Talk:Tyler Oliveira

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 November 2024 by reviewer Grahaml35 (talk · contribs).

YouTube Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that YouTuber Tyler Oliveira apologized after trying to drain a pool with paper towels?

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/19/us/youtuber-paper-towel-trnd/index.html

Reviewed:

Created by Based5290 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoter comment: Epicgenius I think you missed or check the references, on the article, the ref 1 cited a YouTube which is discouraged per WP:RSYT as well as ref 2. Second, on ref 4 cited a Twitter post which is failed on WP:TWITTER. And othe ref was cited YouTube video which is failed on RSYT too, but, in other ref is okay like CNN etc. It should be rejected on this. I'm doubted to promote this. Royiswariii Talk! 04:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up your concern, Royiswariii. I did indeed check these references, but I saw them as WP:ABOUTSELF references published by the subject himself, and thus acceptable. I really don't think this is worth taking any action on, let alone rejecting the entire nomination, but perhaps we can ask for a third opinion at WT:DYK if you disagree. Epicgenius (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for inclusion of charges against Dahlgren

@WhatamIdoing I don't think that inclusion of information about charges against Dahlgren violates WP:BLPCRIME, as I would argue that Dahlgren should be considered a public figure:

Dahlgren maintains a channel on Youtube and a Twitter account with around fifty thousand followers. While this is not evidence of notability, it's clear that Dahlgren is seeking some form of public attention.
Dalhgren has appeared on Fox several times. Again, not evidence of notability, but he clearly has put himself in the public spotlight on his volition.
The charges against Dahlgren were picked up by local Oregon outlets and NBC News.

I do very much appreciate that you brought this up, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlgren self-publishes content, but that does not make him a public figure.
Dahlgren has been interviewed several times, but that does not make him a public figure.
The charges against him were picked up by local/regional news, plus one (that we know of; so far) national news article, but that does not make him a public figure.

Per the BLP policy, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources". What we have here appears to be "a handful" rather than "a multitude". I think that he might fall in the category of "People who are relatively unknown". I could understand someone saying that Dahlren is perhaps "medium-profile" rather than "low-profile".

Also of importance is: Why in this article? None of the sources you link mention Tyler Oliveira. If Dahlgren is a public figure with "a multiple of reliable published sources", then you could start an article on Dahlgren and possibly justify sticking the accusations in there (assuming you can get a consensus that Dahlgren is a public figure), but until there is a source that connects the accusations against Dahlgren with Oliveira's video, there is no reason to mention them in this article. We should not use this article like a WP:COATRACK that we can "hang" Dahlgren's accusations on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTV News does mention Dahlgren's charge in the context of Oliveira's video, so I don't think it necessarily falls under WP:COATRACK because a reliable source has thought it important to mention Dahlgren in relation to Oliveira.

I could keep dumping sources about Dahlgren to prove that it does count as "a multitude" (and I will). However, I've based my definition of "public figure" off the WP:Who is a low-profile individual essay, and Dahlgren is interviewed on Fox as himself, not a spokesperson for some organization. This may be more a conflict over whether the essay is actually about "public figures" as mentioned in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest appears to have nothing to do with either Oliveira or Oliveira's work. That's what makes it a "coatrack" problem. You've found one source that mentions Oliveira and the arrest on the same page, but it does not claim that Dahlgren's legal problems have anything at all to do with Oliveira. This is not much different from having an article on "Joe Film" that mentions him working with "Chris Celebrity", and then saying in Joe's article that Chris got arrested. Joe's article would be the place to report information about Joe getting arrested, not about Chris getting arrested.

If you think there are a multitude of sources about Dahlgren, then start an article on Kevin Dahlgren (YouTuber) and stick the allegations in there. Dahlgren's arrest has nothing to do with Oliveira. Putting it in here violates our WP:COATRACK rules and it acts as a guilt by association fallacy to smear Oliveira. Unless and until we have a source that says Oliveira had something to do with Dahlgren's arrest, then the arrest does not belong in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, read through WP:COATRACK a little more carefully this time, and I do now agree that the mention of Dahlgren's arrest does fall under that and does not belong in this article. However, I don't the analogy you put forward is quite comparable: this situation would be more akin to "Joe Film worked with Chris Celebrity after Celebrity was arrested", assuming that this statement had numerous reliable sources explicitly making the connection (see for example Emily Armstrong, where a paragraph is dedicated to her behavior related to Danny Masterson). Again, probably doesn't apply in Oliveira's case, but it's important to point out for future reference. Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Videos considered notable by Men's Health

The first half of the section on notable videos currently lists a bunch of individual videos. They are all from the same source (Men's Health) and the same writer. While I don't think Men's Health is generally unreliable, I think it's a bit odd to define notability here by what one writer likes to write about. Maybe this should be reworked? Cortador (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would renaming the section into "History" and just summarizing all of those videos as something along the lines of "Between 2019 and 2021, Oliveira made several fitness challenges" be better? Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just changing the section to "history" would be ok. Badbluebus (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. "Career" also works. Cortador (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism?

Should we describe Olivera's work as "journalism" or "investigative journalism" in wikivoice? Currently, the lead does so and we have a subsection titled "journalism".

Most of the sources I've seen describe him as a youtuber [1][2][3][4], only the National Post seems to imply that he is a journalist [5]. The Vox article says that Oliveira "describes himself as a journalist" [6]. Badbluebus (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPR also mentions his self description as a journalist, and Invisible People mentions him identifying as a journalist but writes "I want to warn our readers about YouTuber Tyler Oliveria [...] Right off the bat, I have to say that I have probably never witnessed such bad internet journalism in my entire life." I've removed the journalism bit in the intro, but I still feel like a subsection in the history section would be helpful to distinguish between the weird challenge videos and whatever you call the videos centered on interviews. I haven't seen a reliable source dispute his label as a journalist, so I'm inclined to keep the subsection the same. We could technically just use time to distinguish the two "eras", but I think that's less helpful. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "self-described" journalist, since some sources are casting doubt on his credibility as a journalist. Cortador (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]