Talk:Friendlyjordies

Sourcing

I removed Independent Australia as a source because: A. They are not a reliable source (see discussion here) and B. They cannot be used as a BLP source in any case.

User:Melmann reverted this with some comments about Australian Press Council membership. That's as may be, but unless I see some super-radical changes at IA - like not being an opinion blog, for starters - they aren't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

There are a number of less-dodgy but still unsuitable sources being used in this article. I'll accept reviews of shows from sources that do is as their business, but since when is Crikey a reliable source for biographical details? --Pete (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In regards to IA, I disagree almost entirely with that conversation, but I don't really have the energy right now to contest it so have it your way. Crikey is reliable, of course, especially to balance previous revisions of that article which was prior to that basically a collection of greatest hits of Murdoch smear artists. See also propaganda model. Melmann 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to rewrite our BLP policy specifically referred to at the top of this page. Here is an extract: The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources --Pete (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

IA is not a tabloid. It's contributors include, among others, former ABC journalists, academic from RMIT University and Greenpeace Chief Executive Officer and Sydney University professor. One of its contributors was a literal professor of journalism. I have no idea where you're getting all this false info about IA. Melmann 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

IA's "contributors", last time I looked, included writers for other outlets whose work was lifted and republished. It has a long history of shady journalism and is not regarded as a reliable source, especially not for BLP material. We must use reliable sources for BLP and I urge you to review wikipolicy on this. --Pete (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the source is about Queensland's Fixated Persons Unit, not NSW's.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Statement was meant to illustrate that Fixated Persons Units in general are problematic, as the source predicted its use against government's critic 3 years prior to this incident. Statement makes no specific claims about QLD or NSW FPU, just FPUs in general. Melmann 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: I am very much aware of WP:BLP and WP:RS, what I disagree with are your entirely unproven claims that IA is not reliable. Serious accusations, such as plagiarism, require some proof, rather than just casting vague aspersions, don't you agree? Melmann 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss the points raised, that's fine. Some people use emotion instead of reason to inform their thinking. I'm not going to judge. IA has been discussed many times in the past on RSN and elsewhere. It's never emerged as a RS and certainly not for BLP. --Pete (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: I would like to invite you to continue assuming good faith and refrain from making value judgements on how emotional or not my reasoning is that feels a bit to close to WP:NPA ('Comment on content, not on the contributor').
Despite claiming me too emotional to engage in reasonable discussion, you made plagiarism accusations that you refuse to substantiate and are using weasel words to claim prior consensus when you should well know that consensus can change and what matters is the consensus that we are trying to build now. I have tried to build consensus and to follow WP:BLP by acting out of abundance of caution and accepting removal of the contested source and now I would like for you to substantiate your serious accusation (for which you could be sued by IA in Australia under same overreaching and broken defamation laws as FJ). Melmann 07:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You're not doing your case much good by cramming words into my mouth that were never there. Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. Let me put it another way. I am quite certain that IA's contributors are not the touchstone of the publication's journalistic standards. I check canonical links and I am satisfied that many of IA's contributors publish elsewhere first and are later picked up under a CC license. I could create my own blog and do the same and using the logic you are trying to bamboozle me with, that would make my blog a reliable source.

Unless you come up with checkable facts, then no matter how forcefully you present your own opinion, it's not going to convince me of anything. If anything, the more bluster and emotion, the less I'll listen. Because if you had any facts you would use them. My own opinion isn't important, in any case, for exactly the same reason. What is important is Wikipedia's BLP and sourcing policy. Several of the sources used in this article are weak and if we can find better ones, we would have a better article. --Pete (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And yet you simply ignore the facts that don't serve you. My claims that IA is generally reliable are based on: a)IA is a member of Australian Press Council b) most of their their contributors are sufficiently credentialed (once again, how is journalistic work of a journalism professor not reliable enough) c) there is no evidence that IA prints or is likely to print material that is of substantially lower quality than other reliable sources d) properly republishing original reporting by others is commonly done as many reliable sources we use republish from AP or Reuters Thompson (and CC while following the license is not plagiarism, what a strange claim). Those are the facts.
Also, continuing to claim that I am somehow 'too emotional' and you're a bastion of disinterested reasoning is uncalled for and I will ask you once again, in spirit of WP:AGF to refrain from passing value judgements on other editors as it is not helpful. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree, as we are, and assuming other person is not reasonable just because they disagree is not in the spirit of two relatively experienced editors trying to be WP:HERE. Melmann 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You committed to the Internet that Independent Australia, a newspaper whose writers and editors publish under their own names, is unreliable; and that Wikipedia, a website run by anonymous editors with no clear background in anything, should never stoop so low. I don't think anyone outside of your professional circle would see it that way. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Just saying the same things with more force merely underscores my point. Cheers. --Pete (talk)!~

