Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A return to a sad state

Again, consensus building and adherence to WP:BIOLEAD and WP:UNDUE seem to have been abandoned. There is too much weight on the "rape comments" again and it looks even worse because there is a citation (which no longer supports the paragraph, of course) adds legitimacy to it. I have long been in favor of just saying there were controversial statements and letting the reader go to the sub-section. For some reason, other editors feel the entire situation needs to be explained in the lede and because it is a complex situation, it naturally ends up being undue weight on a single issue. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight isn't a matter of our opinion but a matter of what sources talk about. Sources give massive attention to the rape comments--far more than to any other issue concerning Benjamin--so they deserve three sentences in the lede. GergisBaki (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. If you read biographies of living persons, you will see: Recent events affecting a subject are kept in historical perspective; most recent is not necessarily most notable. Balance new information with old, giving all information due weight.

Just because the news started talking about his 2016 tweet in 2019 does not mean it should dominate the lede of this article. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you have now expanded other parts of the lede to strike some sort of false balance, but what you have done is create a very long lede which is disproportionate to the article itself. And when I linked to WP:BIOLEAD above, I meant to link to MOS:LEADBIO where we have this: The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing at biographies of living persons. I feel you are allowing the rape comment controversy overwhelm the lede. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki, at this point you are just copying things from the body and putting them in the lede. I sincerely hope you stop this attempt at false balance. This is a short article and the lede should be short. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources give massive attention to the rape comments--far more than to any other issue concerning Benjamin. This is a bold claim. No sources are provided which would allow this claim to be tested, and either agreed with or dismissed. Please provide those sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the source provided does provide evidence that the third paragraph of the lede is DUE, contra the comments of Ryk72 and SVTCobra. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Determination of whether article content aligns with WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS necessarily involves the examination of multiple reliable sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 21:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Virtually nothing in the third paragraph is in that third paragraph. If you read my various proposals for a much shorter paragraph, they all included a version of the press coverage of the rape comments dominating his campaign. (A side note, I don't know why the failure of the campaign was removed, be it for Benjamin in particular or UKIP as a whole.) --SVTCobra (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, I'm in favor of removing third paragraph from the lead.Sourcerery (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I am not. I just want a simpler lede. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A recent controversy should not be in the lede. It should be in the Controversies section. He is known for other things than just bad jokes. This is like putting "touches kids and women inappropriately on video" in Joe Biden's lede. This seems inherently obvious … Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

For one, WP:CSECTION. For another, a large number (likely the majority) of reliable, independent sources which discuss Benjamin mention these incidents, and the article should reflect sources. The lede is a summary of the body, so the lede will mention this if the article properly reflects sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious labels and description

In the first paragraph of the article, the referred person is described as a "polemic anti-feminist British youtuber." The value judgement that this person is "polemic" is a non-neutral and a tendentious label which its use is discouraged by the Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Also, the term "anti-feminist" is not an accurate description of the person, and it hasn't been clarified according to who he is an "anti-feminist." This specific use of words with the prefix "-anti" is also discouraged by the manual of style. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-feminist" is well-sourced to The New York Times and other sources; please see the article body text. Things which are sourced in the article do not necessarily have to be referenced in the lede per [[WP:LEDE], but if you prefer, we can put reference links in the lede too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• The manual of style specifically instructs us to use such terms in the lead when (as in this case) it's elaborated on by more detailed cites further down the article. As it says: The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Also, I disagree with your assertion that 'polemic' is POV language; it's a neutral descriptor for someone who primarily argues for or against a particular position, and reflects what the sources say here. Similarly, the fact that he's primarily identified as an anti-feminist is well-cited in the article; it's a common descriptor for him among sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-feminist" is not only well-sourced, but it is not seen as a pejorative at all, and there is no substitute neutral or positive term. People in this camp often proudly label themselves "anti-feminist" or "anti-SJW". This is not like the labels used in the abortion debate, for instance. While polemic is sometimes used to discredit someone who isn't one, the definition fits Benjamin to a T. I also think he'd be proud of the company it places him in, given the list of famous polemics. The labels we need to be careful with how we apply them in this article are "alt-right" and "misogynist". --SVTCobra (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Sorry, but I wasn't referring to wikipedia:Weasel words guidelines in the Manual of Style, I was referring to WP:LABEL, which states that contentious libels and value judgement such as «controversial» (or by extension, «polemic») should not be used in a Wikipedia article and even in lesser degree in a biography of a living person. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin is not far-right

