a good level of balance, but the WSJ and other publications accusing him of anti-semitic language I think needs changing. The evidence is incredibly clear, Kjellberg didn't 'allegedly' repeatedly use antisemitic language, he actually did use antisemitic language repeatedly within his content. I think this language overly softens his contributions to normalising hate speech in YouTube comedy content from that era. Further I suspect that due to the length and depth of this article that several fans of Kjellberg's have contributed heavily to this article previously.
Other similar issues I think that need addressing in this article include language like 'using the n word in a joke', without noting the damage that this can do when the joke requires a racist undertone from Kjellberg to make sense. This article pulls alot of punches (there's lots of softening language used in the article throughout concerning his multiple controversies), Kjellberg doesn't need to be a known public voice for the far right for his acts as one of the most famous living YouTubers to have had an impact. Therefore I think the article should more accurately reflect this impact in the chosen language. To summarise I think this kind of language could contribute to whitewashing Kjellberg's history.
Flarehayr (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, I think seperating the critical reception section in to two sequential sections: 'Early Popularity' and 'Later criticisms and allegations'.
The article currently positions Kjellberg's reputation as having received 'good and bad' criticism. But the first couple of paragraphs from the 'critical reception' section cite almost exclusively 2015 articles, and the later criticisms section about 3 paragraphs later concerning his allegations are all almost exclusively from 2017. There is evidently a change in perception from the media and how they were reporting him, specifically concerning new stories and issues they were reporting at that time. Positioning Kjellberg as having had generally 'good and bad' receptions is therefore disingenuous if the media- mainstream and non-mainstream like turned against him after the allegations came out. Flarehayr (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
It is stated as alleged because that is what the content was; particularly this is because he responded that the content was intended to be satirical/not-antisemitic. It is not whitewashing the article to represent the sourcing the way it was written. It is a truly contentious and serious thing to say (that he was antisemitic), and because he has directly rebuked/rejected such labeling, I believe "alleged" is appropriate wording here. There is also sourcing that implicitly/softly pushes back on that sort of labeling of him ("Touching on Kjellberg's alleged antisemitic controversy, MacInnes also added that he "is funny, intelligent, innovative and highly charismatic [...] to call him an alt-right agitator would perhaps be unfair as he has never publicly identified with the proto-fascist movement. But he shares much of their culture and amplifies it across the world. People should pay PewDiePie more attention.") as seen in the Guardian source. So the "alleged" wording is fair in his case. And it isn't something only applied to the WSJ in this article. It also has wording such as "He alleged his intent was not against Jews" ("he" in reference to Kjellberg).
Used to have the public image section split up into that sort of pre- and post-controversy set-up, but the section isn't too long and it is clearly in a chronological ordering so I figured it would be fine to just organize it into one section as it is now: the current "Media analysis as a YouTube personality" has the "In the wake of..." sentence that make that transition in public image/media perception clear.
If other editors want to chime in and see where un-"softening" of the article's language can be made, then sure. But I strongly disagree and I don't think the article "pulls alot of punches". It wouldn't be wikivoice to spoon-feed readers that a lot of what Kjellberg did/said circa 2017 wasn't great.
I really don't understand what you mean by "Other similar issues I think that need addressing in this article include language like 'using the n word in a joke', without noting the damage that this can do when the joke requires a racist undertone from Kjellberg to make sense.. It's not as if this article shies away from including that information, or softens what he did. After mentioning the PUBG stream, the article says "The video clip of the incident quickly went viral despite Kjellberg deleting it, and garnered widespread criticism across the internet. Kjellberg later apologised for the incident in a short video uploaded to his YouTube channel.  As a response to the incident, Campo Santo co-founder Sean Vanaman referred to Kjellberg as "worse than a closeted racist", announced that Campo Santo would file copyright strikes against Kjellberg's videos featuring the studio's game Firewatch, and encouraged other game developers to do the same.
It's pretty plain language, as it should be and doesn't mention that this was a "joke" from him, so I don't know what you mean by saying that the article is "without noting the damage that this can do" or "when the joke requires a racist undertone", as well, it wasn't a "joke" -- If I recall correctly, his apology video about this specific incident was brief and he actually didn't defend it as a joke as he adamantly did with the Fiverr video. And about the "damage" it can do -- in the critical reception section (which, I tried my best at least, to organize it more about his content) and in the public image section (again, tried my best, to organize it more about him), there are many examples of media outlets/writers opining about his impact, or what they think he represented. The above Guardian source I linked is probably the best example of this though there is also the entire paragraph beginning with "Following the controversy regarding alleged antisemitic content in his videos, many media publications both in and outside of the gaming and tech industries severely criticised Kjellberg's content. To write anything about the "damage" him saying slurs did, would require ample sourcing obviously. I think more can be expanded about the fiverr situation in regards to what people called the "adpocalypse" at the time, but I don't really think anything is grossly off or "whitewashing" here. Soulbust (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Before I reply, again I'd like to reiterate that overall the article is well sourced, but that it's sourcing and language I believe could be improved.