Fortunately, we do not need to worry about whether Independent Australia is a reliable source or not, since its inclusion here is to create original synthesis. Sources that do not discuss Shanks or Langker cannot be used to support an argument, or suggest anything, about the arrest of Langker. This article is not about the "Fixated Persons Unit" or its appropriate use. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's even worse, because it's not the Fixated Persons Unit, but one from another state.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's so, this is exactly why original synthesis is not permitted. If there's been a mistake to be made about which police unit was involved, it should be made by the sources. Not by this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no original synthesis. The source said that the 'Fixated Persons Unit' is Orwellian, and that was paraphrased to 'potential to stifle political speech', which is a fair paraphrasing of the source's claims. Also, while initial incident is relating to QLD case, 'Fixated Persons Units' are substantially similar across all Australian police jurisdiction which have them. The second source provided (Crikey, not IA) specifically discusses NSW FPU in closing too, such as this quote: "So far no oversight reporting mechanisms have been publicly detailed for QFTAC, NSW’s Fixated Persons Unit, or Victoria’s new Fixated Threat Assessment Centre." clearly extending its reporting to NSW FPU.Melmann 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what original synthesis is. You haven't provided anything that connects the 'Orwellian' criticism of the 'Fixated Persons Unit' to the arrest of Langker. This is what is meant by original synthesis. The connection between criticism of it, and the arrest of Langker, cannot be made in this article. You need a source that does this. Otherwise the connection has been synthesised by the editors of this article, and the reader has nothing to verify that it is accurate, relevant or valid in this particular case. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not connect Langker to IA's criticism. Langker is not part of the criticism that FPU receives from the source. I simply provided criticism of FPU that is contextually relevant. FPU's arrest of Langker is one viewpoint of the issue (FPU claims Lanker was stalking), and criticism of FPU as Orwellian is balancing it (criticism claims FPU is suppressing free speech). If anything, I think you need to review WP:BALANCE. If I had said: 'FPU's arrest of Langker was Orwellian.' that would be original synthesis because it is an original statement tying prior coverage of FPU with this new incident that that the source does not cover. Note that the sentence I wrote in the article has FPU as the subject. The two statements are contextually related but semantically independent. If your incorrect definition of original synthesis was actually applied, no article could have contextual explanations or two balanced set of facts because having more than one fact at a time is automatically your definition of original synthesis. Melmann 19:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors aren't sources. If you want the article to say something, find a reliable source that says it. We're an encyclopaedia, not an opinion blog. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"I simply provided criticism of FPU that is contextually relevant." = Original Synthesis. It is your determination that it is contextually relevant. The sources certainly don't say it is. It may not be. The criticisms may be completely irrelevant in this situation. Just because you are not stating that "the arrest was Orwellian" doesn't make any difference. By tacking on this information you are clearly leading the reader to the conclusion that there is a relationship. Otherwise, why is it here, in this article? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything that has been said above on the other topics, but I do agree that this would fall under synthesis. As Langker was not explicitly connected to this incident in the IA source, it cannot be done in this article. I do believe though that new articles, directly discussing this incident and the use of FPU have been published in the past day. Perhaps these sources could be looked into for use instead. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 14:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: I still don't fully see the logic of your argument (that's not to say that you're wrong, but that your argument does not track for me personally), but I will accept the consensus against me that it was original synthesis.
I do agree with you that by putting the information there leads the reader to connect the two (else why put it?), but from my perspective it was putting two independent contextually related facts next to each other. It seems that your reading precludes most contextual clarification because choosing to put any set of facts together is original synthesis (the very choice of including one source and not another is original synthesis because you're building a narrative by selecting how the article flows).
But yeah, in practical sense, I am deferring to consensus on this point. Melmann 16:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Think of it this way... An extreme and fictional example to illustrate;

"Before attaining fame, Jack FamousPerson worked as a teacher in Major High School.[1] Teachers at Major High School were later criticised in the 1990s for abusing pupils.[2]"

