Talk:Destiny (streamer)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kiwi Farms allegations due weight?

Given the discussion at WP:RSN#Mary Sue seems to be skewing towards reliable and discussion is fizzling out, I wanted to start a section to discuss whether including the Kiwi Farms allegations in the article would constitute due weight. Having read over the Mary Sue and Kotaku articles, my opinion on this has now shifted a little. Previously I was mostly agnostic and leaning towards the position that if the Mary Sue was found to be reliable then we would have two articles to show that the allegation is due weight. However, I'm now coming to think inclusion is probably undue either way. This is because (1) both articles focus on Keffals rather than Destiny, (2) neither article focuses on this particular allegation and are both more broadly about Keffals' ban from Twitch and (3) the allegation in question is only given very brief coverage in both sources. Possibly the allegation may be appropriate on Keffals' WP page (although I doubt it given the wealth of coverage she has received recently), but I don't think it's important enough for inclusion here given the lack of weight given to it by Kotaku and the Mary Sue (in articles not even primarily about Destiny anyway). Pinging some contributors to the previous discussion: Slybirdz, Enny43, Grayfell, GorillaWarfare, Youngrubby, Adamant1, Hipocrite, Sideswipe9th, CeltBrowne, Bilorv. Apologies if I missed some people or gave you an unwanted ping here. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

My concerns expressed above are reliability concerns, but I also think there are due weight concerns that mean we should leave it out. A strong source or two could flip the balance, in my view, but from The Mary Sue and Kotaku I think there is insufficient due weight to mention the allegation at any article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• The current article says Bonnell was banned from Twitch, but it doesn't directly explain why he was banned from Twitch. It's implied, but not explained, and I think this will be too vague for most readers. I see no problem with mentioning Kiwi Farms, briefly, but without this context it would seem like a non sequitur. Mentioning it without any context would likely be a due weight issue, but pretty much anything can be made into a factoid if presented without context, so... Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Why is Bonnell's ban from twitch relevant to the kiwi farms allegation, as far as I'm aware there were two theories on why he was banned from twitch months ago and neither had relation to Kiwi Farms or directly Keffals outside of her claiming some credit for it initially? Just asking because I'm having trouble following your comment Gladfire (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well. Unfortunately, neither do reliable sources. If we're going to mention this incident, we would need to place it in context, and one approach would be to use it as sources do, which is as an example of Bonnell's pattern of behavior on social media. The article is still too vague, but it's not really some great unsolved mystery why he keeps getting banned, so this could help explain that a bit more. This incident makes sense as one piece of the bigger picture, but it doesn't make help the article in isolation -at least, not without much better sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight says "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published and that's what we are doing by including it in the article, fairly representing all published viewpoints about it." It's not on us that no one has published Destiny's side of this. The due weight thing doesn't require us to weigh every single possible random viewpoint about something before we include it in article in the meantime either. So I don't think it's undue weight to include the allegations in the article. In fact it would probably be non-neutral to not include the allegations in the article if we are leaving them out simply because news outlets haven't covered other versions of the story. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, my reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not Bonnell's side has been covered in reliable sources. My point is that the allegation itself is not significant given that it is given such little weight in reliable sources and that it isn't mentioned in any sources specifically about Bonnell. Alduin2000 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• My only comment is, per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "if the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported," and per WP:BLPSELFPUB "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; andthe article is not based primarily on such sources." As such, including the fact that Keffal's claims that Destiny weaponzied someone to do something must also reference his reliably sourced (for this article) denial of doing this at [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would not call that reliable for this article. Citing @TheOmniLiberal, which is at best a ban-evading twitter account, and at worst a huge bundle of unrelated BLP violations, is asking for trouble. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think he mentioned it in a video, but I'm sure it also involves claims about third parties and is unduly self-serving. So I don't know, citing @TheOmniLiberal definitely wouldn't be good either though. Dude really needs to hire a PR team or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

While browsing for more recent sources, I found this one from a student paper which quotes him as saying "optics are everything". That hypothetical PR team would have plenty to keep them busy. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the neutrality of this article is disputable. 92.18.21.205 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No inclusion, based on WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. In the case of the latter, it is clear that putting this in is being used as part of an outside dispute which Wikipedia should not be a part of. Let's wait and see if it gets covered on CNN, CBS, etc. The Mary Sue is too biased to be used alone. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell there isn't really an outside dispute about this. It's mainly just been Destiny mentioning it on his Twitter/stream and then his fans running to his defense. I don't think it would be in alignment with the guidelines or purpose of Wikipedia to censor it just because Destiny's community decided to brigade his article and this talk page. Especially since most of them from what I can tell have no prior experience editing Wikipedia before this. I don't think it should be left out simply because The Mary Sue either because the RfC hasn't determined it's reliability one or the other and it was already being used as a reference for other things before this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think it's worth arguing about which side is doing more to brigade the article or whatever, but just for full disclosure I follow both of these creators and both parties have tweeted about it, the person who made the initial edit in question (enny43) seems to be a fan of Keffals at least based on their twitter feed, there's an admin who was pretty active in this thread who follows and retweets Keffals.