I motion to remove him from the category "Far-right politics in the United Kingdom" as he has a history of speaking out against against the and for years was known as a centre-leftist. I am not even a fan of Benjamin anymore. I've become disillusioned him due to with his vigorous support of Trump, but to call him far-right or alt-right is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.92.98.205 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Yes. Although Carl Benjamin has been described as "far right," he denies the label and there's no demonstrably evidence that he supports far-right politics. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ajñavidya, "far right" is not some kind of box that people can check or uncheck. If someone is far-right, they're far-right. I am about to look at the sources. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• ...which describe a number of things. The internet offers enough reliable sourcing for "far-right" ([1], [2] (possibly)). That he supports far-right politics, BTW, is obvious, and again, "far right" (or "communist", "libertarian") are not labels one can deny at will, so your argument for "done" is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We go by what the sources say, not the opinions of editors, and plenty of sources connect him to the far right. Additionally, the category doesn't require that he himself be definitively far-right, only that he be important to the topic, which the sources in the article clearly support. --Aquillion (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a mater of opinion. He doesn't fall in the «far right» umbrella, so to speak. He doesn't support any politic that is identified with the far right. Also, the argument used by Aquillion that «[...] plenty of sources connect him [Carl Benjamin] to the far right» is «guilt-by-association» fallacy, but he definitely cannot be classified as «far right». The sources quoted in this article, except a few, made clear that despite he being described as such by other people (political rivals), he rejected this label. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The sources make clear that Benjamin is frequently described as "far right". I have updated the "political views" section to reflect the reliable sources. I tried to avoid WP:OVERKILL, but feel free to remove some of the citations if necessary. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Vice News, Buzzfeed and Southern Poverty Law Center are some of the sources that you have quoted. I am not against quoting biased sources since it's not against WP:PRESERVEBIAS; but also sources contradicting those claims must be included as well, not just the biased sources supporting one of the narratives whereas disparaging the others. Also, given the sources that you have added, shouldn't be the political harassment and milkshake incidents be included in this article? Ajñavidya (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources cited in the article. Removing one or two would not be an issue. Also, as someone else explained to you before, Buzzfeed News is published separately from Buzzfeed, and is is generally considered reliable. Benjamin's disagreement with the term "alt-right" is already included. If you think additional information should be in the article, then add it or propose it on the talk page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed the SPLC and Vice articles except for where they were attributed in text. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguments around BuzzFeed News. That publication is under the ownership of BuzzFeed and —in consequence— under its editorial control. It is not «published separately», as you say. About Carl Benjamin, he denies the labels «far right» and «alt right» altogether, and there's no evidence to support this accusation, the only base for classifying him as «far right» has been the opinion articles hereby quoted, and remember that this kind of editing is discouraged by WP:BLPCAT and WP:LABEL, guidelines that apparently are systematically violated in the English Wikipedia. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is considered reliable, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BuzzFeed News. Buzzfeed News, as a separate entity, has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and has (for example) won several significant awards for its journalism. Buzzfeed, however, publishes a lot of crap and listicles and similar, which is why specifying "BuzzFeed News" is important. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, Grayfell. I wasn't aware that BuzzFeed News was considered of higher professional journalistic quality —or even distinctly— than that of BuzzFeed. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: Please stop adding false information to Benjamin's biography. As per WP:BLP, that content has to be removed immediately, and the burden of evidence is on you before reinserting it. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:, I don't understand your objection. You argument that the information isn't given by the source is a blatantly false statement. The source clearly points:

Posing for a photograph they used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America.

Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism".

In a statement shared by UKIP, he said: "Strangely, some journalists who should know better, want to attribute politically neutral gestures to extremist groups."

According to the source, he is also quoted as saying:

“Liberals, like myself and Stephen Fry, know that the OK symbol is not controversial despite their best attempts to make it so.”

Now you have changed the text in the article and replaced it with phrase that he didn't use in direct response to this accusations. He called himself «liberal» and denied belonging to a far-right ideology, calling «lazy journalism» the accusations in that sense based on his use of a hand gesture.

