Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Scare quotes"?

See [1]. The quotes used in the part instigating a “hateful” misogynistic trolling campaign were directly from the sourced article. I believe the context can be held in tact the best when we use this part from The Times when used verbatim. Any objections, anyone? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course there are objections, otherwise I wouldn't have removed it. "Frenzy" is ambiguous and loaded, and the section failed to indicate who was being quoted, making it selective and editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, then you can rewrite it in any way you please. However, deleting sourced material is very wrong at wikipedia. Please reinsert the parts, and then you can rewrite it as you think it suits you.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not everything which can be sourced belongs, especially in a WP:BLP. That's frankly ridiculous. The sentence was a minimally altered copy/paste from the source. That's bordering on WP:COPYVIO, but is at the very least lazy. Since we didn't describe what the "frenzy" was, nor who was being quoted as saying it was "hateful" (the source only mentions it that once, in quotes), the sentence was more confusing than informative. Adding confusion is very wrong on Wikipedia, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it cool.

Hello, this article could soon be a battle ground of an edit war. Let's try to prevent that. I already asked for advice here. Let's hope someone who is not involved in this mess can take a look at it. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claim that this violates WP:BLP

Sargon tweets obscene images at alt-right followers

While this might be a contentious claim to make of a white supremacist, this is Sargon, who is a quarter black and not very well liked in racist circles.

The claim is plainly supported by the facts laid out in Heat Street's article, including several embedded tweets from Sargon. What gives? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, while it might sound contentious, it isn't, he is proud of it, and laughs about his trolling of alt-righters in several of his youtube videos. see here.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Since he isn't himself particularly reliable, and Heat Street is borderline at best, the significance of this incident should be evaluated based on reliable, secondary sources, which are lacking. Grayfell (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

While undoubtedly that opinion can be made, it is stretching the spirit of the rule IMO. This claim seems reasonably verifiable (which is the most important thing) and is relatively uncontentious. Most importntly it adds to the section by providing a balanced view to that of the hit pieces written by Dot and Salon (who are highly leftwing partisan sources).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Verifiable is important, but we can set-aside how reliable Heat Street is for that and look at the depth of coverage. Verifiability isn't the only standard, and isn't necessarily the most important one. This is especially true for BLPs. If the only sources talking about this issue are a few short newsblog posts at Heat Street, than it's a bad sign for its greater encyclopedic significance. I don't like Dot of Salon for BLP content, (the Vice article has issues here, also) and the whole section seems like a thinly disguised WP:CSECTION. Without those sources, we're back to having almost no reliable sources at all, which makes the move to mainspace premature. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Arguably true, the sourcing is marginal I agree, but it is there. From a practicality standpoint I think it is better to have a short stub here than nothing at all, or else we will have fanboys constantly coming along and recreating janky articles that waste time at AfC and/or AfD.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to "Carl Benjamin"

I get the WP:NATURALDAB argument, I'm not sure this is as recognizable as "Sargon of Akkad." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't, but Reliable sources commonly use his real name as well, and we cant use Sargon of Akkad without a parenthetical dab. There is a hatnote at Sargon of Akkad to help with this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sargon addresses article

Well that didn't take long. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate

Just stumbled on a Breitbart piece where Benjamin is quoted at length about Gamergate. Maybe there is a place for it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source for statements of fact on Wikipedia (and Bokhari's willingness to quote his friends and colleagues especially undermines any pretense of neutrality) so the value of this article is limited, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Brietbart is far right leaning source, but it should be alright with attribution per WP:BIASED.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

His views on Gamergate could also be extracted from the interview he did on the topic with Dave Rubin.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Using questionable/primary sources to include his opinions is not neutral, and isn't particularly helpful in creating a neutral overview. If we don't have independent sources discussing his positions, we should keep this as brief as possible. He's already got a youtube channel for sharing his many opinions, and we're not in the business of helping him with promotion. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to what Dave Rubin says about his views in the interview.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose that could work, but I don't think interviews are particularly useful for establishing the significance of opinions if nothing else discusses them. Rubin's job in this context is not specifically to summarize or explain, but to give Benjamin a more restricted platform to talk. It's still less than ideal for due weight. It would be different if it were an interview as part of investigative journalism or something, but Rubin isn't a journalist, so restraint's called for. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view on this but when we are looking for things that establish a person's opinions then using quotes of them describing themselves in their own words seem to be a reasonable place to start. I think you're giving a bit too much credence to the idea of 'investigative journalism' being somehow different to any other kind of interview. Dave Rubin's show isn't a comedy talk show or something, there's no reason to think that Carl was lying or joking or otherwise not expressing himself clearly. That doesn't make Carl's point of view gospel, he's just as prone to being wrong as anyone else, but as a source to express his views on and involvement with Gamergate there's no reason to believe it's unreliable. Simply by having the whole interview there as a source means that we have a plethora of material to choose concise, communicative phrases from instead of a newspaper piece that has already cut a longer interview down to a few lines. Using sources like Rubin to establish Carl's version of events also helps to get rid of wrangling over the bias of the outlet and misrepresenting his views; a much better to place to start on an article about him as a person. To look a little wider at the notion of 'investigative journalism', we need to remember that journalists don't investigate things to praise or defend them. Just the act of investigating someone means not taking their public statements at face value. No investigative piece ever ends with '...He really does believe the things he says'. Of course a person's own words need to be treated with caution because clearly they have an interest in presenting themselves positively, even if they aren't actively being deceptive. And that's fine, we should be skeptical and couch such statements in qualifying language ('Carl has stated he believes...') to ensure it's clear where such information is coming from. But when there appears to be no particular reason to not believe that he is stating his own views and version of events honestly then I think it's reasonable to include those statements and those sources. To put it concisely; to many people Carl's beliefs are controversial; but it's not controversial to say that he believes them even if a journalist isn't involved.109.150.156.53 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

When we establish a position is significant enough to mention (setting aside how that happens for a second) we can and should be able to use interviews and even blog posts when necessary only to fill in important details. Even in a BLP, it's okay to use a person's own words to explain their position (sometimes). Likewise, unless we doubt that Benjamin said something, we can just state it as his position without too much equivocating or contextualizing. If we do have reason to doubt he said something, it probably doesn't belong at all.

So with that in mind, what gets included, and what doesn't? If we dive into the mountain of material he's produced, we have to find some objective way to make sure we're not just giving him another platform to spread his personal opinion. Briefly explaining his stance on gamergate might work, but expanding at length on that isn't. That's not what Wikipedia's for, and besides, he already has places for that like Twitter and Youtube.

Rubin isn't a journalist at all, as far as I can tell. It's not a comedy show, but the interview isn't really connected to some specific topic or area of interest, and there's no fact-checking going on, either. The topic of discussion is pretty much "What Carl thinks about random stuff". That's perfectly fine for a tv show/podcast/etc., but it's not really journalism. If we use general interviews, we should use extreme restraint, because any specific point we pull form those lengthy gab-fests risks cherry-picking. Our job is absolutely not to highlight the specific points he holds which are interesting to us, or which we 'know' are going to be interesting to readers. That's tempting, but it's fundamentally non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The New Memedia

So given the infobox now lists his channel, I wanted to point out that he has a second channel 'The New Memedia' with the channel ID 'UCG57OQKTNNVRC3HRPGNXKTG'. This is the channel where he posts meme related or 'shitposting' material (his words not mine). There might be a secondary source out there that connects this channel to him.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin also has a livestream-channel: [2]. Just see what is appropriate for those infoboxes. I copy-edited the box from another Youtuber with only one channel, so I have no idea about the general guidelines for this infobox. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And he has another new channel, [3].  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Also this: [4]Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The Orion reliability

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Orion - Student Newspaper czar 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

see the Sargon addresses article-paragraph below. If mr. Benjamin considers the article as 'balanced' as it is now, there is no need to insert the rather -pro-Sargon opinion piece of The Orion here. I'll leave it with that. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Coresperth (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Coresperth. Can you specify the change you want to be made? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street

Heat street is not a reliable source. Please do not reinsert it as a source continuously. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying that does not make it so. Discuss. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: Heat street is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. These two are direct quotations from our guideline on identifying reliable sources, and as such I will be removing the poorly sourced contentious material from this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I ask you again to show that Heat Street does not have a reputation for fact-checking. Your say-so is not the final word. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. If I asserted that the Peter The Fourth Newsletter was a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that, not on somebody else to prove it wasn't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not up to me to guess why you think a source is unreliable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, our article on Heatstreet makes no indication of unreliability and describes them as a news source. In any case, the claim here that he sent interracial gay porn to alt-righters is not contentious, he proudly admits doing it to troll alt-righters in numerous youtube videos.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  18:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article isn't really the standard we should be using, since other articles are not reliable sources. For contested materials, the burden is on inclusion, not exclusion, especially for BLPs. Grayfell (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: Perhaps this analogy would work: Please explain to me why you think the Peter The Fourth Newsletter is unreliable, or it's definitely reliable, and if you do explain why you think it's unreliable (perhaps by explaining how it has no reputation for fact checking) I won't listen. (See?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:QUESTIONABLE: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
Heat Street has editorial oversight and there is no indication of a poor fact-checking reputation. Moreover, Heat Street has been described as centre-right and libertarian. Centre-right is not extremist, and a look on the site doesn't indicate any worse promotional bias, or dependency on rumors and personal opinions than Salon or Vice (which appear to be acceptable here.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That source is a barely modified press release which predates the launch of the site. It is presenting the intentions of the company launching it, and is not a reflection on the reputation of the source, since the source did not yet exist to develop a reputation. WP:RS calls for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you verify "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Throwaway126738 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I see Variety is no longer a valid source either???Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. Variety is not valid for the point you were trying to make. It's use anywhere else must be judged on a case by case basis. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. This was a very minor, very routine announcement of an upcoming website. It's fine for what it is, but it's got to be judged by context. Outlets do not, and have never, been judged on a strict pass/fail system. Context always matters. This short blurb says nothing at all about the reputation for reliability of Heat Street, and (predating the launch of the site) it says next to nothing about Heat Street's political ideology either, other than what Heat Street told a reporter by issuing a press release. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street is "conservative and libertarian" according to The New York Times, which incidentally cites a quote given to Heat Street. Like a lot of supposedly partisan outlets, Heat Street respects its contributor's political beliefs. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The political leanings of the source are not why it's unreliable. I have already explained why it is unreliable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