Two sourced, accurate and independent statements. But it suggests that Jack FamousPerson was in some way connected to the abuse, when in fact he may not have worked there at the time. The school criticised may even be in a completely different town, and a Wikipedia editor has mistakenly thought they are the same place. This is why a source that connects the two facts must be cited. The connection cannot be synthesised in the Wikipedia article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Coronation

It may be pertinent to mention that “Coronation” can still be found on YouTube- it’s been reuploaded several times in its entirety. BumbleBeError (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It got taken down because of a organised crime ring I wouldn't mess with them at all 49.3.1.103 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant to put this under corination 49.186.41.168 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

They would constitute copyright violations and should not be linked here. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

GA Nomination

@Jack Upland, @Escape Orbit, @Aubscool2, @Euryalus, @Skyring, @DTH89, @Q2f96k1z09tsny5iva29, @Melmann, @67.243.114.117 and @BlueTurtles. I'm thinking of nominating this for WP:GA and as I've not edited this article much I wanted to see if any of the editors who had edited it a bit saw any issues with doing so.
Ps, I choose the editors to ping based on the article stats. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert on GA requirements, but I don't see any issues with the article. It's in decent shape. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Will do. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I just want to add that one of the criteria for a good article is that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". So maybe there should be a "Political views" or "Personal life" section? 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 cheers. I'll see what I can coble together. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@1timeuse75, I've added a Political views section. Let me know what you think. Researching has led me to believe that he is partnered with actress Ana Thu Nguyen, however that fact is not covered in any reliable sources and so I haven't been able to add it. TarnishedPath^talk 07:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I do know that Jordan has had his partner as a guest on his podcast at one point. I am not sure how well something like that does as a source, but if something like that will do I can try trawl it up Loomhigh (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Loomhigh223555 potentually usable per WP:ABOUTSELF if you have a source. TarnishedPath^talk 14:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

spent probably too long trying to find it. Eventually figured out roughly when the podcast was released thanks to this short:

https://youtube.com/shorts/X4gMxdMWfTY?si=zyNgxW9fod4Su2vH

And I discovered that the episode is a Patreon exclusive. Not sure if that can be used as a reference in any way, but here's the link:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/jordans-gf-thu-52043798?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_content=web_share

I believe he talks about how he met Ana Thu Nguyen on his self help channel, but I don't think he mentions her by name so it wouldn't be much use. Loomhigh (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source to reference.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7997789/Why-Friendlyjordies-wants-Scott-Morrison-JAILED.html

shows a picture of Jordan and Thu captioned "Shanks is pictured with his girlfriend Thu Nguyen while on holiday in Pakistan in December"

Hopefully this is sufficient enough to make the link. I know for sure they have made posts and mentions of their engagement, but cannot dig up sources. Loomhigh (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Loomhigh223555 I'm sorry to disapoint you, but you might want to read WP:DAILYMAIL. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I got so excited that a news article mentioned this fact I neglected to notice it was a dailymail one. the search for a valid source continues. Loomhigh (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia allows paywalled sources and a podcast featuring both Jordan and Thu would work as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Would I be good to add that Jordan is engaged with Ana Thu referencing the two Patreon exclusive podcasts that talk about it? Loomhigh (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Loomhigh223555, you are correct that Wikipedia allows for usage of paywalled sources. I understand that the one you are referring to is published by Shanks himself, and not him being a mere interviewee (correct me if I'm incorrect) and as such would satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPSBLP.

Of interest and tangentially related you may be interested in a current RFC at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Starting formal Request for Comment for WP:BLPSPS and videos. Ps, I'm not making any argument that discussion would prohibit us from adding Shanks's podcast. TarnishedPath^talk 10:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JordanShanks-friendlyjordies.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey TarnishedPath and Escape Orbit, I’m aware that the image I prefer was nominated for deletion, although it appears to be contested and could potentially remain on Wikimedia. If there is a rule on English Wikipedia to replace such images ahead of time, then I’m sorry for pushing back on it. That said, I feel the 2022 image is a poor representation of a politically active figure, since it’s low quality, taken in motion, and somewhat distorts his face. I’m not a native speaker, so it’s hard for me to express this well, but to me it looks like a typical low-light party photo that you wouldn’t want on a Wikipedia page. In the German version of Wikipedia we try to only use “neutral” images and sometimes prefer having none over using a bad one, but maybe that’s not the case on the English version, or it only looks that way to me. In any event, I won’t make further changes. Greetings LukeTriton (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@LukeTriton I agree that the new image is far from ideal. I don't however think we can have the old one ppending the outcome of the discussion. We should only use the old one if/when there is consensus that it's usage isn't a copyright violation.