Please, leave the article as edited by User:BushelCandle, which is the most neutral edit insofar. If you don't have arguments for modifying that edit, then don't do it. Remember that your personal considerations are irrelevant for edition: WP:WIKIVOICE. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Where does he deny belonging to far-right ideology? He "completely refuted" that he had used a far-right hand gesture and instead stated that it was a politically-neutral gesture. He then called himself a Liberal and compared himself to Stephen Fry. His claim of being a Liberal is in the previous sentence of the current Wikipedia article (which you keep taking out), and it does not mean the same as him denying that he is far-right. That is entirely WP:SYNTH and is a violation of WP:BLP. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have also posted this issue on the BLP noticeboard. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We're discussing this issue and you made edit changes using flawed argumentation. I didn't include his statement of he stating he was a liberal because I did notice it in the previous paragraph. His response about the accusation of belonging to a far-right movement was that it was «lazy journalism», and that's what I quoted. You insistently changed the wording to a text that gave the false impression that he denied doing this gesture, which wasn't the case at all. He did the gesture but denied being linked to the far right due to this gesture. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant but WP:BLPCAT says Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation. I can't seem to find anything more concrete than this in terms of policy for political beliefs; I'm not sure if any policy actually exists. The example given is the category "Criminal" in which the person must be convicted and this must be reliably reported on - this obviously makes the given person being a criminal basically a certainty. Given that the categorisation as alt-right or far-right may suggest poor reputation (I would hope so anyway), I'm not sure what is required so that we are certain enough to include the categorisation (to make sure caution is given). If anyone knows any more detailed policy that would be really helpful. Otherwise, I would err on the side of caution. Benjamin is a massively controversial figure and that includes where he falls on the political spectrum - given this should we really be adding categories which would suggest Benjamin is of a political belief far from what most people would think of as acceptable without it being more uncontroversial than it actually is. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: There are many instances of biased claims and tendentious editing in this article, which is to expect on certain degree because it is about a person that is involved in current events and current politics. For example, classifying him as «far right» could be considered as a libel (WP:LIBEL), since he has denied repeatedly belonging to either the alt right or the far right, even if various sources accuse him of being so (without evidence). Not specific to this section but also relevant in the general discussion is the inclusion of «polemic» and «anti-feminist» in the lead. Baggaged descriptions such as «controversial» (and presumably «polemic», its synonym) is explicitly discouraged by WP:LABEL. «Anti-feminist» is another situation of contradiction with WP:BLPCAT, since there's no evidence of the person criticizing feminism overall, only some feminist figures (or at least that is that evidence suggests). The classification of «anti-feminist» apparently comes from a 2018 NBC News article which simply refers to him as «a British anti-feminist better known on the far-right as Sargon of Akkad». But again, attending to WP:BLPCAT this can be considered as replicating a libel. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he has denied it doesn't make it libel. Terrorists deny being terrorists. Doesn't mean that we can't refer to them as terrorists if that's what RS state. O3000 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead of just listing what various outlets have labeled Benjamin, or perhaps at least in addition to it, can we use an expert's opinion and possibly quote him? I submit for your consideration: "Carl Benjamin: When social media stars try to gain political power" published in The Herald which is a broadsheet noted as non-partisan. In the article they consult Mike Wendling, a BBC editor and senior broadcast journalist, who after a long investigation published Alt-Right: From 4chan to the White House. Among the insights from Wendling is that intellectual dark web may be the best label. "He’s cultivated a fan base, he’s cultivated quite a passionate fan base, but he’s not alt-right," Mr Wendling said. But beyond that, this article seems immensely useful. It's not sensationalistic crap focusing entirely on the rape comments or the milk-shaking. It is very in-depth and I cannot believe it has not been used as a source for this article before. --SVTCobra 22:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SVTCobra, Mike Wendling is a journalist, and while he has written a book on the topic of the online alt-right, one source is not be justification to remove the opinions of numerous other journalists, news outlets, and researchers. The label you suggest as a replacement is not used nearly as widespread as "far-right" or "alt-right" to describe Benjamin, but I think it could be a useful addition as long as sourced and attributed appropriately. I think it would be appropriate to have additional sources that use the term "intellectual dark web" to refer to Benjamin to be sure it represents a significant view as per WP:DUE. If the additional sources are quoting Wendling, then I think we should attribute that term to him in text. Also, note that the current Wikipedia article has several sentences of examples and analysis of Benjamin's political views, and the article you cite above repeatedly refers to Benjamin as "far-right", which is what this talk page section is about. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting link. We have to evaluate the entire source, not just specific parts in isolation. Otherwise we risk cherry-picking. If we included Wendling's attributed opinion about this one point, we should also look at what the rest of the article is saying. It is directly saying that he gives the far-right a much larger and more accommodating platform than he gives anyone else. It also directly challenges Benjamin's assertion that he acts as a neutral outsider, and says he is part of a far-right in-group. The article also points out that the majority of media coverage of Benjamin has been about his rape comments. This is supported by another quote from Wendling, who says Benjamin has not conveyed "any sort of philosophy". If he is part of the IDW and hasn't conveyed a philosophy, this raises more questions than it answers. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I did also say to include it in addition. And true, it's not a refutation of far-right, but a suggestion as a source to alleviate the overall problem of the cumbersome task of placing Benjamin on a sort of political spectrum. But I would use this source as a refutation if the idea of labeling Benjamin as alt-right in the lede (see one of the older talk page sections) became an issue again. Although, Wendling is a journalist like so many others, the alt-right has been a specialty of his for a long time as evidenced by his book. Also, this is not him writing for the BBC, this is The Herald seeking him out as an expert. I sampled a bunch of the other articles and not one of them has such a narrow focus. Some of them are global politics writers and one is a tech writer(?). It will probably be a couple of years before we have true academic analysis. --SVTCobra 23:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the sources linking Benjamin to the alt-right is a research paper by Rebecca Lewis, which was reported on by several media outlets. I'm not sure what you sampled, but I think you may want to be more careful with characterizing the sources and dismissing or approving their information based on your sampling. There are good reasons that Wikipedia requires cited news outlets to have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Data & Society? Never heard of them. I found a Wired article citing Rebecca Lewis (but not about Benjamin). They called her an "online extremism researcher" and quoted some of her tweets. Is this paper peer-reviewed? What are Lewis' credentials? She is not on the D&S staff page. I hope this is not like citing CFACT on climate change. Aside from the PDF of the research paper, which reliable source have you included which also cited Lewis? --SVTCobra 00:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I found her as Becca Lewis on their alum page. She is a PhD student in Communications. I still question if Data & Society is a reliable source. Also, politics doesn't seem to be their wheelhouse according to their About page. --SVTCobra 00:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Do any RS contest the claim he is far right?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, only by calling him right-wing or a different subset thereof. It gets contentious because Benjamin's insistence he's a "centrist", "classical liberal" or "liberalist" and that the press is smearing him by painting him as an extremist. --SVTCobra 14:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter what he says, he is not an RS (by the way, does he deny he is far right?). So no then no RS challenge the claim (remember the sea is wet, not matter how many sources do not say so). So as far as I can see we have RS that say he is far right (quite a few) and so yes we can say he is far right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin repeatedly says he is not far right. He describes himself as a “classical liberal” and a “shit poster”. That said... I feel strongly that (in a BLP) we should NEVER apply labels in Wikipedia’s voice. Instead, we must attribute any and all labels to those who use them. There is no question that “many sources call him far right”... we can say that, and list a few as examples. We can balance this by noting what he says about himself (appropriate to do in a BLP). Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an unworkable standard. If reliable sources say something, so be it. An encyclopedia article is going to describe people, and there is no point in hedging every single description in subjective language. He is not "allegedly British", he is not "described by sources as a Youtuber", etc. Sometimes people do not like it when other people describe them in a certain way, but disliking something doesn't make it inaccurate, nor does it make it subjective. I have no idea why people keep repeating the claim that self-described classical liberals/shit-posters cannot also be far-right, but it seems like a nonsensical argument to me. If there is some inherent contradiction to these terms as they apply to Benjamin, support it with a reliable source. Benjamin has many platforms for expressing his own opinions. We can, and should, summarize this, but the large volume of self-published and self-aggrandizing material out there isn't justification for false balance. Many reliable sources say broadly similar things, and he sometimes disputes this. It would be a mistake to assume that these two perspectives should be treated identically. BLP doesn't mean we should ignore or downplay reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