All right. If your opposition doesn't stem from the site's politics, then I'll leave it at that. I think you still haven't explained why you believe it is unreliable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read my third comment in this thread, a direct reply to you, in which I say Heat street is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy., a position backed up by Wikipedia's guidelines. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you have not said why you believe what you believe. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is rather disturbing. In the past, Wikipedia granted me a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, and I gladly used it to create, among others, articles on John Arthur Fyler, Henry Currie Leigh-Bennett and the Chertsey by-election, 1904. However, I must admit I never checked the reputation of the London Daily News, the Western Daily Press, the Derby Daily Telegraph, the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, the Yorkshire Evening Post, the Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser, the Edinburgh Evening News, the London Standard and the Gloucester Citizen. And since their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is unknown, I dare Peter and Grayfell to delete all the parts in these articles that are sourced by them. Moreover, use your interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines to remove all parts that are sourced with references to newspapers from the BNA, if those references are from sources of which "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" cannot be established. Good luck, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If any of that material were challenged, there would be a discussion about it. As far as I know nobody here is challenging the reliability 125 year+ old Yorkshire Evening Post, (which would be WP:POINTy as hell) and comparisons to the 9 month+ Heat Street site seems pretty silly. Describing their reputation as "unknown" is dubious, but even so it's not the same as unknowable. That's what talk pages are for. Grayfell (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are different standards than you use for Heat Street. Heat street is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but the Yorkshire Evening Post is reliable since nobody is challenging the reliability and it is old. I cannot say that argument looks very valid.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, sources only need to be shown to be reliable when somebody challenges them. If you were hell bent on proving a WP:POINT, you could start a discussion at WP:RSN about the use of the Yorkshire Evening Post, and if nobody was able to prove it was reliable you could then remove it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one doing that, since I believe that WP:QUESTIONABLE tells us that Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. And since the Derby Daily Telegraph and the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette and Heat Street do not have a poor reputation for checking the facts, I believe none of these have to removed for being a "questionable source". So if you are really that concerned about reliable sources and their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it is up to you to start a discussion on the Derby Daily Telegraph and the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: This is genuinely approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT levels. Unless you have something to bring to bear that establishes Heat Street as a reliable source, this can't continue, and I see no worth in doing so. You might want to see the reliable sources noticeboard for assistance. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So in addition to the The Times' borrowed Heat Street quote above, there is substantial evidence that Heat Street is considered a reliable source by other media outlets. Washington Post and other reputable outlets credit Heat Street for finding Tiffany Trump is among Donald Trump's least favorite voting blocs: those registered in two states. In addition to factchecking itself, Heat Street also has a semi-regular column that factchecks other outlets, a good sign of an outlet that honors integrity in reporting. One of the best Fake News columns on the internet, The Post's "What was Fake on the Internet This Week," cited Heat Street's sleuthing on a fake news story. The Post also examines reporting by Heat Street and other outlets that led President Trump to believe he was being wire-tapped. Heat Street actually broke the story, but other media outlets added confabulations not supported by Heat Street's journalism (The Post only faults Heat Street for possibly misinterpreting an IP address location). The Post tears apart Breitbart for concocting an Obama wiretapping connection on top of Heat Street's story - meanwhile Heat Street's Louise Mensch is decrying Breitbart's reporting. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, one signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. As Heat Street does here.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

While I would love to see a section on their website outlining their editorial process, I am content that I am not seeing evidence of any of the hallmarks of an unreliable source, on the contrary Heatstreet seems to demonstrate reasonable editorial control of content, at least in terms of the anectodal evidence seen above in the last two comments by mark and jeff. It may be borderline but in the absence of stories that have been demonstrated to be false or misleading (and not corrected), I'm leaning toward 'reliable source' and giving the benefit of the doubt. I suggest that if PeterTheFourth still has concerns WP:RSN might be a good place to ask more widely.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't like pass/fail systems for sources, but I do not think that Heat Street is universally unreliable. Political gossip isn't on the same as level as more substantial journalism, and I'm not sure the 4chan story really falls into that category, either. I'm fine using the site as a supplement, but as I said below, it's still pretty shaking for establishing something as having lasting encyclopedic significance. There's room for nuance. Grayfell (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: Strangely enough, me finding cause to doubt one source does not mean I must then challenge the reliability of every single source on Wikipedia. It is not required that I try to enforce Wikipedia's guidelines everywhere for me to ask for them to be followed here in the case of this source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth This is true. However, I don't see you (or anyone else) providing any evidence (aside from your own opinion) that leads you to 'find cause' to believe that Heatstreet is not a reliable source. In the absence of such evidence we are only left with the anecdotes above that indicate that Heatstreet does display many of the attributes of a source that places a high value on journalistic integrity and fact checking; in short, a source that Wikipedia policy would deem 'reliable'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: For the second time: A source needs to be proved reliable when challenged, it does not need to be proved unreliable. The burden of proof falls on those advocating for inclusion, and anecdotes are not sufficient. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Where specifically in WP policy does it say this? Nowhere in the RS guideline does it say anything about sources needing to be 'proven reliable when challenged'. It seems to me, given that you won't actually bother to supply any reasons why you actually think Heatstreet is unreliable that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

To quote myself from earlier (seriously, it'd be great if you'd just read what I've already written): Heat street is not a reliable source because it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To your assertion that sources do not need to be proven reliable when challenged- A) Sources need to be reliable (or do you disagree with that?) B) Practically speaking, nobody is going to need to do anything about a source unless somebody suggests that its use is improper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You can assert it doesn't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy all you want, but the only evidence provided so far suggests the opposite of what you are claiming here, so you are not going to get far in convincing me or anyone else. per your A) and B) these do not add up to sources needing to be 'proven reliable when challenged'. You still have to make cogent arguments with evidence that it is unreliable in the first place (your opinion isn't enough to deem a source unreliable, and it is not up to others to prove a positive just because you tell them to).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to prove or provide evidence that a source doesn't have a reputation, it has to be proved that a source does have a reputation, which has not been done. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

While that might appear to be a valid point, our guidelines don't state it in that way. i.e. see WP:NOTRELIABLE; there it states that questionable sources are ones that have a "poor reputation for fact-checking". In other words: just because a source's reputation isn't obvious one way or the other does not make it unreliable by default, what would make it unreliable is a poor reputation (which you have failed and refuse to establish--and others have established evidence of the opposite).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Examining what you call as 'established evidence' of Heat Street having a reputation for fact-checking: It is referenced once in this article (Heat Street credits the initial idea to 4chan, which seems to be the most likely culprit here), and specifically noted to be incorrect in this article (Note: While Heat Street says the server in question is in Trump Tower, other reports have suggested the server actually was located in Philadelphia), which also discusses its role in being used to support false claims. Not very convincing evidence of it having a reputation for fact-checking- indeed, the second article is useful to me as evidence for a poor reputation for fact-checking, which you have asked me to establish. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean, they were wrong once, so their reputation is bad? This is not how it works. The reputation of poor fact-checking could be discussed in articles discussing Heat Street. However, poor fact-checking is no issue in the Digiday-article, nor was it at the Business Insider-article, when these sites discussed the site. This report by the NPR doesn't blast Heat Street either. On the contrary: the NPR writes that "the BBC and The Guardian in January confirmed and built" on a report that was published on Heat Street. The BBC and The Guardian wouldn't do that if the source has a reputation of poor fact-checking or of being unreliable. Even if all arguments given before are dismissed, it would be bizarre to say that the Business Insider, the NPR, the BBC and The Guardian have no clue about reliability of other media.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of arguing endlessly about whether we should be Deletionists or Inclusionists with sources that have a vague or unclear reputation, perhaps we should just attribute the statement with 'Heatstreet reported' and call it a day? The material isn't contentious, and attribution should deal with any concern that Heatstreet is misrepresented categorically as a reliable source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If the material being added is uncontroversial, sure. I'd suggest including the writer as well, e.g. "Jane Doe, a journalist for Heat Street, wrote that..." or similar wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

year of birth.

He was born in 1980, not 1979. he has stated so in a video he madein response to this wiki page being brought to his attention. four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.5.202 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

He actually said 1979. [5]. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

Change "Benjamins channel first draw attention to itself during the Gamergate-controversy, when he argued in one of his videos that members of the Digital Games Research Association were actively plotting to influence game development" to "Benjamins channel first draw attention to itself during the Gamergate-controversy, when he argued in one of his videos that members of the Digital Games Research Association were actively plotting to influence video game development to conform to their ideological Feminist agenda" 62.153.23.54 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Done, this seems to be backed up by the source, and increases the clarity of the sentence.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I added quotes around "ideological feminist agenda" to make it clear that this is in Carl Benjamin's voice, rather than Wikipedia's voice. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

'Social justice warriors'

I'd like to open a discussion about the use of the term 'social justice warriors' in the sentence:

Benjamin has been interviewed twice by Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report, discussing various topical political issues such as Gamergate, Brexit, feminism, Black Lives Matter, social justice warriors, Donald Trump, and immigration.

Careless hx removed it on the grounds that it is "unencyclopaedic to use the pejorative term without any qualification or explanation". I personally do not see the issue. It isn't as if the term is even being used to discuss a particular person within our article, and the use of the term here is backed up by the second reference above (that they discussed 'social justice warriors'). Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and given that the statement is backed up by a source, I cant see any justification to remove it. Moreover, the term is not even easily replaceable with another less-loaded term. Per WP:VULGAR and WP:OM, even if you could consider the term grossly vulgar or profane (which I don't; it is more of a mildly pejorative descriptor than a swear of any kind), the wording should still appear in its original form. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I have a couple of points, in no particular order. Per WP:VULGAR, I would argue that social justice warrior definitely fits the definition of a contentious label (WP:LABEL) and I'm surprised not to find it there. While I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't remove offensive words simply for being offensive, I don't think those criteria apply here. To take an extreme example, I would not be offended to see the word nigger used in an article about language or history, but I wouldn't expect to see an encyclopaedic article referring to 'niggers' when talking about African-Americans. On your final point, you're right that it isn't an easy term to replace. I initially removed it because I suspect that in a discussion of Black Lives Matter, feminism, immigration, Trump, gamergate and brexit, they've probably got "social justice warriors" covered without needing to refer to the term. There isn't a less loaded term for social justice warrior precisely because it is a pejorative. A supposedly neutral term would not convey the same meaning and that's exactly why it is unencyclopaedic. I would propose a compromise: we put it in scare quotes:

Benjamin has been interviewed twice by Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report, discussing various topical political issues such as Gamergate, Brexit, feminism, Black Lives Matter, "social justice warriors", Donald Trump, and immigration.

