Talk:Asmongold

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2026

Change the existing paragraph about the November 2025 Mizkif lawsuit (in the Controversies or Personal life section) to the following, or add as a new paragraph at the end of that section:

In July 2026, Mizkif leaked screenshots of a private May 18, 2024 Discord conversation between Emiru and Asmongold amid their ongoing dispute. In the exchange, Asmongold discussed creative spellings and variations of a racial slur (the N-word) in reference to moderating a ban-evading viewer who used such terms to circumvent chat filters. Emiru responded with laughter and lighthearted remarks, later comparing the situation to criticism of other streamers. Mizkif presented the leaked messages as evidence of inappropriate conduct, including alleged flirting and casual use of racist language. Emiru later released the fuller context during a July 10, 2026 livestream, stating the discussion concerned toxic chat moderation rather than endorsement of slurs, and expressed regret over the tone while opposing such language. Asmongold declined to comment directly on the leaks, citing the active lawsuit.

Reason: This adds recent, well-reported developments to the existing lawsuit coverage for completeness, using neutral language and multiple reliable secondary sources. ~2026-39410-95 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not using a language model and i request that this claim be tweaked, it's too vague to convey any meaningful information. I also question the relevance of it being in the header.

As of July 13, the case against Asmongold as been dismissed. Sanctaphrax1 (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If the lawsuit has been dismissed the article should certainly be updated to include that. Can you provide some reliable sources? Day Creature (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Negative framing

Just checked some versions of this artricle from 2024 and 2025, and those read like a standard streamer biography (albeit with a controversies subsection). But the current version feels like a political exposé with way heavier labels ("false and inflammatory", "racist", "right-wing"), highlights the most inflammatory statements and refusals to apologize etc. Also heavy use of critical secondary sources like Media Matters, The Atlantic, PC Gamer, academic papers on "woke" gamese etc. When looking at older versions more humanizing parts like biographical and early-career material (IRS work, mother's health, different framing on Ted Cruz) have been ommitted or adjusted more negatively.

Can't help but notice that as a heavy shift in overall framing. Should probably be checked if controversy-focused material has been growing without any reassessment of WP:DUE weight? Raveheart97 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you defending a racist? He's a known and openly anti-Semitic anti-Islamic anti-Asian propogandist and misinformation and disinformation spreader. It's very obvious and clear. There's countless sources of evidence on his platforms. Neutral framing isn't 'negative framing'. ~2026-51189-45 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

That's my point, if the less favourable aspects are given greater prominence while biographical and other contextual material is diminished, that creates a negative overall frame. Whether you or I personally like or dislike Asmongold should have no effect on the article.

For example with your comment to another user: whether you consider his apology genuine or not is a separate question from whether he made an apology. The source shows that he did apologize. If there is reliable sourcing that the apology was insincere, that can be included as criticism, but simply stating that it was a "false apology" and therefore "didn't happen" is NOT neutral framing. Raveheart97 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Well actually that's not the case because you can make a(n) (fake) apology, be (knowingly) insincere, and keep making the same 'mistake' and not fix the problem. An apology is very personal and people can sense and feel the sincerity or lack thereof. ~2026-51389-11 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if you believe the sincerit, thats the point. It still happened, he apologized, everything else is extra. You commented, and whether I think youre trolling or not doesnt matter for the fact that you commented. Raveheart97 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

No. It does matter. It matters how an apology is made. That's how an apology works. You're trying to accuse me off 'trolling' now because you're trying to project your own unseriousness. That matters. You've just exposed yourself as someone pushing your own agenda(s). You're already wrong. Don't keep trying to argue. ~2026-51189-45 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you read? I said it doesnt matter what I think about your comment for your comment to have been made, as an analogy for it not mattering what you think of an apopogy for it having been made. If theres sources that question the integrity, that can be included on the page as an addendum. Raveheart97 (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Scope of the MediaMatters citation

I noticed a possible issue with the scope of the claim supported by the Media Matters citation in the sentence:

"having openly stated that his goal is to "radicalize people as much as possible" and that he presents content in "the most extreme and negative way" to provoke anger and steer viewers toward far-right positions."