«Right wing» is a label he has rejected several times despite accusations from third parties to categorize him in that sense. Even if a portion of the sources repeat this accusation, WP:BLPCAT states very clear that «lists, navigation templates, and statements» that suggest that a person has poor reputation or puts the person in bad light should not be included in Wikpedia, and this policy includes the «use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities». Ajñavidya (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation... Yes, this is true. "Caution" doesn't mean "never". So does Benjamin have a poor reputation? More importantly, do sources routinely define him as far-right (such as, but not limited to, being a candidate of a far-right party)? The answer to both of those things is yes. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we have a source where he says he is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We probably cannot (unless we use his YouTube videos) as it was not a question he was asked during the campaign. Objectively, he's probably to the right of the average Tory, but even calling UKIP "far-right" is a stretch since there are at least three political parties which are further to the right. But it matters not, I don't like the use of labels, in general. Currently, the article is like a survey of what the press wants to label him. I'd rather it state his views on various issues. In the end, I don't give two shits if Benjamin is called far-right, but I will object to alt-right. I tossed in The Herald as it seemed in depth and rather objective. Cheers, --SVTCobra 08:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, disliking a term doesn't make it a label. "Far-right" is not "farthest possible right". We are not interested in playing games with the Overton window. As has already been explained on this talk page, we don't "state his views" on indiscriminately chosen issues, because his views are not inherently notable. Wikipedia isn't an extension of his many media platforms. We summarize reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's analyze the whole paragraph from WP:BLPCAT that deals with this case:

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

Attending to what's relevant for this guideline, the person which this article describes has a) denied belonging to the far-right and the alt-right, b) not being convicted for any crime related to far-right extremism and c) criticized both movements for their extremist nature. So, taking this information into account and following the guidelines as quoted, we can say that the insistence in categorizing him as «far-right politics» is not only not cautious but also unjustifiable, and contributes to the greatly biased state that this article presently is. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And, I must add, it doesn't matter if the majority of sources accuse him of being so. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor here is presupposing what they pretend to demonstrate, I think. "Far right", as used in the vast majority of sources, is a descriptive label rather than an accusation (unless RS say otherwise). Thus *none* of the minute parsing here applies. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right. Worse still, we now have that editor openly insisting that the sources don’t even matter. We have indulged this nonsense far too long already. The whole matter has become vexatious and unconstructive. It is wasting time that people could be doing something useful and/or enjoyable with. I think we have a right to insist that the stick be dropped right now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We look at RS, not self-descriptions and editor analyses. O3000 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Don't put my words in such an uncontextualized manner. What I've said is a clarifying addition to a long paragraph. Of course sources DO matter; sources don't matter, however, when it comes down to categorize this person with a label which he himself has denied and should not be included here, according to WP:BLP. And of course «far-right» is a description, Newimpartial, but don't try to make like it isn't one that suggests bad reputation. «Far-right» are extreme forms, currents of movements of right-wing politics, and it's a label that can signify being the target of political violence, which has been the case of Carl Benjamin, who has been been the victim of politically-motivated attacks such as milkshaking and harassment — acts of aggression that are pending to being incorporated into this article, by the way. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that he denies it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Of course his denial is also included. O3000 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And once again, Ajnavidya, your comment about "labels" in BLP does not apply to political labels, only religious and sexual ones. Your victimhood statement, that being labelled far-right "can signify being the target of political violence", is OR and suggest a rather FRINGE POV on your part. It certainly dies not reflect WP's policies on the use of labels... Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that the policy I quoted was referring to the categories of an article, not any label or categorisation of a person throughout the body of the article. For example, numerous sources call Benjamin far right so it is undeniably the case that Benjamin's labelling as far right should be mentioned in the article. What's less clear to me is if we should categorise Benjamin as far right. To have a far right category for this article is to endorse the categorisation of Benjamin as far right not just to cover his labelling as far right. I'm not simply against Wikipedia articles categorising people as things that are uncomfortable, but I am against doing this when that category is a contentious and controversial categorisation which "far right" certainly is for Benjamin. Hope this clears up any confusion, if not I think my argument for removing far right politics in the UK from the categories is completely WP policy centred for use of categories. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: WP:BLPCAT doesn't apply only to sexual and religious label, it clearly states, and I'll quote it once more: Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). —And it continues— For example, [the category] "Criminals" and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. It seems incredible to me that you still maintain that the «far-right politics» category doesn't carry any bad reputation, and you consider it a «FRINGE POV» to appeal otherwise. WP:BLPCAT goes as follows: These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities. It seems clear to me that, contrary to what you've said, that a POV has been pushed on this article when categorizing him as «far right». It's fine to quote here the sources that accuse him of belonging to the far-right; but labeling this person with this category on Wikipedia when the person has publicly rejected it and he has been not convicted for any crime related to that kind of extremism, is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCAT. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ajnavidya, BLPCAT specifically only requires that the subject self-identify with a label in cases of religion and sexual orientation, not for political labels, contradicting what you cited concerning BLPCAT initially. It also mandates "caution" (i.e., does not prohibit) the use of categories that "may imply a bad reputation". I have just re-read the WP article on Far right politics, and there is nothing in that article to suggest that the label "far right" is an "accusation" equivalent to, say, criminality, or that it carries a bad reputation that WP would have to treat with "caution" in the application of categories.