This reflects the fact that the referenced videos use the term in their description, while maintaining a neutral tone in the article itself. carelesshx _talk 00:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Scare quotes should be fine, though I would suggest moving "social justice warriors" to the end of the sentence, for purely aesthetic reasons. I'll make the edit. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Should be Protected

While it's still being decided whether or not this article is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, we should at least prevent unregistered users from editing it. So much vandalism has already had to be reverted in a single day and it's getting tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOXHOUNDER1014 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that Benjamin just posted a video about this article, I think that would be a very good idea.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection over on the board.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Jeff5102 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Any way to edit a protected article? My God is Jesus (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@My God is Jesus: See WP:SEMI. If you have a specific change you would like to make, you can propose it here on the talk page. That's probably easiest for now. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is this unprotected? Anyone can just come in and vandalize it as they please. It's disgusting. 78.144.190.226 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Media "controversy"?

Most of the points in this category seem completely redundant or blown out of proportion, with two of them essentially being nothing but various media outlets disagreeing with Benjamin's views and the way he presents his content, which hardly qualifies as "controversy".

I changed it to "In the media". Hopefully this addressees the concern. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Game developer

I don't think this article from the Swindon Advertiser is sufficient to define Benjamin as a "game developer" in the first sentence. Are there any other sources which discuss this role? Siliconera is used later, and is listed as generally reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, but the coverage of Benjamin specifically is superficial. By themselves, these would certainly not be enough for an article, and neither sources indicates any connection to his established claim to notability as a youtuber. It seems odd to imply that "game developer" is significant enough to mention immediately, especially since there is no sign it went anywhere or that he still does any of it. I'm not denying the accuracy of these articles, only their weight in the lede. This is a grey area, but former careers do not usually define individuals like this without a good reason. If consensus is for leaving it as is, I'll drop it, but it seems slightly misleading about why he's notable. Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave it in the article, but strike it from the lede. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Good solution, I think. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan

I may have found a secondary source concerning Benjamin and "Kekistan". However, the article is from Spanish newspaper El País and so is not written in English. I am unsure of Wikipedia's policy on translated sources. Here is the original article and the translated version. --CowHouse (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone who actually speaks spanish could give us a translation of the wording, that would be best. It is allowed if it is from a reliable source (sources are not required to be in english). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan is not a country, though. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a meme (see Kekistan). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep. But it's not our job to reinforce it. We go with the legal nationality. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be a source for his nationality. It is meant to be a source for the "See also: Kekistan" section. User:Grayfell requested a reliable secondary source about Kekistan that also mentioned Benjamin. CowHouse (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Early life

Most Wikipedia biographies include a short paragraph explaining where the subject was educated and their early career path. Do we know these details for Sargon? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources that include those details unfortunately. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell's reverts

What are your issues with my edits?The New Classic (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Regarding "left-wing", it is not just "one weak source", it is one weak source and one strong source.The New Classic (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC) "Too many does not serve as an argument".The New Classic (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have many problems with this bundle of changes:

• Multiple sources call him right-wing, and some weaker ones call him left-wing. Picking the one you agree with is not neutral.
• Picking videos were he talks about himself doesn't justify inclusion of trivia, like his love of Dawkins. Why is that so central to understanding him? It isn't, at least not without WP:SECONDARY sources.
• The Pepe/Kekistan thing was a meme which has already been discussed to the point of absurdity, and it doesn't belong without a substantial, secondary source explaining why it should be included.
• He is documented to support conspiracy theories, per the DiGRA nonsense and Gamergate in general, which qualifies him for that category per its guidelines.

Let's start with those, for now. Grayfell (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@The New Classic: The burden is on you to establish consensus for changes you would like to make. Edit warring doesn't reward the person who got there first, it's to prevent disruption. Counting reverts while ignoring the ongoing discussion is still edit warring, so your response it not optional unless you self-revert. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Labelling the ones you do not agree with as "weaker" is not neutral.

−

• His love for Dawkins is a central fact needed for understanding him, just like his atheism and negative view of Islam.

−

• Only a single source labels his theory as a "conspiracy theory", so there is no reason to put that in.

−

• As for Kekistan, I have added secondary sources for them.The New Classic (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to edit the article to expand on contested content is still edit warring.

Many sources label Gamergate as a conspiracy theory. See Category:Conspiracy theorists.

"His love of Dawkins is a central fact..." Sez who? This isn't your personal profile of him, this is an encyclopedia article. That's why you need WP:SECONDARY sources. Secondary sources discuss his atheism and anti-Islamic viewpoint. That's how we know it's worth including.

How many of those sources about Kekistan actually mention Benjamin? And how is this significance established in the article? It isn't, in which case you are adding it because you think it's relevant, not because it is relevant according to those sources.

WP:PRIMARY sources and WP:SPS blogs, like the Good Man Project, are weaker according to Wikipedia's guidelines. This isn't my opinion, this is how encyclopedia's are written. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"Continuing to edit the article to expand on contested content is still edit warring" sez who?

Even if Gamergate is labelled as a conspiracy theory, Sargon's theory is not Gamergate despite being related to it, and how many of your sources actually mention Sargon?

Only interpretations of primary sources need secondary sources. " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." My usage of primary source sis similar to this, and none of what you said is in WIkipedia policies.

I have added sources that mention Sargon.

Primary sources are not "weaker" but must be accompanied by secondary sources on some occasions, and this i snot one of them.

The Good Men Project is not listed in the List of Blogs, but an online magazine. And the article was not self-published.The New Classic (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:3RR?

You're lecturing me on primary sources? Okay. We use sources to determine due weight. Some information is so basic and uncontroversial in a biographicy that primary sources are sufficient. Birth-dates, schools attended, that kind of thing. Favorite writers isn't one of those things. I'm, sure he has many other things he likes and hates, but why stop there? Those are statements of fact, right? Why stop with Dawkins? He's produced hundreds of hours of videos where he talks about himself, I'm sure we can find many other references to thinks that have influenced him, but so what? If we add all of that this becomes his Tumblr page, instead of a useful encyclopedia article. Readers know where to go if they want to listen to him talk about himself. This is a summary, and as a summary, we need to relly mainly on secondary sources to preserve neutrality.

It doesn't matter if it's listed on the list of blogs article, it still accepts a huge number of writers with very little editorial oversight. The site needs to have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking to be used as a source. It's submission guidelines strongly suggest that it's open to almost anyone, and it is therefor not a very good source for statements of fact. Take it up with WP:RSN if you think it's important to use for this point, but you also will have to explain why it's so much better than the multiple other sources which call him right-wing or alt-right. Those sources still count even if you personally know they are wrong.

Know Your Meme is absolutely not a reliable source, per many past discussions at WP:RSN. It also reinforces my point that this is just a trivial meme, and is therefore WP:UNDUE weight. Grayfell (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have important stuff to do right now, so I can't respond right away. See you in a few hours.The New Classic (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@The New Classic:If you have important stuff to do, just go do it. The point of using the talk page is to discuss these changes before making them, not for you to pop-in and defend them when you feel like it. Adding more contentious material isn't productive, and if you continue I will bring this up at WP:EWN. The Huffington Post's "The Blog" isn't reliable, it's a blog. Many sites include some reliable content (usually under a "News" banner) and a larger amount of poorly fact-checked editorial content, sometimes including covert advertising and blatant PR. Forbes is the classic example of this model, but there are many of them now, including BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, Fortune, etc. The Huffington Post article is a republication of the Good Man Project article without any substantial changes or oversight from Huffington Post. It's exactly the same as the Good Man Project, which it says on the bottom of the article, and was already removed from this article in the past for that reason. Grayfell (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm back. I agree with your statements on your first paragraph. Some information is so basic that it must be added that primary sources are sufficient. And that includes his views on issues. I mean, if he is an atheist, he must have consistently said that he did not believe in God, right? Of course, there would be the question of whether he was right-wing or left-wing, but one thing is true, and it is that he is an atheist. That is why his atheism and negative views on Islam are here. I added his views on Richard Dawkins not because he is an influence on Sargon, I added it to complement the phrase on his atheism, and to help the reader have an understanding of his atheism. We must stop somewhere of course, and we should stop at the line were primary-sourced information no longer practically complements secondary-sourced stuff.

Kekistan is on the Pepe the Frog article, and if we are to be a consistent encyclopedia, we should put it here. Even if Know Your Meme is an unreliable source, we do not indiscriminately remove info here. If I were to put in "Platypuses lay eggs" but put in no source, the best way to deal with my edit was to put in a "citation needed" tag. And such is the best solution should Know our meme be an unreliable source.The New Classic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise the left/right issue was being discussed as I only looked at section headings. It seems obvious that the lead can't state he is left or right wing when the sources (as well as the politicians he backs) differ. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(Just to mention, Backing right-wing politicians does not make you right wing. A left-winger can understand that both right wing and left wing politicians can be untrustworhty. But that is beside this issue) How about we change it to "identifies as left wing"? This one is obviously accurate.The New Classic (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I was saying about basic info. (Non-)religious beliefs can be mentioned briefly with primary sources, but going into detail about Dawkins isn't part of that. Religious beliefs are a recurring issue on Wikipedia. There are multiple guidelines about all of this stuff. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is not directly applicable, but it's a good starting point. Categories are used because they are defining traits (WP:CATDEF). Being a "big fan" of someone else is not a defining trait (it's also not formal, neutral writing). One single primary source where he mentions this is insufficient. You are saying it compliments secondary-sourced info, but it's not at all clear how it compliments this. It looks to me like you are adding things you personally found to be interesting and informative, but that's not neutral, and could be seen as promoting a youtuber you're a fan of. It's making a thinly sourced article much longer than it otherwise would be, which is misrepresenting Dawkin's importance to this article, and also overstates Benjamin's encyclopedic importance. Adding whatever bits and pieces you think belong isn't neutral, it's too much detail.

You are mixed-up about indiscriminately removing info. If the info is indiscriminate, we remove it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Citation needed tags are a courtesy editors use when the believe info is relevant and supportable. If it is not, the info should be removed, instead. The burden is on you to change the article, not on everybody else to play catch-up. This is what WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO, and WP:BRD are all getting at.