It's pretty easy to tell who came from Destiny's community to just debate the allegations themselves, but if we're being completely honest both creators' communities have contributed to this dispute. EtchASketch (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if you've looked into this on the outside if you're saying there is no outside dispute. The original editor was someone who works for/with Keffals, literally profiting off them and came to Destiny's notice because keffals was tweeting about it as a gloat. This is pretty clearly being used as a battleground off the platform. It also seems bad form to accuse other editors of brigading. For instance, while as my COI above states I'm a member of his community, I have a content block for the word keffals set up on multiple sites and so I hadn't known about this until I came here looking for information on the Omaha campaign, after which I had to go back and look at the petty history of this. Gladfire (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The brigading thing is a general statement of how this discussion has gone in response to LittleJerry mentioning WP:BATTLEGROUND and it 100% had to do with Destiny mobilizing his community to edit the article and participate in this discussion. Which no one denies occurred. If someone says something is a battleground it's perfectly fine to provide an example of how exactly that's occurring. Nowhere have I accuse any particular editors of doing anything. Otherwise it would be a self report since I said I found out about this discussion from Destiny reddit. I think we can separate the broader issue of canvassing/brigading (which no one denies occurred) from how exactly specific users like me and yourself ended up participating in this. To the more specific thing about keffals' quote tweet, she posted it after the fact and you can look at this discussion to see it has essentially had zero effect on anything. Just do a basic break down of who is participating in this discussion. I'm from Destiny community. So are you. I assume Babyblasphemy is. LittleJerry is clearly on Destiny's side. Same goes for Alduin2000. We're the only participants at this point. So where exactly are all these people from Keffals' community that she supposedly brought here with her gloating tweet? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, I am not on anyone's side. I've been editing in areas surrounding political YouTube/internet culture for ages, so I'm not sure why you would assume this. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. By "on Destiny's side" I purely meant in favor of the allegations not being added to the article. Which I think you'd agree would Destiny's preferred outcome here. At the end of the day I could really care less which users came from who's communities or what reasons they decided to participate in the discussion. There clearly isn't being treated as a WP:BATTLEGROUND like LittleJerry said it was if there's a range of opinions by users who came for varying reasons. That's all. I think people are making more hay out of this part of discussion then there really needs to be. There's ultimately nothing to see here, which was really my point in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The original editor was someone who works for/with Keffals I'm aware that people from Keffals community originally edited the article. Yet at the same time Destiny is the one endlessly discussing it in public venue like his streams, Twitter, and his fans created multiple Reddit posts about it. There's also a disproportionate number of users from Destiny's community that have comment on this. So the amount of participation in this by Keffals and her community just isn't preparational. That's fine, but calling this a "dispute" in a way that makes it seem like both sides are equally capable is just weird handwaving. Personally I could really care less who's community has been more involved in this, except it matters in respect to if we should include something about the Kiwi Farms allegations in the article or not. If most of the WP:BATTLEGROUND/off site canvasing behavior is mainly coming from Destiny's communities side, then IMO the Kiwi Farms allegations should be included in the article. If the WP:BATTLEGROUND/off site canvasing behavior has been equal on both sides then they shouldn't be included. It's that simple. Let's be honest about who exactly is mainly doing what though. If you have evidence of Keffels canvasing her fans to edit the article on Twitter or in her videos cool. I just haven't seen any. I haven't even seen evidence that she had anything to do with the original user who supposedly works for her editing the article. I've seen plenty of evidence of Destiny doing both in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Then Adamant1, the burden is on you to show that this statement should be included and is not WP:DUE. LittleJerry (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is. The status quo in general clearly leans toward including allegations in BLP articles if they have been reported on by multiple news outlets. If anything the burden is on the people who don't want it to be included to show this should be an exception to the existing status quo that clearly exists when it comes to allegations being included in articles. I don't think your meeting that burden by repeatedly citing WP:DUE as if it's mere existence is some kind of de-facto, fait accompli way to not include something in an article. Obviously there should be more behind then "This shouldn't be included in the article because WP:DUE, because WP:DUE, because WP:DUE, because WP:DUE, Rinse repeat.." or whatever. Like I've said, WP:DUE makes it clear that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and that's exactly what we are doing. No one has provided any evidence that we aren't "fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published." So WP:DUE clearly doesn't apply. Otherwise what's your counter evidence that we aren't fairly representing all the viewpoints that have been published about this? What published viewpoints are we leaving out that would make including this undue weight exactly? "WP:DUE isn't being met because WP:DUE isn't being met" Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Alduin2000 already made the case why its undue. The allegation is a tiny part of the two articles cited which are not about Destiny, and thus is clearly not a "significant viewpoint". LittleJerry (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you honestly didn't know, that's fine. The allegation was initially added shortly after keffals's ban, but has only come into the spotlight because keffals herself tried to use this page to attack destiny as you can see in this Tweet.