The Far right politics article currently contains a rather judicious section referring to and distinguishing its topic from Right-wing terrorism; if this article were somehow associating its subject with that topic I could understand your concerns, but as it does not, I do not. Not all slopes are slippery, and an insistence otherwise will start to appear as civil POV-pushing at a certain point. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You can't see anything in Far-right politics that would suggest a bad reputation?

Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.'

The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.

I feel like this has threw up a few red flags regarding what you consider perfectly respectable and not suggestive of a bad reputation. But, to be serious, everyone knows that far-right is not reputable to the vast majority of people and to label somebody far right would clearly suggest they have a bad reputation. Caution doesn't mean never, but "not never" isn't a justification for having such a contentious category as a part of a BLP. As far as I'm concerned, the inclusion of that category is a condoning of the label far-right as applied to Benjamin when he is a massively controversial figure - wikipedia should maintain a neutral POV, which, in this case, means not commenting either way on whether Benjamin is far-right. Benjamin is not uncontroversially a Nazi, fascist or ultranationalist. The controversial nature of Benjamin's beliefs and placement on the political spectrum is the very reason we should err on caution. This is why I brought up BLPCAT, because the caution is relevant. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. The reliable sources are clear that Benjamin is considered far-right, and the Wikipedia article is clear in its text and sourcing about the case for that category. WP:BLPCAT says that Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation. Caution has been used, and numerous sources (in addition to extensive talk page discussion) have shown that Benjamin is appropriately described and categorized as far-right. If an issue with that description or categorization is brought up, it needs to be based on reliable sources, and not individual editor's preferences about whether Wikipedia should ever use "labels" or potentially contentious categories. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from Alduin and Ajnavidya is a whole lot of IDONTLIKEIT rather than any kind of reliably sourced argument that anyone other than this article's (unreliable) subject has asserted that he is not "far right". Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have numerous times worked to create compromise on this page. My argument was perfectly grounded in policy and I have never argued against something because I don't like it. I think you should keep in mind WP:Assume good faith and possibly Hanlon's razor given that I was simply ignorant of that specific wording in the policy Wallyfromdilbert mentioned. Given categories do not actually imply anything not stated within the text of the article I don't mind the inclusion and given that we can't determine what categories to use via rigorous, physical experimentation instead of subjective policy argument it's not worth me debating against consensus. Alduin2000 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Cornwall Live source