His left-right self-identification isn't centrally important unless reliable sources say it is. It can be explained in the body, but it doesn't belong in the very first sentence of the lead without much better sources supporting it. We have relatively few independent sources for this article at all (this article was deleted for lack of sources less than a year ago, there have been a handful of new sources since then, but not many). Expanding based on his own output is premature, because that makes the article a fan-page instead of a neutral encyclopedia. If he consistently backs right-wing policies and politicians, he is free to say he's left-wing, but we are equally free to cite sources which point out the inconsistency. As for finding both sides untrustworthy but backing one of them anyway while claiming to be the other, he is free to do that if he finds it necessary. Sources are not obligated to accept that blindly, and they don't for good reason. The left-wing/right-wing thing is an intentional simplification anyway. It's a rough guideline which doesn't work well as a strict test, and presenting it as being vitally important based on an obscure blog post is ridiculous. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(Did you know that many of his earlier videos regularly criticised religious right-wingers, such as "God, good at creation, poor at planning"? And if you actually watched even one of his videos, you would know that whenever he backs right wing politicians, he always cites the current lunacy, and hypocrisy of the left. He is, after all, a centrist, meaning he sees valid points from both sides, regardless of the fact that he leans closer to one of them (the left). A true left-winger like Carl Benjamin would never support a backwards conservative ideology like Islam, which is why he votes right-wingers, not because he agrees with right-wingers, but because self-proclaimed left-wing politicians support Islamic sympathy, which is downright hypocritical of the left.By the way, I said "can be untrustworthy", not he finds both untrustworthy. If you are a left-winger, but find the left-wing candidate to be lying about something, would you still vote for that candidate even if that candidate seemed untrustworthy, just because you agree with them on political issues?)

How about "self-identifies as left-wing?" He clearly says that, as you said so yourself.The New Classic (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

We allow original research on talk pages, but we can't use it for articles. Your statement " because self-proclaimed left-wing politicians support Islamic sympathy, which is downright hypocritical of the left" is to me pretty disturbing. First, what in the world is a "self-proclaimed left-wing politician" and how does such a person differ from a "left-wing politician". Secondly, what does "Islamic sympathy mean"? A dislike of Islamophobia? I'm not at all sure what is "downright hypocritical of the left". And on a personal note my dislike of a candidate who had views I agreed with would never, ever move me to vote for someone whose views I strongly objected to. I don't know why you bring up lying, but if it were a choice between a racist and an anti-racist candidate and I found the anti-racist had lied about something, I'd never vote for the racist candidate. None of what you have written is convincing me that we should say he identifies as left wing. At the moment the article says "He self-identifies politically as centre-left and a classical liberal." What's the problem with that? Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I put them in parentheses, none of my political commentaries were meant to make you agree with me that "left-wing" should be pit in.

Just to be clear to you, I don't like how the term"Islamophobia" is being used to silence criticism of Islam. Ben Affleck called Sam Harris a bigot just becuse Sam Harris said that Islam is full of bad ideas. The left is hypocritical because it claims to defeat misogyny, yet it defends Islam, the most misogynistic culture of them all. The left claims to be progressive, yet it defends Islam, which is beyond regressive.

What made you think the Conservative party is racist? Could you please cite something they said that proves your claim? I don't think condemning potential crimes caused by the misogynistic cultures of illegal immigrants is racist. Cultures aren't races.

If I think that stoning innocent women to death for being rape victims (as is practiced in most Islamic countries in the contemporary Middle East, where most illegal immigrants come from-just ask Richard Dawkins) is evil, am I racist?The New Classic (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, none of my political commentaries were meant to make you put "left-wing" in, I just wanted to make myself clear.The New Classic (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you please indent properly? Who said the Conservative party was racist? And no, most Islamic countries in the Middle East to not practice stoning of rape victims, which is not to say it doesn't occasionally happen. A few countries have laws that allow the stoning of male or female adulterers although that doesn't happen often, but that's not what your are claiming. I believe that anyone reading your sentence would think, it happens on a regular basis, frequently. As for your question, have you stopped beating your wife? Doug Weller talk 16:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC

"Who said that the conservative party is racist" says the one who said that Carl Benjamin voted for racists. Could you please cite a websitethat supports your claim? Richard Dawkins says the exact same thing I did, that being a rape victim is a crime in the Middle East, and I am pretty sure what I said is in the Hadiths. And why would you think I beat my wife, I very clearly condemn misogyny in my comments.The New Classic (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic example of a loaded question. If you don't realize that you're asking loaded questions, this discussion is unlikely to be productive. You're making wild, totally unsupported claims that have little to do with this article. If you take everything we say hyper-literally but expect a nuanced reading of Benjamin, you're not acting in good faith. You're indicating that sources may exist to support your claims, but even if that's true, it's a complete distraction from its relevance to the topic of the article. If we try to pin you down on left v. right, you say it's just you trying to make your personal argument clear, as if that had anything to do with this article. If we ask you to support your claims about Islam (which perfectly match right-wing talking points), you start talking about Ben Affleck. Who cares about Ben Affleck? While this is similar to Benjamin's debate style in his videos, it's not appropriate for trying to make a case on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one who asked that question, Doug Weller did. And my political commentaries are not meant to make you include "left-wing", I just wanted to make myself clear. My suggestion is that we put in "identifies as left-wing" instead, it is neutral and obviously accurate.The New Classic (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(On a side note, which parts of your statements exactly am I supposed to not take literally? And for your information, I was the one who asked Doug Weller to support his claims on Islam, not the other way around. I cited Richard Dawkins not Ben Affleck. But this is just my political commentary and response.)The New Classic (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(On another side note, let me just say this, mate: you seem to have a warped version of reality, considering how much you think I asked questions Doug Weller asked me, and vice versa.)The New Classic (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(On a third side note, your claim that anti-Islamism matches right-wing talking points supports my statement that right-wingers are more liberal than self-proclaimed leftists. By your case, I suppose Richard Dawkins is a right-winger too!)The New Classic (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop it with the side notes. This page is for improving the article, not for trying to make people understand your personal definitions of left vs. right wing. You keep bringing this up and then saying "it's just my commentary" or similar. Wikipedia isn't a platform for your commentary.

Doug Weller was very clearly using the wife beating question as an example to demonstrate your behavior. This is very, very obvious, since nowhere before did you even mention having a wife. You're approach is more interested in "gotchas" than in improving this article or understanding where other people are coming from. If your not interested in understanding where we're coming from, but have no problem embracing trivial details when it's from some obscure video Benjamin put out months or years ago, don't be surprised if we stop taking you seriously. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If a reputable secondary source cites that he self-identifies as left-wing then it could be included, if many other sources name him as "right-wing" without his self-identification of the term then It's relevant enough to be in the article.

1.54.210.203 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The New Classic's Gotcha's are on point here, they're to demonstrate that Benjamin isn't "right wing" as many sources name him to be, according to Wikipedia's article fascism "the political left" is defined by being pro-equality, something Carl Benjamin certainly is, thus having reliable sources that name himself as identifying as "left wing" wouldn't be out of character.

58.187.168.230 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pointing out that the two IPs above not only geolocate to the same place and supplier but have pretty unusual article overlaps, so are probably the same person. We don't use our articles in that way. We simply depend upon reliable sources and WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My IP addresses change involuntarily, that's how things work in Hanoi, and there isn't a single guideline against this, nor did I pretend to be someone else. So I don't see how that somehow makes my argument weaker, if you have a complaint go to FPT Telecom. 58.187.168.230 (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Nope, you don’t seem to know how Wikipedia works. I literally wrote above that if (s)he can find reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources confirming Mr. Benjamin’s self identification that it would be notable to be here. Just look at the Benito Mussolini article, though most people would call him and fascism “far-right” he called himself “a centrist” and the article names that. Claiming that that’s not how Wikipedia works shows that you need to read WP:SECONDARY(, again). --1.55.177.78 (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really, I just wanted to make myself clear so that you would not misunderstand me. I was not trying to make this a platform for my views. Evidence for this is the fact that I put suggestions for this article out, which none of you have been paying attention to. Ironically, you are the ones who made this a platform, and not me. I haven't really been taking you seriously the past few responses because of that.The New Classic (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestions, if I'm reading them clearly, have not matched my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, and do not appear to be an improvement to this article. Can you try and summarize them concisely so we can more clearly discuss them? Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian abuse at VidCon

@Grayfell The statement that I added was clearly backed up by the sources provided, and is also clearly verifiable, as it is on video and you can watch it right there so it isn't WP:GOSSIP either. Anita and sargon have been in several spats before, and he sort of built his early youtube career on criticism of her femininst frequency videos, so it is also relevant. I'll wait for more sources if you like, but I'd like to know more about what you said about Inquisitr. How is Inquisitr an WP:SPS? I am not aware of any open publishing or self publishing at the source in question. Perhaps I am wrong but at worst it seems to be a WP:NEWSBLOG. The author's page clearly states that he writes for Inquisitr.

None of this story is opinion based, as it was clearly caught on video. I can see cutting the 'rant' bit (it is from the Inquisitr source) as the word choice is author opinion and loaded wording. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't put stuff like this in a BLP with those sources. Heat Street's not a reliable source (hopefully you'll finally agree here, given the RSN discussion that's finishing up), nor is Inquisitr. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Finishing up? Almost no one offered any substantive arguments to support their posts over at RSN, only one user actually brought any sources to the table to support their argument, and that user didn't respond when I offered a rebuttal (consensus is the result of the weight of arguments, not the number of people that support something without good reasons why). So no, I don't agree. As for Inquisitr, I'd like to see what Grayfell has to say. I also found another source for the above, on a german gaming website, though I don't speak German, so all I've got is google translate for this one. Benjamin has himself commented on the issue, removing any BLP concerns as long as it is clearly attributed to Sarkeesian. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not removing the BLP issues. Not even close. Inquistr is useless. It's the worst kind of click-bait with no meaningful reputation for accuracy, nor any sign at all of fact-checking. Find real sources for this nonsense. This is nothing other than a WP:FART, and if you have to go digging this deep to find sources to include it, you should have already realized that. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

My point (vis-a-vis no BLP issue comment) is that there is nothing contentious here regarding Benjamin; Benjamin himself has confirmed that the event happened, therefore the additional rules for BLPs don't apply (merely the normal rules for reliable sources). If we were putting this on Sarkeesian's page, that would be a different story.

Inquisitr may be an unreliable source, I am not an expert on these things, nor is there a list to check to see what news sources are good and which are not (even mainstream sources are printing fake news these days, and all the news sources all look the same from their websites). Our article on Inquisitr makes no mention about the reliability or lack there of, so nothing to go on there. Mediabiasfactcheck.com (useful for no more than a general idea, but better than nothing) says that their factual reporting is 'High'[6] (they call Heat Street 'Mixed')[7]. While the Inquisitr often republishes material from other sites, this particular article was written specifically for the Inquisitr (the authors bio page makes this explicit, see link above).