The cited article states:

"as he explained while talking about migrants in the United Kingdom"

The current page phrasing of "that he presents content" implies that he's referring to the entirety of his content, whereas the quoted phrase seems to be specifically relating to his coverage of migration in the United Kingdom as far as I can tell.

I'm not editing this myself as I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's rules, if someone experienced could take a look that would be helpful.

~2026-46522-32 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The Media Matters source fully supports the current phrasing. The source does not limit Asmongold's statement to "only" UK migration. The reporter's phrase "as he explained while talking about migrants in the United Kingdom" is simply contextual for the quote. Not a qualification of its scope. Asmongold himself used general language ("this stuff"), saying: "My goal with talking about this stuff is to radicalize people as much as possible. I show this and I portray this stuff in the most extreme and negative way so I can make people angry and they'll be willing to follow the solutions that I want them to follow. Because I don't want people to get this confused. I have a very clear goal with the way that I express this stuff." He did not say "only when I talk about UK migrants" he said "this stuff," a clear reference to his overall approach to his political commentary.

Moreover, the same Media Matters article documents him applying this same strategy across multiple topics, including, calling for anti-ICE protesters to be placed in "camps" for "mandatory labor" of 5–10 years, urging the government to "brutalize" protesters and use "compelled slave labor.", calling for a future Republican administration to go "Old Testament" on perceived political enemies, praising Tommy Robinson and Nick Fuentes, and describing his role as a "bridge" between far-right white nationalists and mainstream figures.

The current phrasing "he presents content in 'the most extreme and negative way'" as well as other portions of the lead is also a summary of the entire article, not a misquote of a single paragraph. The source is also mainly there to cite those quotations, but supports the lead as well. It accurately reflects that Asmongold's consistent extreme rhetoric is a pattern across immigration, protesters, political opponents, and more. Not a one-off remark about the UK.

Luka Maglc (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

About the second paragraph.

He did apologize for his comments on palestinians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSI-N-QHNTQ The apalogy proper starts at 4:40. Sanctaphrax1 (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to include this, you must include that the apology wasn't genuine or accepted. It was a false apology that he was forced to make. An apology that isn't a real apology is the equal or the same as a non apology or refusal to apologize. Therefore he didn't actually ever make an apology. He technically has never made an apology. ~2026-51189-45 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like your personal assesment, your political disagreements with the man shouldn't cloud your judgement, that's not what wiki is about. The fact is that there is an apology out there an claiming that there isn't is just incorrect. Also starting the description with what should be in a "Controversy" tab is contentious but removing this sentence at least seems like a no brainer. Sanctaphrax1 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Label

The article and this discussion page describe Asmongold as "right-wing". He is not. ~2026-49850-86 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. He has referred to himself as a centrist and has also said he has never voted for a Republican in any election. ~2026-37433-54 (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for this description. It should be removed or attributed immediately. John Alan Coey (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

All the sources are listed in the "Views" section. ~2026-50510-22 (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't really answer the question, does it? Marcus Markup (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

None of which support him being right-wing. I support removing this claim. ~2026-37433-54 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The Pink News source directly calls him right-wing. — Czello ^(music) 07:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)::

Not exactly The Atlantic if you know what I'm saying. I have been back and forth on this issue. At this point, I have to admit, I am in favor of keeping the categorization of "right-wing" despite the lame sourcing, on the grounds of WP:SKYBLUE... anyone who has watched his videos has got to agree it's not a question of whether or not he is on the right side of the political spectrum, but how far, what flavor, or whether or not he's just doing shtick. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Marcus Markup The "right wing" label isn't contentious. He is very patriotic, aligned with "America First" policies, however he is not as sterotypical as some might thing and is in favour of free healthcare among other things but it doesn't mean he isn't right wing. However, the part of the article stating that he refused to apologize for his statement about palestinians is just plain false, as shown above. ~2026-50423-40 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It IS contentious because tons of people call him "right-wing", while others disagree. Saying that people consider him right-wing would be 100% valid and perhaps the good choice for the lead. The only question is, can we say so in Wikivoice. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Marcus Markup Right wing commentator would be a fine label, that I don't think he himself would dispute. Far right just sounds biased. ~2026-50423-40 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree that the status quo is fine, and going "far right" would not. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes, here's a single source that's definitely not biased. I'd like to see more sources from different perspectives… if that's something you ever consider. ~2026-50756-68 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Lose the attitude. You and I are both here to improve the encyclopedia. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