@Ajñavidya: I thought I'd respond here so anyone can see it. Cornwall Live is the online version of The Cornishman, a local tabloid. This is not an appropriate source for any article, nevermind such a controversial BLP. It is true that otherwise dubious sources can be used as expressions of opinion if they are self-published. However, WP:RSOPINION states Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. Benjamin did not publish this article, he is simply quoted in it. Furthermore, this is not a self-published source but a tabloid so this policy is not applicable anyway. Reliable sources are not only required for verifiability but also to ensure notability; Benjamin has said a lot of things and a lot of things have been said about him. It seems that what the source says is probably not just made up but to include it would be giving undue weight to some random thing that happened which only a local tabloid even reported on. If this is both notable and verifiable then there will be a better source for it. Thanks for sending a message rather than immediately reverting my edit, hopefully this clears up why the source can't be used even for the statement of an expressed opinion by Benjamin. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Alduin2000. I thought the tabloid was a relevant as a source because right now there's a heated debate in this talk page (as you can see one section up) about classifying Carl Benjamin as «far right». I considered that source appropriate for setting up the discussion, in tune with WP:BLPCAT.Ajñavidya (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Cornishman is not a tabloid. Do not make the mistake of confusing tabloid (a compact format) with tabloid journalism. The two terms became connected because it used to be just the rags which used the tabloid format, while proper newspapers were in the stately broadsheet format. However, in a trend that has been going on for at least a couple of decades, more and more papers are switching to compact tabloid formats. I don't know when The Conishman switched, but it used to be a broadsheet. There should be no credibility problem with them as a source. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alduin2000 and Ajñavidya: P.S. just pinging you both since this is an important distinction. --SVTCobra 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. If we are sure the source is fine then I don't have any problem with it being added back in, obviously. Thanks, SVTCobra. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I think this is why a lot of newspaper infoboxes have been changed to "compact" instead of "tabloid" in the format parameter to avoid this very confusion. The Cornishman is by all accounts just a normal local newspaper. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

None of this matters because the quote's specific context is: Posing for a photograph they used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America. Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism". We don't even mention the original Cornwall Live story he's responding to in the article (and probably shouldn't, per WP:DUE); turning his specific, narrow response to that one story into a general response to "an attempt to link him with far-right movements" is editorializing, especially given the context (which clearly intends for it to be WP:SYNTHed with unrelated discussion of his connection to the alt-right above, completely distinct from the Cornwall Live story he was responding to in that article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely don't understand what you mean. The source clearly states that Carl Benjamin denied being linked to the far right and referred to «lazy journalism» the attempt to see in this symbology any evidence of this link. Carl Benjamin has been quoted several times in this article; in line with WP:BLPCAT, he at least be quoted in a situation when he responded to strong accusations. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It does not say that at all. It says that Controversial UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin has responded to claims that he used a ‘right wing’ gesture during a visit to Truro last Friday. and Posing for a photograph they used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America. Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism". He was responding to the specific accusation that he had used a right-wing gesture. By converting this into a response to being "linked to the far-right" - something not in the source at all - you are changing the meaning of his quote in a manner that is both a WP:BLP violation and a straightforward WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issue. Perhaps you view the "OK" gesture controversy as an "attempt to link him to the far right", but that is merely your interpretation, not what the source says. You cannot take a quote from an unrelated controversy about him using the "OK" gesture and pin it to unrelated descriptions of his politics simply based on your personal interpretation of how those are connected; that is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, we already quote his own opinion on his views further down (where he says he describes himself as a "centrist liberal"); that is sufficient response on his part, especially given that, again, the quote you are trying to add is unrelated to the articles you're trying to use it as a "response" to. --Aquillion (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The source says, and I quote:

Posing for a photograph they used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America.

Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism."

Carl Benjamin himself is quoted as saying:

Liberals, like myself and Stephen Fry, know that the OK symbol is not controversial despite their best attempts to make it so.

He called himself liberal and -according to the source- «refuted» that the hand symbology he used was related to any «right wing» extremist group.

In his own words:

Strangely, some journalists who should know better, want to attribute politically neutral gestures to extremist groups.

It's accurate describing this as he denied belonging or be linked to the far right due to this hand symbology, and he called himself a «liberal» like «Stephen Fry». Remember that we have to describe and summarize what the source is stating, not quoting the whole source. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's accurate, you should be able to find a source stating so explicitly. Describing the original Cornwall story as an "attempt to link him to the far-right" is your editorializing (and, in context, one that takes a non-neutral tone, since you're both implying that its purpose was to link him to the far right rather than to neutrally report an event as it happened, and you're ascribing such an opinion to him.) None of that is in that source - it merely says that someone said that the OK gesture is commonly used by the alt-right, and that Benjamin disputed that. And, as I said above, his self-description as a centrist liberal (which is his actual response to the stories above, rather than the tangential quote you're trying to insert here) is already in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, finding an obscure source doesn't justify including minutia. Not everything which can be sourced belongs, and not every public statement from a person belongs in their Wikipedia article. "Hand symbology" is stilted, verbose, and cryptic. It will only cause confusion, which was almost certainly Benjamin's intention. It surely doesn't help that this entire thing was engineered to be trolling, and Benjamin seems to admit this. If any reliable source connects Benjamin's use of the symbol to Stephen Fry, let's see it. Bringing someone else into this ("Liberal" or not) is also a BLP issue for that person, as well, and using a cite template to cloak vague insinuations in half-assed attribution is not acceptable. Again, if a reliable source mentions Fry, let's see it, because Benjamin isn't a reliable source for information on other people. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