On the question of having a bad photo v no photo; you're correct that common practice on enwiki is generally to have any photo against having nothing. TarnishedPath^talk 17:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the deletion is pretty much certain. They tend to err on the side of caution, and it's not clear that this image can be properly licensed. But I'm not against you putting it back if you think otherwise. I just think a bot will be along shortly to remove it.

As for the existing photo. Yeah, it's not great. But it's rare that no photo is better than a bad photo. It's really not that bad, and the purpose of the image is to help identify the subject, not to look good.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed article assessing friendlyjordies content as public interest journalism

This is a peer reviewed academic article published in the Australian Journalism Review. It includes video analysis of friendlyjordies videos and an interview with Kristo Langker. It finds that, at least regarding the 3 videos of focus, friendlyjordies produces public interest journalism (definitions on page 102). It might be worth adding this as a source, saying something like friendlyjordies produces (at least some) public interest journalism despite both Shanks-Markovina and Langker rejecting the label journalist.

https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/ajr_00178_7#html_fulltext ~2025-38672-90 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38672-90 cheers for that. I'll try give a read tomorrow. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friendlyjordies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) 02:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ChopinChemist (talk · contribs) 04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Let me know if you're ready for feedback.ChopinChemist^Talk? 04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChopinChemist thankyou for your time reviewing the article. I'm ready whenever you want to begin. TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChopinChemist, I think I've addressed everything except for the two points where I've asked for clarification. If you can clarify those points below and let me know what else you think needs to be addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think that's everything so far addressed. What else do you think needs addressing? TarnishedPath^talk 02:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

At this point I believed the article has reached a high enough standard for the GA criteria, so I will pass this article. Well done! ChopinChemist^Talk? 06:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written

a. prose

The documentary that Shanks self-produced should be italicized per WP:MOSFILM

b. MoS compliance in

b.1. lead section

lowbrow humour detail is not provided in the body of the article. Can you find sources that confirm this detail and elaborate in the body?

 Done

b.2. layout: ok

b.3. words to watch:

ClubsNSW began a highly unusual private prosecution The Guardian source does not talk about this as "highly unusual". Can you find sources that confirm this and add quotation marks?(perhaps this source can help). If you can't find source for "highly unusual", then you may write as follows: ClubsNSW began a private prosecution against Shanks and Tolz, citing concern over “opportunity to escalate attacks against ClubsNSW and its legal representatives”.

@ChopinChemist, I've removed "highly unusual" and expanded the material in other ways. I've choosen not to utilise Independent Australia, as could lead to conflict. See a WP:RS/N discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

Shanks was a model, appearing in magazines and advertisements throughout Australia and Southeast Asia. The Guardian source does not mention his appearance in magazines and advertisements throughout Australia and Southeast Asia. Try finding a reliable source about this. If not, then just say "Shanks was a model."

 Done

Improperly cited sources: 11

@ChopinChemist, can you describe what you mean here. I can't access the source as it is behind a paywall and I can't get it coming up on wayback machine either. Are you saying the source doesn't support the content? TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean the source cited is lacking as it only include the title, and not the publication as well as the writer (if any). Providing information like those would be helpful for determining reliability of the source. ChopinChemist^Talk? 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think I might have addressed that while I was doing other edits. Ps, the reference is now number 10. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• [Jordan] obtained a Bachelor of International Studies specialising in Globalisation Studies at the University of New South Wales what parameter did you use for the UNSW website, because I tried Shanks and Shanks-Markovina as last name and nothing shows up. If the system no longer saves his name and degree, then I suggest using this Newsworthy source (no pun intended)

@ChopinChemist I didn't place the reference myself. However, I've just been able to confirm the information. I input "Shanks-Markovina" as the last name, "Jordan" as the first name and selected "Bachelor of International Studies" from the degree field. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I've able to confirm it as well. The sentence should remove "specializing in globalisation studies" as the source does not support it. ChopinChemist^Talk? 03:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChopinChemist, the search results state:

Degree: Bachelor of International Studies

Career: Undergraduate

Specialisation: Globalisation Studies

Conferral Date: 17 Dec, 2012 TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

my apologies. I did not see the 3rd line. All good ChopinChemist^Talk? 03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChopinChemist, no worries. Happens to us all. Any other input? TarnishedPath^talk 03:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I have one final suggestion to satisfy the "broad in its coverage" criteria. After that, the article should be on track to pass this GA review.ChopinChemist^Talk? 05:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChopinChemist I'll have a full read of the Newsworthy source tomorrow and then expand. I'll probably also move the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the YouTube section into their own subsection "Miscellaneous 2016-2021" or something like that. I'll ping you when I'm done. TarnishedPath^talk 07:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Quotes that can be better sourced:

• Shanks is of Croatian descent can be found in Happymag. Should use that source instead of the Youtube video.