Your comment attacking me above that I 'should have realized that' is totally unwarranted, it just is not that simple, and I'd appreciate a little less condescension, especially as you were wrong about calling it an WP:SPS (the reason you reverted the edit in the first place).

As I already said, I am happy to wait for additional sources to show themselves. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP rules apply everywhere, even on talk pages. Including BLP violating content about Sarkeesian isn't allowable just because it's not on Sarkeesian's page. Condescending or not, that claim needs to be challenged. Using opinion pieces and gossip columns as the sole support for obscure, contentious BLP content is not acceptable.

The Inquistr page is an opinion (no different from a blog post) published on a site with extremely lax submission standards and a poor reputation for fact checking. They've cited Natural News as credible,[8] published hoaxes as real,([9] via [10]), been included on lists of fake news,[11] pushed blatant fear-mongering click-bait,[12], etc. Buzzfeed News holds their nose up at them, and while they've improved their reputation, Buzzfeed still knows clickbait when they see it.

The article's author, Tony Smejek, is not a journalist nor a recognized expert in a relevant field, he's a freelance writer for Inquisitr. Tony has B.S. in Environmental Studies and an A.S. in Computer Programming. Freelance writer of an opinion piece means absolutely nothing at all here. He's presumably paid on a per-click basis, similar to other clickbait factories, but that doesn't make this anything more than standard user-generated content. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This was the response I was looking for. I agree, thanks for the chat. This Inquisitr piece, perhaps all Inquisitr stuff, is not a RS. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

My problem with this whole section is it is so incredibly meaningless. Once upon a time, Benjamin played a game where he turned up at a panel to stir Sarkeesian, and Sarkeesian called him a name. So what? Nothing came of this. No one was kicked out, sanctioned, fined, had any other real effect on thier lives. Does it really warrant more than a sentence, if that? - Bilby (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no doubt that to Benjamin, it's one of the most important moments of his life, but we really shouldn't rely on the subject of a BLP to determine what the focus of a BLP should be. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is that (in Benjamin's view) Sarkeesian has made a career out of playing the victim from calling harassment every time someone calls her names, and here she is abusing someone else from a podium (for him it is about the hypocrisy of her actions, not that he actually cares about being called names). As for it being a 'meaningless story', millions of views on youtube for videos covering the event do sort of indicate otherwise [13] [14], as well as quite a few news sources even commenting on the event [15]. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Some better sources exist now, so figuring out if/how to cover this will be a process, but Benjamin's perspective that Sarkeesian is "playing the victim" is a WP:FRINGE view which violates BLP, and should not be validated here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. If this is presented as Benjamin's perspective, so be it, but it should be very clearly presented as his opinion, not as fact, and only if it can be supported by secondary sources. Benjamin's self-published sources must be avoided for BLP content. If this article starts to portray Sarkeesian differently from Sarkeesian's article, that's a red flag. Benjamin's perspective on Sarkeesian (the DIGRA conspiracy theory being just one example) are not accepted by reliable sources as valid and should not be glossed-over as plausible even when making an unrelated point. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

On any neutral reading if this, being briefly insulted when trying to shitstir is not a significant moment. There is no significant comparison between the harassment Sarkeesian received and this single statement. We spend significantly more time on this than his failed Kickstarter, and it is over a third of what we spend on his entire YouTube career. Maybe it warrants a sentence, but more than that is a undue. - Bilby (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a really inconsequential event more suitable for Rationalwiki or ED to cover. I can't believe how navel gazing this is. Koncorde (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Really doesn't seem like something that should be in a WP:BLP, but if it is we need to ensure that the best available sources are the ones represented here, and not just quotes from the subject himself, which are in some cases directly contradictory to what the sources are saying.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency with reliable sources

The sources considered reliable for this page appear to lack a consistent criteria. For example, Media Bias/Fact Check rate Inquisitr and Skeptic Ink as having "high" and "very high" factual reporting respectively. Inquisitr has been discredited in the talk page and Insertcleverphrasehere dismissed Skeptic Ink as "not even remotely a RS." However, there are sources currently included in the page that have "mixed" factual reporting according to Media Bias/Fact Check. Such sources include Vice, The Sun and Heat Street. Why are these sources worthy of inclusion? In my view, all the "mixed" sources should be considered unreliable. Also, why is Skeptic Ink "not even remotely a RS"? CowHouse (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Media bias fact check is not a reliable source, I have no idea how they determine their stats. Moreover it doesn't use the same kind of criteria as wikipedia uses (WP:RELIABLE). Inquisitr is discussed in depth above and I won't rehash it here. As for Skeptic Ink Network, they seem to be a loose association of writers with their own subsection blogs on the site. The 'flyingscotsman' subsection, [16] seems nothing more than a blog by James MacDonald. While the factual reporting of the site may be high because they pick their authors carefully, I don't see any evidence of any kind of editorial oversight or fact checking, on the contrary, the structure of the site indicates that each writer is under the control of their subsection of the site, similar to a personal blog. Edit: I have reached out to them personally via the 'contact' section to ask them about this. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

For your second question. Vice is generally considered a reliable source, see WP:RSN archives, though attribution can sometimes be necessary as it can be biased on political issues. The same goes for heat street in the opposite direction on the political spectrum. Heat Street is a WP:BIASED source and generally requires attribution except where the cited claims are trivial, but is a reliable source for the opinions of the right wing political spectrum (sometimes necessary to round out the picture). The Sun is not a reliable source in general, but in this case it is being used for the words of Carl Benjamin himself in the interview he did for them under WP:SELFPUB rules. I hope this helps answer some of your questions. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears most of it up. Although, could you clarify why MBFC are an unreliable source? Here is their methodology. You're right that they have different criteria to Wikipedia but so do plenty of other websites that are considered reliable. What do they have to do to be considered reliable? Have they been discredited by reliable sources?

Also, to clarify, I was not arguing for the re-inclusion of Inquisitr. I read the earlier discussion and now agree it is not reliable. I was just pointing out what I thought was an unjustified double standard. CowHouse (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen that page before. But having had a look through it, I'd have to disagree with my own statement about them being not a reliable source. That still doesn't mean that their methodology matches perfectly with our own when it comes to determining what a reliable source is for wikipedia. For example, with skepticink, the vast majority of their material might be very factual, but with no editorial control, they are still a blog source for wikipedia. For Inquisitr, since they are an aggregator, the vast majority of their material will be very factual, but it still doesn't mean that they are a reliable source, just that most of the sources that they aggregate from are. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

1. The "portrayal in the media" section is too quote-heavy for my liking. I suggest merging the two sentences relating to the Boing Boing and Houston Press opinion pieces and summarising them. For example: "Opinion pieces on Boing Boing and Houston Press have criticised the crowdfunding of controversial YouTube channels, such as Benjamin's, since they are accountable to nobody except their audience." It would also perhaps be more relevant if it was included in the paragraph on Patreon in the VidCon section (although that is debatable). 2. Is there any purpose to this sentence: "Some journalists have interpreted Benjamin's decision to sit near Sarkeesian as intent to "intimidate Sarkeesian and disrupt the panel"." Is a journalist's opinion of somebody else's motives really necessary? 3. Is his support of Justice Democrats significant enough to be worthy of inclusion, especially without any secondary sources? CowHouse (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

General support from me. 1:The section needs work, be WP:BOLD. 2:it has some relevance to the section, there is a youtube video of him before the panel saying to Tim Pool that they weren't planning on doing anything but that his mere presence was likely to trigger a reaction, but I'll leave it up to others to decide this one, you could be bold and see how it goes. 3: Grab your machete and get whacking. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see Sarkeesian's harassment accusation added back in, removed in this edit. Benjamin's harassment accusation is included while Sarkeesian's is not, which makes this lopsided. Also the graf about Patreon fails to tell the reader that Benjamin has a Patreon account—rather puzzling to an uninitiated reader why an unconnected website is investigating VidCon. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd support removing Benjamin's harassment accusation. But if his is included, then Sarkeesian's should be as well. I agree that there should be an opening sentence about him having a Patreon account. CowHouse (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Both is probably better than none, I don't see how the section would make a lot of sense with out it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The VidCon section is already too long, so I will support any excuse to shorten it. I think it still makes sense without it, since Sarkeesian is quoted saying Benjamin is "one of [her] biggest harassers." What context is missing? CowHouse (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edit and see how it works. I personally won't revert, As I am on the fence about it. Others might though. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

So, a recent edit on this article was left with the edit description "Unnecessary addition. We don't need to hear his explanation for why his harassment is not harassment."

Doesn't that come off as a biased reasoning to remove something? I'm sure there are a lot more valid reasons to remove something than "We don't need to hear his explanation..." The wording on that comes off as borderline censorship. The content that was removed read:

"In 2017, a report from The Sun stated that "Benjamin has spoken out against online harassment and said people should be free to discuss their ideas openly without it turning into a social media melee". "

This seems like a perfectly fine bit of information to include; I genuinely don't see an issue with the article's subject [Benjamin]'s viewpoints on online harassment being mentioned and cited within the article. Very open to discussion about this. Soulbust (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