Additionally, any evidence that the original editor is has a conflict of interest here cannot be posted due to WP:OUTING concerns.

Regarding WP:DUE, this could probably be solved by including a response from Destiny. Babyblasphemy (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If we can't use images from Keffels Twitter account as evidence that Destiny mass reported her then surely we can't use images from a Twitter account that Destiny routinely denies he's even connected to as evidence that people (including Keffels) are "weaponizing Wikipedia by adding false allegations to his article" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't trust his Twitter, then feel free to take it straight from the horse's mouth Link

Also, his community may have reported keffals. But she was definitely violating the terms of service. Typically when someone says mass report, the implication is that they were unjustly banned because of a large quantity of false reports. These reports wouldn't be false. I think this is the main problem most people have with the allegation. Babyblasphemy (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait a second. I thought she wasn't a reliable source of information because she constantly lies and fabricates things. Or does that only apply when what she's saying might make Destiny look bad? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You acknowledged that the edit was originally made by one of her allies and here she is tweeting it. What does that have to whether she is honest? If a person thinks she is dishonest, does that mean they have to believe she isn't actually tweeting it? That she isn't really friends with that person? What are you saying? LittleJerry (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't really care if someone with a close connection to her made a random edit to the article 10 days ago. Them and their edit are completely ill relevant to this discussion. As far as I can tell they aren't even participating in it. Nor do they or her tweet have any effect whatsoever on us figuring out if the allegations should be included in the article or not. All bringing them up does is deflect from us working out the details of if and how the allegations should be in the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:SELFSOURCE if you are confused about the reliability of people as sources about themselves. Babyblasphemy (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages don't requires sources, so SELFSOURCE doesn't apply to talk pages. BLP absolutely does apply, though. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article Destiny (streamer). Neither of these tweets are reliable for that article for several reasons.

Frankly, this seems like a dead end. It's not up to us as editors to test the purity of each other's intentions. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, this seems like a dead end. Exactly. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with @LittleJerry that this shouldn't be included at this stage, though I may interpret verifiability somewhat harsher than they do. Gladfire (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I don't think blanket accusing everyone who disagrees with you here as simply being Destiny fans brigading the page is very helpful. There certainly has been brigading but I see experienced editors on both sides of this. It's probably better to just focus on substantive arguments and AGF. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you interpreted "Destiny's community decided to brigade his article" as me blanket accusing everyone who disagrees with me as simply being Destiny fans brigading the page, but whatever. Even you agree there has been brigading. So maybe practice what you preach. AGF about what I said and focus on the substantive arguments next time instead of reading more into my comment then there was. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: the "just because" in the sentence I don't think it would be in alignment with the guidelines or purpose of Wikipedia to censor it just because Destiny's community decided to brigade his article and this talk page led me to think you were saying there were no other arguments or reasons for not including the disputed sentence in the article. If that's not what you were saying then I apologise. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries. To be honest, I think there's good arguments on both sides and on a personal level I'm not super into the idea of adding the allegations to article. But the long arm of Wikipedia justice or whatever tends to lean in the direction of being inclusionist. So whatever. That was the position I decided to go with. I can see the merits of both positions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, Adamant1 and Grayfell do you have any objections if I collapse the back-and-forth following LittleJerry's original comment here (or possibly Adamant's first response after that)? It is very hard to follow and all the clutter makes it harder for fruitful conversation to continue. Plus much of this seems to be engagement with clear SPAs which is not very helpful or enlightening to other editors who might want to contribute to the discussion. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No objection. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. I think it's worth keeping in my first response after LittleJerrys, but then of course I would. So However you want to do it. Really a good portion of the discussion in general on both sides could be collapsed at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

|}

"Manifesto" against Keffals

Destiny just released a document against Keffals [2], claiming the current narrative is incorrect; it attempts to discredit accusations Keffals made against Destiny, to discredit claims Keffals made about kiwifarms, as well as bring to light shady things Keffals has supposedly been involved with. I'm not going to declare what should be done regarding this article nor Keffals', but I wanted to bring it to light for discussion on what could be done with it; it also has the possibility of spawning a second edit war. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The only change that could come as a result of this is that if the allegations against Destiny wind up in an article, editors can express Destiny's denial of said allegations. Whereas before, the allegations would just stand on their own. ― TaltosKieronTalk 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. My main concern was that the release of this document could start a second edit war between Destiny's and Keffals' viewerbase. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitch ban reason.