The Guardian source mentioned by yourself here is one of several pieces written concerning anti-semitic language. Further, the primary actor being accused of anti-semitism defending themself by stating, as you've said- "That wasn't my intention", is not a sturdy defence- If a politician states I didn't mean to hurt people, that can be sourced, but something isn't controversial traditionally if the original person contests it, but rather multiple third parties contest it's meaning. An oppositional view is one by Vox here called "YouTube’s most popular user amplified anti-Semitic rhetoric. Again." (Note-this article is already present in the wiki article). This oppositional viewpoint obviously shows how there was not a complete consensus in the media concerning the events. Further Kjellberg's later intended donation to the ADL (later cancelled) is also indicative of wrong doing. For example in a BBC article here it states "In 2017, Disney cut ties with PewDiePie after he posted several videos featuring anti-Semitic images. These include swastikas drawn by a fan and footage of two Indians he paid to hold up a sign which read "death to all Jews." The BBC's chosen language here like "featuring anti-Semitic images" and "these include swastikas" is much more direct in asserting that language or imagery used by Kjellberg was in fact anti-semitic. Further, the BBC article does not include the term/s "alleged/ly", therefore this BBC article is a second example that directly accuses Kjellberg of engaging in anti-semitic language or behaviour.
"Used to have public image split up into that sort of pre- and post-controversy set-up,-" That's a really good point you've made, I agree that language in that section does help make that distinction.
"I really don't understand what you mean by "Other similar issues I think that need addressing in this article include language like 'using the n word in a joke',Sorry I've misquoted the section I was talking about (I've conflated two points). The wording that I was referring to was from a different controversy mentioned in the wiki article: "Early in his YouTube career, Kjellberg used jokes about rape in his videos." The term rape jokes here has obviously been drawn from sources listed in the article. Comparatively Kjellberg has been researched in relation to public opinion and his content, theconversation article here (background info). My issue is similar to criticisms made by journalist Reilly Harrington in the MarquetteWire here. In relation to the anti-semitic string, into the 'n-word' issue, and also the (concerning my current point in the article) rape jokes made years previous, Harrington opines about the "never meant to hurt anyone" excuse that he believes is damaging to the debate. Harrington states " 'Oh, it was just a joke,' and, 'I never wanted to upset anyone,' are hollow excuses and apologies that are repeated ad nauseam and accepted again and again. If the most prominent figures in an increasingly popular and lucrative field aren’t held accountable, then less-popular or well-known streamers and YouTubers have a precedent of seemingly acceptable, toxic or problematic behaviors to emulate." Between the aforementioned research of public figures like Pewdiepie in relation to the type of content they are making by sociologists at Monash University, and the criticisms made by journalists like Harrington, there are therefore notable recorded articles concerning Kjellberg's use of language and the potential effects on the public and youth population that are therefore not mentioned in the article currently- in relation to what you've stated  "To write anything about the "damage" him saying slurs did, would require ample sourcing obviously". Therefore I think this article needs more diverse sources like this, that more directly bring in to question the harmful, and absolute nature of his actions and language. To clarify, I'm not specifically arguing that everything Kjellberg has ever done is 100% considered hate speech and that there is no room for satire etc., but with the regularity and extreme level of 'problematicness' that his actions represent, I think this warrants these more oppositional and direct articles to be included in the wiki-article. More specifically the inclusion of further direct language from the already included Vox article above, as well as the addition and explication of the mentioned theConversation and MarquetteWire articles. Flarehayr (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I will respond to your new message but please note, before I do that, I will be tweaking my original response, though strictly for grammatical purposes. I was re-reading through it and realized there were small (though several) sleep deprivation-induced errors. Soulbust (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Second reply
Hopefully that small header makes this easier to read through for future reference. I will further preface this by saying a lot of the things and sources you bring up (i.e. the Guardian one) or as "already present" (the Vox one), I already know about these. I do not mean to appeal to any sort of WP:OWN rhetoric (because to be clear, I don't feel like I own this or any article), but I think it is perhaps relevant for you and for anyone else to know — since you are directly suggesting big-picture edits to the sourcing and language used in its most contentious sections — that I do, by I suppose considerable margins, have the most edits and highest authorship % on this article. I mention that to say, that I am well aware of the sources you are bringing up and have a pretty good understanding of the various controversies PewDiePie has been at the center of.