First, let me reiterate that it's irrelevant whether an editor thinks something is "censorship". The goal here is to create an encyclopedia article, not a list of all "uncensored" quotes by the subject that have appeared in the media. The article is from the British tabloid The Sun, and far too much weight was given to something from such a weak source. Additionally, the quotes were cherry picked to respond to what's in the article, rather than giving a real sense of what the piece says.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is not censorship. I also agree we are making an encyclopedia here, and have to decide what should be included. I woud say the Sun Online-parts should be included. This is something which is covered by a source and relates directly to his career and what he is known for. If an author wrote a 'traditional' biography about Benjamin, would his views on what happened at VidCon be mentioned? Of course it would. Therefore, so should we. Moreover, the Sun-article looks surprising balanced, considering the Sun's reputation. Thus, I do not see any problem if we insert the part. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Sun is a tabloid, and is not a reliable source. It can't be used, especially for material like this that has WP:BLP implications, as this does. The material is speaking directly to an incident involving both the subject of this article and another party.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the material sourced to The Sun was contentious in any way. In what way does this apply to WP:BLP? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Sun is used for different biographies, including, among others, Freddy Mercury, Michael Bloomberg, The Stone Roses, Charles Manson, Dannii Minogue, Cybill Shepherd, Janet Jackson, Sven-Göran Eriksson, Danny DeVito and Jean-Claude Van Damme. The Sun-article we discussing here does not do harm to the living subject called Benjamin, so I do not believe we have large WP:BLP problems here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source, period. As for the content, it's being used to support his claim that he was not engaging in harassment, in contradiction to what the reliable source says. This has BLP implications for both him and the subject of the harassment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As used here it is attributed and is being used for Benjamin's words in an interview, it is not being used for the opinions of The Sun (which would be inappropriate in most cases). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You call Vox reliable? From the article on Wikipedia on Vox: [i]n December 2014, the website Deadspin wrote a post listing each time Vox ran a correction for a factual error in an article. In The Washington Times, journalist Christopher J. Harper criticized the site for numerous reporting mistakes. And seeing how the article on Benjamin also blasts feminist Laci Green for being "turned to the alt-right," while she just want to discuss things, (as if Green's attempt to discuss evolution with a creationist made her a creationist too), it makes me wonder if it is a good idea to use THAT article in the first place.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the Sun, I haven't seen any discussions at WP:RSN that determined Vox unreliable, and it has been discussed several times.[17] If you're arguing that it's unreliable and should be removed, that's a separate discussion from the question of the tabloid (which is certainly unreliable and must be removed).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Vox wrote that Laci Green is "currently using that influence to entertain the alt-right." I actually think that's pretty objective if you ask me. I wouldn't blink at using that as a source on Green's bio. And I predict sourcing BLP's to opinionated outlets will be normalized in just a few years. We just need to be careful about separating an author's opinion from the facts. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that Vox is generally pretty objective. Their writers have opinions as much as the next person, and those can sometimes be biased and in need of attribution, but their reporting is usually very factually based. Running corrections (as Deadspin highlighted) is a sign of a reliable source with a reputation for factual accuracy, not a sign of an unreliable one. All sources make mistakes from time to time, it is how those sources respond to those mistakes that matters the most and issuing retractions is a very good sign. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Sun isn't a reliable source, so as an involved interview, it should only be used as a supplement to reliable sources. Otherwise, it's no different from any of the many, many other unreliable sources Benjamin has produced or been involved with, such as his own videos or podcast or similar. As an interview with Benjamin, it's similar to a WP:SELFSOURCE. While this isn't necessarily a major BLP problem on its own, I maintain that the inclusion of such details are self-serving, and in this case, misleading. The quote from the Sun is "I don't agree that video games are making people sexist." Giving Benjamin the benefit of the doubt, this might have made sense in the context he said it in, but in this article, it's laughably simplistic. It's basically meaningless by itself. It says nothing substantial in response to no real argument, and if the Sun thinks that's Sarkeesian's point, that shows why they aren't reliable. Stuff like this is inflating the word count by adding his vague opinions without regard to why his opinions are relevant. As I've said here many times already, readers have countless hours of videos they can watch if they want to know Benjamin's opinions, so we need a reliable outside editor (as in outside of both Wikipedia and Benjamin himself) to figure out which are relevant and which are not. A bad tabloid article ain't it. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Grayfell... What? Benjamin doesn't own The Sun so it's not a "self-source". You completely disingenuously paint the use of The Sun in the article as misleading because of "The quote from the Sun" being self-serving. Umm... no. The source is being used for more than 1 quote. If you're going to make an argument, and the argument on reliability is fair, at least be forthright and not entirely disingenuous in doing so. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Using a big-boy word to say I'm being deceptive is still a personal insult. The content from the Sun is a couple of context-free cherry-picked quotes from an unreliable source used to flattering effect. That is self-serving, regardless of who owns the newspaper. Benjamin already provides a wealth of primary sources for his own opinions. Bad sources do not establish due weight for vague, flattering opinions. Bad sources do not establish that an opinion is relevant. Bad sources do not provide necessary context for opinions. Benjamin is not a recognized expert on social sciences or video games, so his opinion needs to be contextualized by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... you were being deceptive. You took issue with the source on the basis of self-source, and made a statement about "1" quote and then acted to remove both the source and all material related to it in two edits. Without respect for any discussion being held here as well now that I think about it. That is deception, as I recall saying one thing and doing another fits within that description. And no, it's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. It's not being used in a "flattering effect" for one, it's quoting his words exactly as he said them. If that flatters him, then it's entirely of his own fault that he has said something that reflected positively on his character. If that bothers you, then that is an issue with you personally, not Benjamin. It's also not establishing an opinion, it's his words quoted as he said them. Opinion; a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Statement: a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing. Note, you called a statement an opinion. I'm not sure what you English proficiency is, but, definitions of the words are provided if you need them. There is little to take out of context with a statement, you can add context to it such as I think you want to do by saying that his words do not reflect his actions. In which case you'd be adding context, not removing it. That's precisely what I'm saying about you here for example; that your actions do not reflect your words. NPOV dictates that even minority viewpoints get a small representation if sourced reliably, so if you have no argument beyond the one presented (the non-demonstrative very opinionated one) you'll just have to fold. On that note, you do entirely fail to demonstrate that this source is "bad" beyond doing anything other than just saying it is and expecting everyone to follow along. I even point out you could actually make an argument on the reliability of the source, you haven't provided one, whereas somebody else further above has (or at least tried to do so). On top of all of that; his qualifications or lack thereof, do not suddently mean that an expert is required "to interpret" the meaning of his words. That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard someone say in almost two years of being here. The statement; "I don't agree with her criticism but I don't think she should be harassed." is self-explanatory. A child might need an explanation of what harassment is, but, that requires a parent not a social expert. Not that I'm surprised given the calibre of the above comments as whole. Since you failed to demonstrate anything of substance, I acted to revert you and pointed out the disingenuousness of your comments here when compared against your actions there (on the article). Really, I could call your argument disingenuous in itself since you try to shoehorn self-source ("similar") as a reason to remove a source that is quite obviously not a self-source by an extention of the definition, but, it's so apparent that it couldn't be called deception. I have self-reverted my most recent revert of your edits. Not out of good faith, but, because I don't want to be dragged into an edit-war over an article I care little about. I am happy to hear a reasoned argument from you on why "the Sun" in unreliable, but, it's going to need to be substantiated by something, not just your opinion. Oh, and your condescending tone won't win you any friends "poppet". Mr rnddude (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed content for a specific reason, and then followed up on that and removed more content for a similar reason without feeling the need to elaborate. That doesn't make me a liar, and calling people that doesn't win any friends either. You start out by going for the jugular. What do you expect?

Nobody is defending The Sun as a reliable outlet, are they? Obviously WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but the gist of many past WP:RSN discussions is that it's a source of last resort, to put it mildly. The only way this content is usable is if we treat it as Benjamin's own words. If we're going to do that, we need a clear reason. I accept that he said these things in some context (although the poor reputation of the Sun as an RS would defaults to exclusion in uncertain cases) but I don't accept that they belong just because he said them. The Sun doesn't explain why they are relevant, nor is it a reliable authority to do so. Benjamin is not reliable as an expert for anything other than himself, but that's not necessarily sufficient to warrant inclusion.

The distinction between statement and opinion is a distraction. That they are direct quotes of his statements doesn't make them factual. They are still his opinions. Two of the included statements centered on his opinion about something, either sexism, or harassment. The only thing he made any factual assertions on is that he received threats (which I fully accept) and that's the only thing I accept as being significant enough to consider. I don't think it automatically belongs here, though. I would expect that other, more reliable sources could be found for this. If this is really the best source we have for this, that's a bad sign for how significant it is to this article.

I haven't seen any persuasive argument for why this material should be included other than to try and provide balance. That's not a great reason, though, because it risks false balance. Yes, a superficial reading of the words he said reflect positively on his character. So what? Why does that make them worthy of inclusion here if not to make the article more flattering? Why are we diving into tabloids to find flattering comments? "...minority viewpoints get a small representation if sourced reliably." Yes, of course, so where are the reliable sources? The Sun? His own videos? Neither of those are reliable, so we need a very good reason to include them. As I see it, including a quote from an unreliable tabloid is functionally similar to including a quote from his own videos. Neither are usable for establishing due weight, nor are they reliable for statements of fact about the larger world. Agree or disagree with this interpretation, that doesn't make it deceptive. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I have seen your comment Grayfell, as it is 3:30 a.m. and I have just got off a thirty-hour flight trip, I'll respond to your comments tomorrow. I'm just leaving a note now that I have a stable internet connection that I'm aware of your comment and that I'm not ducking responsibility to respond. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, in response to your comment. On the topic of jugulars I can't help but imagine it from the perspective of two wolves engaged in mortal combat. From that perspective, my going for your jugular should of course be met with a parry and counter-attack to my jugular. So fair enough. On the topic of "The Sun" as a reliable source, nope course not, I'm not disagreeing with you there. My point was that you present no argument as to why you think the Sun is unreliable beyond saying it is. With regards to the relevance of the comments, the random chunks about twitch streamers are complete nonsense unrelated to anything at all and it's hard to separate the garbage from the material. Unfortunately there's a lot of the former and little of the latter. My personal opinion is that the garbage was sifted out, more or less, by the editors here. The comments, to me at least, fit where editors put them. On the topic of opinions and statements, all but one of his statements did not, as you state yourself, make factual assertions and the one that does make an assertion you don't really contest beyond an argument about relevance. I can hardly fathom a more relevant discussion to harrassment then harrassment itself, but, I suppose it's not directly tied to the vidcon event and was more a comment about his experience in general. An interesting comment you make is; If this is really the best source we have for this, that's a bad sign for how significant it is to this article. Not necessarily, it could equally be a bad sign for how much anybody cares. That is, either the entire saga is not notable, or, nobody bothered to ask Sargon's opinion besides the Sun. Either or. Another thing you say is; I haven't seen any persuasive argument for why this material should be included other than to try and provide balance. That's not a great reason, though, because it risks false balance. Umm ... per FALSEBALANCE; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it. You stated yourself that you don't contest the legitimacy of his statements, so exactly what false balance are you talking about. For that matter, I suspect the wider world would support Sargon's assertion that Anita does not deserve harrassment. Not the whole world, but, the general population of it. Am I taking FALSEBALANCE too literally here? On a very last point; As I see it, including a quote from an unreliable tabloid is functionally similar to including a quote from his own videos. Neither are usable for establishing due weight, nor are they reliable for statements of fact about the larger world. I recommend you check the citations to the article, eleven of the forty something citations are to his videos. Means a quarter of the sources, or thereabouts, are Carl Benjamin himself. If you're concerned about due weight, those would be better targets then a publication, unreliable but most definitely secondary, that is not in any sense "functionally similar" to a quote from his own videos. The reason I say that they are functionally different is that Sargon has no control over the editiorial process of the Sun, assuming they have any, he has absolute control over the editorial process of his own vidoes. The Sun chose to include those statements, not Benjamin. Thus, I cannot agree with lumping them under the title of SelfPub. I'd argue that this issue concerns him specificially is why his opinion is significant, but, we're on opposite sides of that divide as it is. On a more personal note, I could have been significantly more cordial then I was in both comments. 'Specially the latter one, if the first one was going for the jugular, then the second one was going for the jugular vein, carotid and femoral arteries all at once. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we can discuss this cordially.