The article says: "According to Dot Esports, this may have been due to Bonnell streaming with white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who had previously been banned from the platform." We know this isn't true since the suspension was for "hateful conduct" and not for "aiding in ban evasion". I understand that was a rumour that existed, specially in the beginning when speculation was rampant, but shouldn't we romeve it considering is has been since disproven? Joacom14 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Look at why Fuentes was banned. Hosting Fuentes could easily be seen by Twitch as both "hateful conduct" and "aiding in ban evasion". Twitch, like most social media platforms, has very little incentive or obligation to explain why they ban anyone to any particular degree of precision. They are almost always really vague, in other words. Since there is no contradiction here we stick to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Has Fuentes as the ban reason really been "disproven"? As far as I know, Bonnell has only provided his own speculation as to why he was banned, but further than that, the ban reason is still unknown. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitch at this point have not confirmed or denied Destiny's ban reason and most likely never will due to the way social media companies operate when it comes to suspensions, making the current quote about the ban questionable. Even worse, the only article that states it as a fact that Destiny was banned because of Nick Fuentes on his stream was actually an Kotaku article supportive of Keffals. The article they cited for evidence about Destiny's ban reason was an article from DoteEsports, which was quoted as saying "The most likely cause for Destiny’s ban". The current Wikipedia passage excludes all context why Nick Fuentes was on Destiny's stream and Destiny himself as well as other streamers have had banned people before on stream without being banned, as long as they recited it was a mistake. At the very minimum the passage should include it's speculated that Destiny was banned for accidently leaving his Twitch stream on while talking to Nick Fuentes, but I don't even think that's true given the new speculation on his ban. Cheesetonight294 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

non-primary source needed?

There is a non-primary source needed tag under the 'political views and activism' page. Bonnel describes himself as an 'omni-liberal', which is a word he made up to describe himself as the page states. Given this is a word only used by him, I see no reason why any other source would be needed than his own website. Portealmario (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

fans of destiny keep removing negative info and try to make him look better on the page

Destiny's fans keep removing negative info about him from the wiki page and some of the links on his wiki page don't even mention destiny at all and it seems like they are just there to help with his brand Unionsaregood (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear what you want done. You haven't provided examples of things removed without reason, and you haven't pointed out any sources. I'm not saying you're wrong but you have to back up what you're saying. If you want to request page protection you can do that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ― TaltosKieronTalk 15:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear I was specifically referring to edits made by ip's where their only edits are removing negative info from this page. There are also previous convo's on this talk page complaining about this and mentioning that destiny weaponizes his audience and had his community brigade his wiki page as well from his youtube streams, which is true. Unionsaregood (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the main edits done by IP's are vandalizing his page my saying he's gay, islamophobic, or in a cuckold marriage, etc. Those things are undone as they are unsourced and random edits done seemingly to just vandalize him. I don't think he has ever said anything to invoke people to keep this page permanently unchanged. Xelapilled (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating YouTube info

For some reason the infobox still lists his subscriber count as 409 thousand, even though the source text gives a subscriber count of 637 thousand. I have no idea what is causing this discrepency. I request someone with more knowledge on infoboxes trie to figure out what is happening here. Monkaaap (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm after taking a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube#Upcoming transition to automated updating of subscriber counts and it seems that Wikipedia is moving towards automated subscriber counts. The glitch obviously relates to that update. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bisexual person or bisexual man?

Back and forth on this article people have been replacing the "bisexual person" category with "bisexual man" and vice versa. So which is it? The implication is that it would be "people" because he's claimed to be non-binary in the past, but this has been removed from the article. It could be sourced again, and have an argument going for it, but for the most part, I think it should be bisexual man. Although he has claimed to be non-binary, he still goes by male pronouns most all of the time. Thoughts? ― Levi_OP^Talk 13:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

He said that he was faking being non-binary to argue against self-ID. Praxada (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

source on that statement? YaBoyJoshyy (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Although he has claimed to be nonbinary in the past, and was not faking it to make a point, he has since said that the term doesn't really fit him. Portealmario (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a more true statement. He was using the label as a semi-joke like the term "establishment shill." However he still believed he was non-binary at the time. He has since said that he had a different idea of what it meant to be non-binary and has stopped using the term to describe himself. :) - Ethan Yo im ethan (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-fascist?