 Done

• He has interviewed a number of prominent Labor politicians including Kevin Rudd, Jodi McKay, Kristina Keneally, Tanya Plibersek, Kate Washington, and Bill Shorten is supported by Sydney Morning Herald

Mostly  Done with the exception of the citation for Shorten as that is not supported by the SMH story.

Political Views feels WP:OR as it relies heavily on friendlyjordies' YouTube channel. I suggest you use secondary sources with attribution to show his politcal views. Suggested source to improve on: article on Spectator, Honi Soit.

I have removed what was the second paragraph, which was completely reliant on Shank's YouTube videos and added some content from Honi Soit. I have not used the Spectator article as it leans heavily on opinion which accords with the community consensus at WP:SPECTATOR.

That works for me.ChopinChemist^Talk? 16:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• ...accusing Shanks of stalking and harassment. The police laid no charges Is there a reason for this as seen on the Saturday paper? If there is you should provide.

@ChopinChemist, I'm unsure what you are asking here? Are you suggesting this needs to be expanded? TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Like did the police make any statements or not relating to the charge. If there isn't any, the sentence may be kept that way. ChopinChemist^Talk? 19:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nah, the police didn't make any statement. TarnishedPath^talk 02:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep it that way then.ChopinChemist^Talk? 16:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• I suggest expanding a little bit on friendlyjordies' beginnings on YouTube, as well as stating that "Shanks began his YouTube channel in February 2013,... (expand at your discretion)" at the beginning of the YouTube career section. (source: Newsworthy)

@ChopinChemist I've added some content. Please let me know what you think and if you have any further suggestions. TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. I just need the self-produced documentary that Shanks produced to be italicized, then the article is ready for GA status. ChopinChemist^Talk? 04:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChopinChemist  Done TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

Article maintains neutrality by avoiding support of friendlyjordies while portraying the viewpoints of others fairly.

Pics

just want to say interesting picture. Other than that, this is all good.

There was a better pic, but it got deleted from Commons as a probable copyright violation.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Shanks in 2022

• ... that Jordan Shanks' (pictured) house was firebombed after he published a YouTube video about the Alameddine crime family? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20250214000359/https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/you-win-you-run-this-city-death-threats-force-friendlyjordies-to-remove-video-20240201-p5f1pm.html
  • ALT1: ... that Jordan Shanks (pictured) said "I'm a millennial. Going bankrupt doesn't scare me. I don't have a house" after Clive Palmer threatened to sue him? Source: https://www.newsworthy.org.au/delivering-politics-wrapped-in-satire-for-disenfranchised-youth-2646238595.html
  • ALT2: ... that Jordan Shanks (pictured) made a cameo appearance in Housos? Source: https://tvtonight.com.au/2022/05/airdate-housos-the-thong-warrior.html
    • ALT2a: ... that Jordan Shanks (pictured) made a cameo appearance in an episode of Housos titled "The Thong Warrior"? Source: as above
  • ALT3: ... that Jordan Shanks (pictured) has voiced characters in Koala Man? Source: https://collider.com/surprise-celebrity-voice-cameos-in-hulus-koala-man/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Helen Spence

Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

TarnishedPath^talk 08:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC).

• Passed a GA review the same day it was nominated, almost 2000 words of prose, the GA review has correctly determined the article to be well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant and copyvio-free (though this might be nice to rephrase). All hooks are from the article, of adequate length and verified by the provided source. I see a QPQ done and no other issues with the article. The image is own work CC0, and clear at diminished size (though pretty bad quality, to be honest). JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Approving all hooks. JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Worth adding Jordans Vision impairment?

I remember a friendlyjordies podcast episode where Jordan explains that he is completely blind in one eye, and tells the story of how he was blinded in one eye by the scratch of a pet cat he was playing too rough with.

Would this be worth mentioning to bulk out his early life section? I am not sure how to reference a podcast episode but if it seems like a good idea I can trawl through and find it. Loomhigh (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless it's something he references often, I'd think it be a sentence in the personal life section. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)