Lately I've been saying that I've been saying for a while (no, that's not a typo) that the article should be trimmed heavily. That includes most primary/unreliable sources. Adding more, such as the Sun, is a step in the wrong direction in my view. I understand that right now the majority view is that heavy use of his own videos is acceptable, but I don't think policy backs that up and I don't think it helps the article. This isn't a battle, but we all have to pick our non-battles. Regardless, the way to fix the article's problems isn't to add more unreliable sources. By itself that's a pretty basic statement, but I get that there's more to it, here.

The default position is that his non-expert opinions don't matter. I didn't mean WP:FALSEBALANCE, I just meant false balance. By repeating Benjamin's completely non-controversial opinion (non-opinion, really) that people shouldn't be harassed, we are implying that it's significant. Implying that his opinion is significant is bestowing a degree of legitimacy to it, especially when it's one that people already agree with. Sometimes that's appropriate, but not automatically. It's a form of flattery. In this case, it's subtle and understandable, but it's still not neutral. Why are we doing that, exactly? If we agree that it's not controversial, and the source isn't reliable, then... that makes me think something's wrong, here.

I hope I never said that it's exactly the same as his own videos. They are both generally unreliable, are both being included to flattering effect, and are both quotes from him. There are differences, but I don't think they're of central importance to if they content is included or not. Given the choice, I'm not sure if I would accept the Sun over his own channel. I guess it depends, because an unreliable editor is sometimes worse than no editor. At least no editor is more transparent. Tabloids are notorious for sloppy/selective editing, which is why they aren't ideal even for direct quotes. As I said, I accept that he said this in some context. What else did he say about this? What context came before and after? Probably nothing important, but we'll likely never know. I don't trust the Sun to decide these things, because I don't think they're a reliable source. Likewise, I don't trust other Wikipedia editors to decide which quotes from his videos are good to include. The reasons are very different, but the end result is similar.

I hope your flight went well. Take your time replying if needed and don't rush on my account. Grayfell (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to let words from both sides be heard.Since we need more reliabke sources for support, perhaps citation needed tags may be in order?The New Classic (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@The New Classic: No, we absolutely do not have to let words from both sides be heard, that's false balance. We present views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. That's a core principle of Wikipedia, and we don't have to provide equal weight to unreliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"In 2017, he told The Sun he does not believe video games are responsible for sexism." Grayfell, you say that is a strawman for Sarkeesian. That can't be. The way it is presented in the "personal views" section does not allude to Sarkeesian at all. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Benjamin is not a recognized expert on social sciences or video games." Neither is Richard Spencer an expert on genetics, yet that does not prevent our listing his views on white nationalism or other issues he is most vocal about. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Sun article was directly about Sarkeesian. That's the headline of the article, and that's the only reason anyone was asking him. If you don't agree with my interpretation of the article, that's a good reason to insist on reliable sources for this kind of thing. That's my point. We don't have a reliable source explaining why his opinion is significant, so we shouldn't bother to include it.

I'm not sure what your point is about his expertise. That's either a deeply flawed comparison, or you're supporting my point. I've aggressively removed unreliable primary sources, such as altright.com, amren, stormfront, etc. from that nest of articles, and I'll do the same here. If reliable, secondary sources don't support Spencer's non-expert opinions, they don't belong in his article. They do at least discuss them, however. Many reliable sources discuss Spencer's role as a pseudo-academic white supremacist, and his many (contradictory and intellectually lazy) conclusions. Do you know of sources that discuss Benjamin's opinions with that level of critical attention, positively or negatively? Wow, that would be a boon for this article, if they exist. If you sincerely think this is a problem at Spencer's article, I'm sure you know where you can talk about it. If reliable, secondary sources don't support Benjamin's uninformed opinions about social science and video games, they don't belong here. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are four articles from Heat Street about this event (in order of publication: [18] [19] [20] [21]). While heat street is a WP:BIASED source, it is also generally a reliable source for a right wing perspective on various issues. Per the recent post on RSN about Heat Street we should be ok using it with attribution. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice the author of the Heat Street articles: All of them are written by Ian Miles Cheong, who's the same person who wrote The Sun piece. I've read that RSN thread, and I don't agree with your summary of it. That it's a biased source is not the main problem here. It's also not very reliable by itself. It's not as blatantly unreliable as Breitbart, but it's also heavy on scandalized gossip and fact-lite opinion pieces, which undermine reliability. I suppose it can be used for summaries of right wing opinions, but it's not a usable indicator of which of those opinions are significant. That's the main problem I have with the Sun content in the first place. Since this is obviously part of the same walled garden of tabloid articles, I'm reluctant to accept Heat Street for very much here, and request that it not be adding here without discussing it on talk, first. Grayfell (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If these articles were all written by mr. Cheong, then all that says is that Mr. Cheong is an expert in the field. That said, I do not see how accepting only sources that portray Carl Benjamin in a negative light is beneficial for the article. As WP:NPOV teaches: articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. If this article fails to explain the side of the very subject of the article, then the POV-problem will be more serious than the RS-problem. This means we should accept the Sun-article, in spite of valid concerns on this source in general.~Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it means we should ignore the Sun article in favour of the better-but-not-perfect Heat Street sources. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait, what? Are we actually entertaining using the lesser of two unreliable sources for claims about a BLP? You should know better. Koncorde (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Heat street is not an unreliable source. It is a WP:BIASED source, there is a difference. Biased sources can, in many cases, be very good sources for reporting on the viewpoints of particular groups (with proper attribution). We already use Heat Street in this article for this very reason (with attribution per the consensus in the discussion at the top of this talk page). To expound on The Sun, the only thing we can use it for here is Benjamin's words Per WP:SELFSOURCE (Sources can also be used for words of the author, but I don't think the author is notable for their opinion in this case). EDIT: I removed the Sun quotes from benjamin about videogames as being a bit WP:UNDUE. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Heat Street is reliable for statements of fact. It's fine, I guess, for the opinion it was used for before ("wrongly labeled as alt-right"), as it's presented as a subjective opinion with attribution. If we're presenting factual statements about other people/groups, like the Vidcon thing, attribution isn't necessarily going to cut it. Attribution doesn't make a bad source good, and it doesn't make a questionable detail important. Heat Street is, at best, a borderline source, so we have to think twice about what we're including. I strongly recommend removing the bit about Green "admitting" blahblahblah. This is dangerously close to petty gossip about Green, and if the only source emphasizing this is this one source, it absolutely doesn't belong. Actually, this whole thing is sort of gossip. It's lasting encyclopedic impact has not materialized (yet) and we should be open to eventually trimming it or removing it if this turns out to be a tempest in a teapot. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell The articles about him in the media are generally always "tempests in a teapot". All the sources that actually seriously discuss him and his work are generally other youtubers (both for and against), and those are WP:SELFPUBs (though the bit from Watchmojo is quite good and accurate). The bit about Green was meant to be a expansion of the bit directly above it about vidcon's response about who did and did not break vidcon policy, and is verifiable (was going to fish out the press release that Green posted about it) but honestly it isn't strictly necessary. The earlier sentences in this paragraph about his 'intimidation' have been toned down somewhat in rhetoric so it isn't as important to have a strong counterbalance from green saying that he didn't in fact, do anything to violate VC policy at the panel. I've removed the bit you were concerned about, I hope this addresses your concerns. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It does, thank you. The lack of sources is a problem, but it's not really Wikipedia's to solve, unfortunately. I've been saying this for a while, but I think a shorter, tighter article serves readers better, and may serve Benjamin better as well. I am personally very bad at writing concisely, so there's some irony in my position... Anyway, if we go by reliable sources, there is an awful lot of gossip and that's not a fair representation of anyone. If we go by unreliable sources, even with the best of intentions, we just end up picking sides. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It is tough to strike the right balance for sure, though the article is coming together pretty well all things considered. I sometimes write too concisely (background in scientific writing), and fail to get my point across adequately :D — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Claims to be/Identifies politically as

[22] and similar: this has been contested many times. Is there a solution instead of blocking sleepers, except pp? Wumbolo (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mythicist Milwaukee

The View of MM : "Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin is a popular independent Vlogger with nearly 600,000 subscribers on YouTube. A skeptic of ideologies both theological and political, his channel is dedicated to rational arguments backed by evidence. Sometimes a polemicist, at other times soft spoken, Sargon of Akkad has created a considerable amount of content regarding skeptical thought."

http://www.mythicistmilwaukee.com/mythconspeakers --84.115.192.135 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Inside Higher Ed

The paragraph including the line He stated that the research produced by DiGRA board members was "sloppy and unprofessional and absolutely overrun by people who have an ideological agenda that they simply cannot leave out of their research" is supported by a single source, which is an article from Inside Higher Ed, a reliable outlet. This article does not endorse this perspective, but merely reports it as a conspiracy theory. Since the entire article makes it clear that this isn't a factual statement, but is instead one of many of his opinions, this quote is legitimizing a very WP:FRINGE conspiracy without clearly explaining that it's far outside of the mainstream academic consensus. The source doesn't support this as an excuse to include yet more of Benjamin's unreliable, unsupportable opinions, so if we include them, we must contextualize them the same way the lone reliable source does. This source states, as a basic fact, that this is a conspiracy theory, which is consistent with a common-sense assessment of Digital Games Research Association and a rudimentary grasp of academic research. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Pewdiepie and 'alleged' antisemitism.

The change of wording that Grayfell introduced recently which changed "a controversy about PewDiePie and alleged antisemitism in his videos" to "a controversy about PewDiePie's alleged antisemitism" seems like a potential BLP violation to me. WP:ALLEGED seems to indicate that the word choice is fine; the issue here is equating 'antisemitic videos' to 'pewdiepie is antisemitic'. While this might seem straightforwardly the same, given that he produces all of his videos; much of the media coverage of the event often called the videos antisemitic, while stopping short of saying that Kjellberg himself was antisemitic (see: [23] or [24]). I.e. most of the sources indicated that his jokes were in bad taste and could be interpreted as anti-semitic, offensive, or just called them "controversial". While I think that saying "PewDiePie and alleged antisemitism in his videos" is borderline ok, attributing the anti-semitism directly to him (i.e. as an attribute of his character) is completely wrong and not backed up by most reliable sources on this issue.