If we're not going to count Pink News that's fine, but WP:SKYBLUE isn't good enough. We need actual sourcing for this, really. — Czello ^(music) 19:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"Pink News" you say ... very reputable source. John Alan Coey (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:PINKNEWS. If you disagree, take it up with WP:RSN. — Czello ^(music) 16:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

A source can be reliable, but still biased. Pink News is reliably biased when it comes to social issues. "Bias" is not automatically a bad thing, of course, and all the best outlets actually have a bias. But using them as a source for Asmon being a meanie, without attribution, is laughable. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Laughable but predictable. John Alan Coey (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"generally reliable for factual reporting", this characterization is an opinion and its an opinion made without attribution. John Alan Coey (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

A fair point. I'm open to the argument that we include more sources. As I said above, I don't think we can rely on WP:SKYBLUE. — Czello ^(music) 05:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Asmongold is objectively right-wing. I don't understand why some people are in such denial over this. ~2026-50616-91 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

None of his stances are inherently "right-wing". At best, the article should say that he is considered as such, without treating it as factual. But well, we know what's the underlying position of Wikipedia on political topics. ~2026-50756-68 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

How would you categorize this: You mean you'd shoot adults and deport the kids right? Well I'd shoot whoever. Yeah I'd shoot whoever I mean if it's kids, women, men, anybody, just shoot them. They're going to stop coming over. If that is not "right wing" it's a damned good impression of it. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the correlation. ~2026-50783-06 (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is an article showing or implying that he voted for Trump and at the very least promotes him with his political commentary. He is political in a right wing direction.

https://www.mediamatters.org/asmongold/right-wing-streamer-asmongold-trump-starting-iran-war-anybody-saying-i-didnt-vote-wasnt ~2026-51189-45 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

He has explicitly said he has never voted for Donald Trump and has been very critical of his second term in office. ~2026-37433-54 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you believe that his content is influential to right wing demographics or voters or promotes right wing influence or voting? That's what should matter. You can provide a source, but whether this is common knowledge to his audience should also matter as well. ~2026-51189-45 (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. UppercutPawnch (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I watched him today, advocating fabricating evidence against protesters to "deal with them". I see now he advocated similar treatment to Gavin Newsom, saying "It doesn’t matter how we can get you. The only thing that matters is that we get you.” He seems to continually advocate fabrication of evidence, political retaliation, disenfranchisement, and coercive punishment. I realize more than a few of y'all attribute that with the "right-wing" but that term does not cut it in describing this guy... those may be attributes of more than a few right WINGERS but I have respect for right wing political philosophy enough to know it does not include a police state. Police states have historically been features of both right and left wing regimes. He's more of a populist, combining right-leaning culture-war and law-and-order views with some economically and socially liberal positions. That said, I cited WP:SKYBLUE in my defense of the encyclopedia calling him "right-wing" and I stand by it, I'm just saying I am very on the fence here. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:SKYBLUE does not cut it, and I am embarrassed I proposed it. At this point, I am thinking we do our readers a disservice by telling them he is simply "right-wing", and that it is actually unencyclopedic without qualifiers or additional adjectives. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I really think this needs a "disputed" tag at this point, just for the sake of intellectual integrity. He's far more than just "right-wing". I'd add it myself but I have flip flopped so much on this I'm not comfortable boldly editing this article any more. Marcus Markup (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)