Talk:Creator Clash

Infobox

Creator clash was an event with 9 matches so isn't it weird there's just the details of the final match listed on the infobox? I know iDubbz helped organise the event but it still seems weird his match would be the only one listed out of the 8 other matches. I think no 1 match should be listed on the infobox. Please tell me if i'm wrong though 92.92.150.191 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

In boxing the main event is typically listed in the infobox with the undercard matches being listed in the "fight card" table (e.g. KSI vs Logan Paul). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightweight preview card

Does anyone notice the words "hoe ass dude" when hovering on the popup for lightweight (specifically on the Michelle Khare vs. Andrea Botez fight)? Any ideas on how to correct this? Jkitch503 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

I feel like the controversy section contains unreliable information as facts, as well as information that is not related to the Creator Clash at all. For example Hasan Piker, Frogan etc. being banned in the past is irrelevant to the article subject, as well as the fact that Idubbbz was holding a swastika sword is fetched as a fact from Harvey's video, a fact that can be easily challenged. In general I think the Content Cop should be just a direct reference to the reasons.

The whole section is written almost as an opinion piece rather than factual encyclopedic writing. The sources used are just youtube videos, tweets, reddit posts and Sportskeeda which is known to be very unreliable and biased. The only sources that could be used without biases could be the dextero ones, though it still contains heavy biases, but at least some facts could be derived from their articles

The fact that I tried cleaning up a little bit this section and was straight up undone without much reasoning or claiming that the sources are reliable (when it's full of self-sources and unreliable articles) especially by a specific IP which only did edits to this article, and had this whole section written seems sketchy in general.

I will add a unreliable sources infobox in the section, it would be wiser to discuss this here instead of doing constant edit wars. Bly000 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

— I'm looking back, and yes, Sportskeeda is known to mostly be an unreliable source, but iDubbbz released that Q&A on Reddit to address all of his controversies listed with the event along with people pulling out, so it is unavoidable, and the same can be said regarding any sort of this drama related to YouTube and Twitter/X. Plus, most of the creators have themselves stated about pulling out of the event on those sources, as seemingly unreliable on the surface they may be.

Hasan and Frogan should be mentioned as iDubbbz did collaborate with them for that Content Cop which was what started the whole controversy in the first place and were part of the reasons why so many objected to that video. The swastika sword (even though it is wielded by the main character from Bleach and has nothing to do with Nazism whatsoever) is part of Morenstein's beliefs to why he pulled out of the event for supposed anti-Semitism from the Jomhas after several prior incidents beforehand, even as hotly debated it might be.

But lastly, I will say, I am willing to work with you on that part to revert any sort of repeated add-ons about Michael and Kate Briggs as right now it can only be proven through word-of-mouth and speculation, and not from the Jomhas themselves or any possibly reliable source for that matter. HugeMackerel (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For starters, I agree indeed the Q&A page has a reference to the controversies, which could stay but I strongly disagree with the way they were written and sourced. For starters, since the section is written by a "single-purpose" IP (Wikipedia:SPA) and in my opinion with a bias towards slandering people and bringing internet drama to wikipedia, than encyclopedic factual writing, I think an effort to remove and rewrite most of the section should happen. Also this account seems to revert any changes we try doing here too.

For example in my opinion the whole swastika sword is an opinion, and should not be stated as a fact. Moreover it's not even directly relevant to the Creator Clash.

If we bring in the page any slandering accusations, we should also include the position and denial of the accused ones to avoid (Wikipedia:NPOV), though still doing so feels like writing wikipedia about internet drama which I don't think we want to end up doing here as I believe it goes out of scope (Wikipedia:OOS). Perosnally I would be ok with just a few references mentioning the existence of controversies regarding the Content Cop or so.

Also as a last note, there's official announcements regarding the postponement, not sure why we are using tweets and sources from other people announcing it instead. Bly000 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree about the majority of what you said, especially rewriting the entire section as well as the last note, even if I stand by the Bleach sword statement since it is important to why Morenstein left Creator Clash entirely. It seems everything was edited on the fly per the participants' tweets before Creator Clash's official website actually updated. So, that could definitely be changed as it seems more internet drama-centric more than anything. But, on the other hand, every single bit of Creator Clash 3's controversies (and the Creator Clash 2 controversy with Sam Hyde) is tied deeply into internet drama, but we need to make it be as professional as possible, including statements from all of the people involved on Twitter and Reddit even as unreliable those sources can be at times. This is without descending into outright unproven speculation and gossip (like with Michael and Kate Briggs).

On the other hand, that IP address is still holding out against talking here and repeatedly undoing with the same statement time and time again. I left them a note on their talk page. Otherwise, if they keep holding out, one of us might have to resort to using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to resolve this mess. I'm honestly unfamiliar with it, so if you could, you'd be doing me a huge favor if this whole unnecessary edit war keeps being dragged on. HugeMackerel (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to add an edit war warning on the account (it was required) as well as using the noticeboard/edit warring page for this.

If time permits, and edits are not being constantly undone, I might invest some time to look and edit the section with more sources and npovs but of course if you or anyone else does so I will be happy to see. Your last edit would still be a good start for future improvements later on. Bly000 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)