Talk:Dan Avidan

Allegations

It appeared to die out since it was removed from this article. Unless more information adds up, this is what I wrote: "On March 21 2021, Avidan faced some controversy when he was accused of grooming by an anonymous woman. In a Reddit thread on r/antGrumps, she alleged that she was groomed when she was underaged, complete with screenshots of text conversations and video footage. The threads were later removed." Newsweek Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I added the info to the article. The controversy seems notable enough. X-Editor (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The information was a rumor that circulated for not much longer than a day before being debunked. It was notable for a few days and no longer is. And only notable enough for one source to be cited with little to no legitimate information. Citing this article which only quotes a Reddit user is the equivalent of citing a CNN expose of Qanon to add accusations of cannibalism on every celebrities wikipedia article based on quotes from forum posts by conspiracy theorists. The reason why there are issues with the information given is that we are talking about Reddit posts. We should not be discussing Reddit posts on wikipedia in the first place. We should not be referencing Reddit posts on wikipedia. This is absoluetely ridiculous. 2603:8001:BD01:7DFE:9085:1734:4573:2B8D (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is the Controversy section still here? It has to go against wikipedias guidelines. I've seen other pages false rumors and unsubstantiated allegations have been removed as vandalism. There was no individual that made these allegations against Avidan. It says so in the lone article cited. I don't see a section on Jay Johnston's wiki that claims he was at the capitol riots even though there were many articles made about it. Here you are citing Reddit posts as a legitimate source. What is going on here? 2603:8001:BD01:7DFE:A0AF:259E:6DF8:2561 (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This information isn't correct. The Reddit post was not created by the woman in question, and the woman did not accuse Dan of grooming. That was conjecture on the part of others spreading the accusations. Additionally, the person saying "the Reddit thread maybe really didn't have the most trustworthy evidence aside from maybe the video" wasn't the original poster of the Reddit thread as the article claims, but someone who had reposted a screenshot of the Reddit thread to Twitter. Whoever wrote that article definitely didn't do their due diligence for either the original article or the update they later had to make to clarify the falsehoods of the original article. Harrisonisdead (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is... Irrelevant controversy, which was started as an attempt at gaining attention. This has no place in the article, especially considering it was false allegations. EthanRossie2000 12:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who this guy is – Harrisonisdead brought this article to my attention over at Talk:Gus Johnson (comedian) due to a similar situation there. I have removed the controversy section per WP:BLP, since it only relies on a single Newsweek article, a publication which, despite its former stature, is now considered generally unreliable (WP:NEWSWEEK). Tkbrett (✉) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove false mentions of grooming (truthfully the entire controversy should be removed)

"Avidan was accused of grooming by an anonymous woman, who alleged she was groomed when she was underaged," This is entirely untrue. The women made no allegations that she was groomed, she actually even came out and said she did not feel she was groomed, but she felt he abused his personality-fan power dynamic. Regardless, no allegations of grooming were made, those allegations were assumed by the reddit post, which is why it was taken down in the first place.

Having the entire controversy section on his page is also continues to push a dishonest narrative from a subreddit who frequently tries to start drama about GameGrumps. Grooming should not be mentioned AT ALL as there was no actual allegations or evidence grooming took place, and keeping that false narrative here only aides in a dishonest push to besmirch Dan. Cashmen123 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Making the same request that was denied already isn't going to make it happen. This was covered in a reliable source, and Avidan addressed the issue himself, which is also covered in a reliable source. Please feel free to start a request for comments if you want to discuss the suitability of this information in the article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section is misleading, contradictory and possibly malicious. Dan Avidan did address the incident but the issue addressed by Avidan was about meeting with an adult fan of his. If not removed the section should be edited to state more clearly that false claims were made without evidence and were retracted shortly afterwards. As the section stands it confuses the reader and attempts to legitimize rumors from unreliable sources. Its claimed that the source is reliable but the cited source within its own article states that it was using unreliable sources itself. At no point was any of the controversy legitimized or verified before the cited article was written. The Controversy section also incorrectly states that an anonymous woman accused Avidan of grooming. The source being refered to that accused him was not the anonymous woman but the individual that made the post which was someone else. The section says this itself in the next line. The first line is clearly contradicting the next in this section. It was the online posts made by seperate individuals who were not reliable sources which were accusing Avidan. The way this is worded and cited is using only one slightly more legitimate Newsweek article (which admited the information was wrong) as a buffer between sourcing almost directly word for word from posts on an online forum which are not a legitimate source. This very act is furthering the spread of misinformation which caused the false controversy and should not be acceptable on this website. 2603:8001:BD01:7DFE:9085:1734:4573:2B8D (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Under the controversy section, it says that the woman in question herself accused Dan of grooming. She wasn't the one who made those accuaations though. The reddit poster (who was a different person) took her screenshots, and then the other person who linked the post on twitter was the one who made the jump to accuse of grooming. The woman herself claimed that she did not believe Dan groomed her. 208.104.163.30 (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Marriage Citation Help

Hello. I tried to add a citation for Dan's marriage announcement on Game Grumps, but it seems to be citing two things, and one of them unrelated. I... don't know how to fix it. I'm too inexperienced with Wikipedia. I've tried, and everything I can think to do just turns that part of the article into a mess of broken markup and html. My apologies. If you're reading this and you have more Wiki experience (and the inclination), please consider helping out by fixing that. Sorry again that I'm too inept to figure it out myself 198.2.93.215 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@198.2.93.215: You are not the only one facing difficulties. This article is in a sort of mess indeed. I tried fixing the source code and removed some citations to YouTube (since YouTube is not a reliable source), but I ended duplicating a lot of content, which took at least 20 minutes to fix. I have added maintenance tags, so hopefully more active editors can help in improving the article —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 12:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@CrafterNova: Ah, thanks for your help! Good to know about sourcing from Youtube! I didn't know that before, but it makes a lot of sense. In the interest of full disclosure, I had been the one to add the Youtube link (as you probably already know), but I'll definitely make a point of avoiding those sources in the future. Thanks again! 198.2.93.215 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Every Time We Touch

New song of his. It's a cover he did for a video game.

Should be added. PokeHomsar (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) PokeHomsar (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Shine on You Crazy Diamond

I am not the best with formatting, but there is a new Shadow Academy single, a Pink Floyd cover. They released both a full version and a radio edit. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC) PokeHomsar (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)