Re this diff by LittleJerry: our policy on categories says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. and A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. If this category is to be included, we should have reliable sources referenced in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It supported in the article mentioning this debates with the alt-right and white nationalism. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

First, "arguing with fascists" does not make somebody an "anti-fascist" (many anti-fascists oppose giving fascists a platform - see No platform). Second, please re-read the policy above (I've added a link): we need independent reliable sources to commonly and consistently use this identification (and YouTube is not a reliable independent source - see WP:RSPYT). If RSs do do so, finding them should be easy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"First, "arguing with fascists" does not make somebody an "anti-Fascist" (many anti-fascists oppose giving fascists a platform - see No platform)" Can we make up standards for what is considered "anti-Fascist" now? I think Steven has shown to be more anti-fascist than most people who call themselves anti-Fascist. There is no debate here.

2601:18C:8081:B9B0:4CDE:1C6F:B9D9:34F0 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no debate here. Hmm... Anti-fascism is not just any and all opposition to fascism, as ranked by Wikipedia editors. Anti-fascism is a political movement. Anyway, as Bob said back in January, we still need reliable, independent sources to explain this. So if you know of a reliable, independent source which applies this term to Bonnell, please share it here. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the description on the category itself, "American supporters of anti-fascism, the opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals", Destiny would probably meet that. Additionally, Destiny's own videos and debates could be used as a source as long as he is explicitly supports the message (no interpreting or compiling to come to a conclusion) in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't intend to do the research myself, but it's food for thought if someone else wants to find sources. Babyblasphemy (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

For this to meet WP:CATDEF (and WP:COPDEF) it should be supported by reliable independent sources. It's not enough that he has opposed fascism in vague terms. We would need to be able to show that sources regularly define him (or used to define him) as part of the antifascist political movement. Do such sources exist? Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair standard, I just hope it's applied universally, because at the moment two other streamers/content creators, Vaush and Contrapoints, are also in Category:American anti-fascists; Vaush off two sources were he simply self-identities as one and Contrapoints off no sources nor any mention in the body of the article about anti-fascism. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

They are not universally applied, unfortunately, and (being mindful of WP:POINT) there is a lot of work that needs to be done. But that being said, I didn't mention those guidelines because of any specific precedent. I mentioned them because they have broad consensus and therefor apply to this article. Wikipedia's categories are messy. If you want to discuss this category more generally, Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories seem more appropriate than this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It is unclear what would need to be that case for a person to be defined under the anti-fascist category. It is also just as unclear what a source would have to say to support thisncategorization. Portealmario (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a good example could be found with him speaking about Nick Fuentes, he has stated that their political ideologies are opposed because Destiny believes in democracy and thinks that anti-democratic ideologies like Nick's are unable to function in a liberal democracy like the one he advocates for. I am unsure of an exact source of this however it would be around the time that they were both in contact/fighting or had just separated. Yo im ethan (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

List of games played

I think it would be useful to include full list of games Destiny plays in body of the article as opposed to sidebar. Sidebar is not very good for that because of the limited space. People could help identify them and add any missing entries. For one, I am looking for the game that he plays in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kobOnhKYHvQ If you know what it is, please tell me. 149.156.124.14 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume it's Rust. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes this is Rust. A list off the top of my head is,

Starcraft 2, Rimworld, Factorio, Factorio: Space Exploration (A Mod for Factorio), Elden Ring, Minecraft, Stardew Valley, DayZ, League of Legends, Final Fantasy 7, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, They are Billions, Dyson Sphere Program, Terraria, Terraria: Calamity Mod. Just a start but that covers some of the main ones. Yo im ethan (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:EGRS

While the article says he was raised in a "conservative Catholic home" and attended Catholic school, it does not specifically assert that he was Catholic nor does he discuss a past history of upbringing in the faith, so it is improper under WP:EGRS to attach categories such as "Former Roman Catholics". Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Good removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

He was discussing Catholicism on a stream today and used the word "we" when talking about what Catholics believe. He's used similar phrasing before. So I assume he was a Catholic at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

He has talked about how he grew up Catholic on multiple occasions, and if memory serves me correctly he fell out of religion some time in High School. Frog Bat Good (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes he grew up Catholic and then lost his faith in god in high school which references many times when talking about that leading him into his "edgy" days where he was a self-described libertarian and atheist. Yo im ethan (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)