Your initial post mentioned "Further I suspect that due to the length and depth of this article that several fans of Kjellberg's have contributed heavily to this article previously. That is true; over the years, I have reverted/cleaned up a lot of fan-cruft added by other editors, some of them unregistered IPs. I have edited this page since 2012, and over the years, I've had to clean up a lot of even my own well-meaning edits that I sometimes look back at and realize that I wrote them at a time when I was simply younger and a weaker writer/editor.
That said, I'll go through your response point-by-point, more or less.
1: "The Guardian source mentioned by yourself here is one of several pieces written concerning anti-semitic language. Further, the primary actor being accused of anti-semitism defending themself by stating, as you've said- "That wasn't my intention", is not a sturdy defence- If a politician states I didn't mean to hurt people, that can be sourced, but something isn't controversial traditionally if the original person contests it, but rather multiple third parties contest it's meaning."
Yes I know it concerns that. You can say it's not a sturdy defense. A lot of PewDiePie's critics (those generally critical of him, and those critical of his response) agree with that. But this is already mentioned in the article and appropriately and amply sourced ("with various publications writing critically of Kjellberg's defense of his controversial content as jokes taken out of context, and opining that his content helps normalise ideologies such as fascism, neo-Nazism, and white supremacy"). I am unsure what else you would want here. There's gonna be no change to convey the sentiment that "PewDiePie had a weak defense". That would be a biased, subjective opinion. The far more appropriate (and objective) plain mentioning of what his defense/reply was, and then how it was received by media outlets, is again, already present in the article.
2: "An oppositional view is one by Vox here called "YouTube’s most popular user amplified anti-Semitic rhetoric. Again." (Note-this article is already present in the wiki article). This oppositional viewpoint obviously shows how there was not a complete consensus in the media concerning the events."
I think what I said above applies here too. Again, not sure what else you are looking for in terms of adding something constructive/new to the article in regards to this.
3a: "Further Kjellberg's later intended donation to the ADL (later cancelled) is also indicative of wrong doing."
???? "indicative of wrong doing" to who?
If you are saying that his cancellation of the donation is "indicative of wrong doing" then: Saying that is obviously an opinion, and it is a strong, contentious one at that. It would be totally inappropriate to state that in the article. Any criticism of his donation withdrawal would be fair to include (if sourced and presented in wiki-voice, obviously) but for us to suggest the withdrawal "indicative of wrong doing" would be out of place.
So that said, I do think how his fans and third-party media outlets received his cancellation of his ADL donation should be included in the article and I was surprised to see that something covering that isn't already there. (Or maybe it was removed at some point accidentally along the way). Either way, I do thank you for providing the source (which I'll mention again in the next point). I'll be adding it to the article to adjust for the lack of that mention.
If you are saying that his initial intention to donate was a sort of way for him to admit or convey "wrong doing", then that would be essentially nullified as per his cancellation of the donation. And the article already includes mentioning his apology on the original incident (even if you think that apology wasn't "sturdy", as aforementioned).
3b: "For example in a BBC article here it states "In 2017, Disney cut ties with PewDiePie after he posted several videos featuring anti-Semitic images. These include swastikas drawn by a fan and footage of two Indians he paid to hold up a sign which read "death to all Jews." The BBC's chosen language here like "featuring anti-Semitic images" and "these include swastikas" is much more direct in asserting that language or imagery used by Kjellberg was in fact anti-semitic. Further, the BBC article does not include the term/s "alleged/ly", therefore this BBC article is a second example that directly accuses Kjellberg of engaging in anti-semitic language or behaviour."
Any sourcing asserting antisemitic imagery/content (or Kjellberg being antisemitic himself) is different than what we would need to do on here. Since this is a contentious statement to assert for someone or their content, or to label someone with, we would need to again, put it in an appropriate wikivoice. That is why "alleges" or "alleged" is so often used in this portion of this Wikipedia article. Also, this wording isn't just what myself or other editors randomly picked out to use here on Wikipedia. It is used by other media outlets covering the situation, both initially and in retrospect. Since you brought up BBC, I can point to another article published by them when this situation first occurred in which they used "alleged": "his alleged anti-Semitism by newspapers including the Wall Street Journal were personal attacks and attempts to discredit him." (link). There is also  IGN in 2019: "Kjellberg has drawn criticism in the past for alleged Antisemitism. Kjellberg used the freelance service Fiverr to pay two men to hold signs with Antisemitic imagery, which resulted in him getting dropped by Disney."
I think the IGN article does something interesting with their wording that we can point to as an example to find a valid compromise here. They used both "alleged Antisemitism" to describe Kjellberg (err, via his actions/behavior that drew criticism) and "Antismetic imagery" to describe the Fiverr signs. This is important, because I believe this Wikipedia article pretty much does the same. It describes what the sign said, which readers can discern for themselves is antisemitic in nature (i.e. "Death to all Jews" held up on a sign clearly is). But we have to maintain that Kjellberg and his content is "allegedly" antisemitic as per WSJ and other media outlets, because there is that very strong push back from Kjellberg that his content was satirical in nature. There was push back from other editors creators (this isn't mentioned, and I forget if it ever was and later trimmed out, or just never added), but I will consider adding that potentially. And clearly, as aforementioned, there was (maybe not push back, but clarification from BBC and IGN, I'm sure among other outlets though I'd have to look for and find that additional sourcing) that this antisemitism is alleged.