WP:ALLEGED also says that we should make clear the source of the allegations, which we are not doing here.

This seems to suggest that we should use something along the lines of "a controversy about Pewdiepie and allegations by various media outlets of antisemitism in his videos". This is a bit wordy, and I am open to suggestions. However, the current lack of attribution is an issue, as is equating 'alleged anti-semitic jokes in his videos' with 'alleged antisemitism [character attribute]' which to me seems like a WP:BLP violation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about [alleged {antisemitism in his videos}], this is about [{alleged antisemitism} in his videos], if that makes it any clearer. Nobody is disputing that this is in his videos, so that's not the allegation. The videos themselves are well-documented. The allegation is that the content of some of his videos is "genuinely" antisemitic, and nobody disputes that he's responsible for his videos. Put another way, the controversy is not over whether or not the allegedly antisemitic content is in those videos, it's the degree to which they are "sincerely" antisemitic vs. amateurish parody done by a professional (I haven't seen a single source disputing that the videos themselves are intentionally based on antisemitism, since that's the "joke", but that's not entirely relevant to this article about Carl Benjamin.) I do not see this as implying anything about Kjellberg's character other than what is supported by both reliable sources and Kjellberg's own actions, which he has (tepidly) apologized for. Distancing Kjellberg from his own actions is not neutral. BLP is not an insulation from basic accountability.

"Various media outlets" is just passing the buck as far as WP:ALLEGED. It's just as vague, but is adding a flawed appeal to authority behind it. The allegations aren't just from media outlets (which also subtly suggests the "MSM" boogieman) it's from reliable sources. Since this encyclopedia is based on reliable sources, that's enough for us to state that the allegations exist as a simple fact. If we were implying that these allegations were true, we would need to handle this much more carefully, but I do not see this at all. If people really need more information, the place to go is his article. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Have a looK at the two search results I have presented above. I don't see most reliable sources directly calling Kjellberg anti-semitic, pretty much all of the most reliable sources say some variant of "used anti-Semitic imagery". Why don't we use that wording? If no one else has a problem with not attributing 'alleged' I am fine with ignoring the guideline for that, as it definitely makes it more wordy. I suggest: "a controversy about Pewdiepie and his use of alleged anti-semitic imagery". What do you think of this compromise ? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't see how this addresses my concerns.

So what is the context these easily-found sources are providing? They are discussing Kjellberg's "imagery" yes, and also his "jokes", "language", "videos", "comments", and his "long history of anti-Semitic and racist views"(!) etc. He rejects anti-Semitism claims.[25] Well that implies that the controversy is about him being antisemitic, but that's still not my point. The point is that distancing him from the things he says and does is fundamentally non-neutral. This isn't compliant with BLP, this is downplaying the real nature of the controversy through equivocating language. This is false balance, and is less neutral.

The only reason Kjellberg is mentioned in this article at all is because of an elaborate stunt he orchestrated which ostensibly advocating "death to all Jews" for laughs. Take this quote from the Washington Post: Saying something racist or otherwise offensive and then responding to outrage by, essentially, accusing the opponent of not getting the joke, is a core part of the Internet that has helped to make PewDiePie a success.[26] This controversy isn't about the "imagery" he uses as an abstraction. It has never been about that. It's about whether or not his use of antisemitism, which is indisputable, is appropriate or not. He used anti-Semitism as a "joke", and that's the controversy.

I'm not sure that I would lean on this source for the article, but this one from Gizmodo specifically mentions that Benjamin's support directly fed unambiguous anti-Semitism, such as the 14 words stuff, while also reminding us that Andrew Anglin endorsed Benjamin's videos. This is, as an outside view, why getting this right is so important. We're not improving the encyclopedia by playing dumb to the consequences of his anti-Semitic imagery as if it were an accident. His personal qualities can only be guessed at from his words and actions. His actions were anti-Semitic, and have the seal of approval from bonafide neo-Nazis who are very familiar with humor and memes as a tactic.

After looking at sources more closely, I would support removing "alleged" completely. The sources are not 'alleging' anything. There is no doubt among reliable sources at all that his imagery (if that's what we're calling it) was anti-Semitic. The only debate is whether or not this can be justified through humor. If someone is denying that "death to all Jews" is anti-Semitic, that's a good argument that they are no longer a reliable source. If they want to argue that it wasn't sincere, but was defensible as part of a comedy routine... well the only reason it would need defending is because it's anti-Semitic. That's the controversy.

I would support a controversy about PewDiePie's use of anti-Semitic imagery in comedy or maybe satire. In comparison to what's there now, I know that might seem blunt, but judged by itself itself I think it holds up better. I think this is briefly explaining what sources are saying the controversy, without condescending to the reader, and without implying that Kjellberg was or was not justified. I would accept a controversy about PewDiePie's use of allegedly anti-Semitic imagery in comedy, but I don't think that's as neutral as it appears. I think that's misrepresenting the incident. There is a tendency for editors to cover our BLP-asses by overusing using pseudo-legal language like "alleged", but this makes Wikipedia look amateurish. We are mostly amateurs though, so at least it's honest. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You clearly can only see one side of this. Using a picture of Hitler ironically is not anti-semitic. As for the fiver stunt; he was using literally the worst thing he could think of to demonstrate that people on fiver would do anything for the money. This is clear if you had actually seen the video in full. In this context the phrase's usage is a de-facto condemnation of anti-semitism, not an endorsement (i.e. the joke only makes sense in the context that Kjellberg agrees that the phrase is deeply wrong and inappropriate). This sort of context was deliberately stripped away by the WP, and the nuance ignored by those that called him anti-semitic. It isn't lost on everybody, for example the business insider pointed out "Notably, while thoughtless, tasteless, and inappropriate, Kjellberg's use of anti-Semitism seemingly doesn't stem from intolerance or racism." I would agree.

The point I am trying to make is that this isn't black and white. You can interpret the controversy as "pewdiepie is anti-semitic" or you can interpret it as "pewdiepie made some arguably tasteless, inappropriate jokes that were taken out of context". This is made clear in the section on Kjellberg's article, why do you insist that there is only one interpretation of this? If you take every joke that George Carlin made in his career out of context, you can call him a sexist, racist, misogynist too. But that doesn't make it true, and it isn't something that we can say without it being a BLP violation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that, and I still don't think you understand my point. Even the Business Insider source agrees that it was anti-Semitic, doesn't it? Was it anti-Semitic to make a good point? I'm sure he thought it was, but what, exactly, was the point? People will do terrible things for money? That implies that anti-Semitism is bad as a premise, but it's not actually a condemnation of anti-Semitism. It paradoxically suggests that it's not that bad, because he did it, and he paid other people to do it for laughs. This is why people say he normalized anti-Semitism. He refuses to take himself seriously enough to make a real point, so the 'point' is left up to his politically inexperienced audience. We know, from sources, that there are a lot of real Nazis eager to fill in that knowledge gap. Good comedians, like Carlin, don't make this mistake, or at least not often, and not when hosting a show aimed at young people. (Although God only know what that show was really saying.)

That BI article supports that the controversy is about whether or not his use of anti-Semitism was appropriate, not whether or not it was anti-Semitic. If you want to discuss the ethics of Kjellberg's comedy, well, I have a lot more to say about that. It would involve links to Carlin, Stephen Colbert (character) vs Stephen Colbert, Poe's Law, Archie Bunker, Eric Cartman, South Park Republicans and so on. I've already drifted very far from the topic, though, haven't I?

How about a controversy about PewDiePie's satirical use of anti-Semitic imagery? Is this better? Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we can agree that his jokes were misguided and much more poorly made than anything that Carlin would have written. Your compromise edit is a good suggestion that I can agree with. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have made that change. I made it a bit heavy on wikilinks, so I have no problem with any adjustments to that. The target article's section could also benefit from an WP:ANCHOR, but I don't know what that would be.

I know it's frustrating, but I do appreciate you challenging me on this. I think this is better than what I had original written, so thank you for that. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with this BLP? Carl Benjamin is quoted as stating such and such. It is _not_ within the purview of WP in a BLP to provide either supporting or dissenting opinions upon Carl Benjamin's opinions on a matter involving a third party. There really doesn't need to be any supporting or dissenting text. Benjamin stated it; this is the BLP of Carl Benjamin. Anything beyond that is embellishment unrelated to this BLP, particularly within the strict guidelines of BLP. If someone states that they are a flat earther, at most WL'ing to the flat earther article would be appropriate. The BLP would not need, require, condone, nor accept commentary (whether editor or sourced elsewhere) about whether the earth is flat. That said, I could be wrong. Anastrophe (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, BLP violations apply regardless of what article they are on (they don't have to be on that person's article, they can even be on a talk page). I'll draft a reply to GF soon (but busy now). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and one that had gone zooooom over my head. Thanks. So, with that in mind, shouldn't whatever wording or sources that are in the Pewdiepie article be the starting point for how things are presented here - assuming that that article _is_ conformant with BLP policy? I apologize if I'm not up to speed, I'm only vaguely familiar with Pewdiepie and haven't looked at his article yet. And I may not want to if it's a hot mess of contention... Anastrophe (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a starting point, but for obvious reasons, that article is going to provide a ton more context and detail which doesn't benefit this article. This would be an issue no matter what shape that article is in. Ideally this should be a very short summary of the specific controversy as context for Benjamin's actions, and figuring out how to do that neutrally is tricky. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A Worthwhile Question

Given this article is (rightfully) nominated for possible deletion, does the fact that there is this much contentious debate going on suggest anything might be amiss here? I would be shocked if at least one of the participants engaging here were not in fact the subject himself or his significant other. Especially given the YouTube video, which reeked of The-Lady-Doth-Protest-Too-Much, no?

Also, just so I'm not unintentionally adding to the well-known side of the scale for this guy, I stumbled randomly onto this article while wikimeandering. Parts of the article very much read like he wrote it himself-it was this quality which led me to check out the talk page. -Laced 107.77.228.160 (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's not being proposed for deletion, it was proposed and that proposal failed to garner a consensus. While I am at it, might I shock with you the statement; none of the regular contributors here are the subject, let alone his significant other. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please keep comments onto some focus, none of the above is actually geared towards contributing to the article. I.e. it is not worthwhile. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As a BLP, I would suggest that 107.77.228.160's speculations are a violation of BLP rules. This section should be removed. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)