4a: "Comparatively Kjellberg has been researched in relation to public opinion and his content, theconversation article here (background info). My issue is similar to criticisms made by journalist Reilly Harrington in the MarquetteWire here." [...]
"Between the aforementioned research of public figures like Pewdiepie in relation to the type of content they are making by sociologists at Monash University, and the criticisms made by journalists like Harrington, there are therefore notable recorded articles concerning Kjellberg's use of language and the potential effects on the public and youth population that are therefore not mentioned in the article currently" [...]
I'll look into the Conversation source you brought up. That one looks fair enough to read through and potentially (and honestly more likely that not) incorporate into the article. The Marquette Wire one is definitely a no-go, however. It is part of Marquette University's student-published media. And not the sort of peer-reviewed and published in a journal type of literature that would be fair to include (I actually just looked through the article's sourcing and realized a Univ. of Green Bay article is being used a source presently, and so will remove that for similar reasoning, though should be noted that that reference was at least being used to verify a fact about Kjellberg's older videos as opposed to being used to cite strong opinions based on an already contentious labeling of Kjellberg).
4b: "therefore I think this article needs more diverse sources like this, that more directly bring in to question the harmful, and absolute nature of his actions and language. To clarify, I'm not specifically arguing that everything Kjellberg has ever done is 100% considered hate speech and that there is no room for satire etc., but with the regularity and extreme level of 'problematicness' that his actions represent, I think this warrants these more oppositional and direct articles to be included in the wiki-article. More specifically the inclusion of further direct language from the already included Vox article above, as well as the addition and explication of the mentioned theConversation and MarquetteWire articles."
I'm kinda split on this. While, yes I believe you are making this suggestion fairly (the one that this article needs more "diverse" sources regarding his controversial behavior/videos/words). However, the article already amply provides sourcing of criticism of Kjellberg (both pre- and post-2017). Like I said, I will go through the Conversation source, and will more likely than not, incorporate something from it. So clearly, I am open to adding more prose about criticism (and what is likely analysis) of Kjellberg's content. But at some point, it will probably be enough and representative of the negative image of Kjellberg that exists/has existed out there -- that is, we won't have to list every single negative/critical analysis of him/his content. This is true for positive opinions of him as well. I have recently actually trimmed out/tweaked content to where this article's size is ~3k bytes less than it was last month. After doing that, I have been a little busy, but have been looking through the article to see where it can be further condensed (in the sense of making direct quotes turn into more paraphrasing/summary).
I will be making edits to reflect my stated-above intentions to incorporate the Conversation and BBC source, but please be patient as I will be very busy offline at this particular period in my life. I might just do it all at once within the next 24 hours or less, but me not being able to do it for another week or so is very much on the table. Soulbust (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Thankyou for taking the time to reply to my concerns SoulBust. This is an incredibly rigorous response and defence of the current state of the article and explicates in detail your position. With what you've described I now agree with you and have essentially no further issues- I'm going to take another pass at some point at what's been discussed but this addresses most of my issues. In reference to the 'Kjellberg's admission of guilt due to donation' I agree, I don't believe that my opinion should be added just because I believe it so, and am aware that I/we cannot include opinions on guilt via unconfirmed actions. I would like to add though, that his cancelation was obviously due to the organisation being accused of having a problematic history by certain commentators, brought on by  pressure from fans as opposed to a self-initiated decision (seemingly)- again to reiterate I agree this doesn't need adding to the article though. Overall well done on your huge contributions to the article and defence of it to me. Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
No worries at all. I will try to look further into the sources you linked earlier, particularly the Conversation one. If not already present, I will try to clarify in the prose that PewDiePie canceled the donation, at least part, at least seemingly, because of the response from some of his fan base initially. I do believe the sources covering the issue reported/stated that, so it would definitely be appropriate to include. At least, I will re-read through sources to see if they said that was the case.
Thanks for taking the time to read through my response. I didn't intend for it to be so lengthy, and I figure it might have taken some time to really digest it all. I am still a bit busy offline at the moment, but will try to get to making those changes/additions we've talked about sometime this week, and potentially by tomorrow, so thanks for being patient with that.
Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Made some very small tweaks right now to my previous lengthy reply. Mainly "other editors" -> "other creators" in 3b (I meant that there were some other high-profile YouTubers who defended PewDiePie to varying degrees at the time; I think this is an important tweak to clarify). Soulbust (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)