«He has called out as "lazy journalism" an attempt to link him with far-right movements due to hand symbology» is an accurate summary of what is claimed by the source. Let's check the elements. He didn't deny he used the hand symbol, he denied the accusation that the symbol had anything to do with right-wing extremist groups: "Strangely, some journalists who should know better, want to attribute politically neutral gestures to extremist groups.". He even called himself a «liberal» as a response to this accusation, and used Stephen Fry as an example of liberal person. This last part is also stated by the source, it's not a «tangential story» as Aquillion said that I've inserted.

I don't understand why the resistance to include this source in the article, given that it's relevant along his quote of self-defense against accusations of false light. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point, your behavior is becoming tendentious.

Fry's use of the hand gesture has nothing to do with Benjamin's use, and should not be mentioned here merely because Fry was a convenient target for Benjamin's trolling. Fry was specifically using the gesture in reference to something called "AOK Kitchen" in support for a mental health charity. Trying to co-opt this is despicable. Benjamin's intentional willingness to ignore context is not an excuse to violate BLP. I do not care to explain this garbage to you any further, so either take my word for it, or take it to a noticeboard and watch it WP:BOOMERANG on you.

Nowhere in the CornwallLive article do I see where Benjamin says he isn't far-right. He says that people who call him a "Nazi" because of laziness, but the article doesn't explain who was calling him a Nazi. At most, he is claiming that his use of the hand gesture wasn't intended to signal white supremacy... but so what? Wikipedia isn't a platform for Benjamin's rambling press releases. We cannot add a self-serving refutation to an accusation that isn't even made in the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ajñavidya has been briefly blocked. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I know I defended The Cornishman as a credible source (not obscure since it is a local paper near Benjamin), but how in the world did this become about 'hand gestures'? When was 👌 part of the article? Why is this being discussed? --SVTCobra 08:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The source in question (and the quote being taken from it) is about Benjamin responding to coverage of him using the 👌 gesture. Since we, yes, we don't have anything about that in the article, it doesn't make sense to include Benjamin's response to that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, good. I have taken to just keeping an eye on the talk page because it almost got me into trouble when I tried to fend off people from both sides in the article itself (well, the lede only). As long as we don't besmirch the venerable Cornishman in the process. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell: If Stephen Fry was «convenient target» for «Benjamin's trolling», as you said, is totally out of the scope in this article. The point here is that Benjamin rejected and responded an attempt to being classified as far-right, and contradicted this explicitly by calling himself «liberal» and that he hand gesture he is used was «neutral». Ajñavidya (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As multiple people have already said, the CornwallLive source doesn't clearly say he rejected being far-right, it only includes his claims about the gesture. The supposed neutrality of this hand gesture doesn't matter to Benjamin's political views, so it therefore doesn't belong in the article. The article already mentions that he describes himself as a "centrist Liberal" and if that's a "contradiction" we will have to leave it to readers to sort-out for themselves. Drop the stick, please. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So, the discussion must be centered in if 👌 is a far-right symbol or not? This has absolutely nothing to do with this article; this article is about Carl Benjamin and Cornwall Live is relevant here for what he said and how he defended himself from the accusation of belonging to an extremist group (from the far-right). He said he was a «liberal» («like [...] Stephen Fry», he said) and that this hand gesture was «neutral». There is absolutely no reason for not including this relevant piece. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing that the self-description of the article's subject, published in (to be charitable) a marginal source and not picked up by others, is somehow DUE for inclusion, because "there is absolutely no reason for not including" it? That's magical thinking. Because nobody has picked it up in a major source would be one reason, and because we already have a self-description of the subject in better sources, is another. Newimpartial (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an instance when he defended himself from an accusation and he described himself as a «liberal» to remark that he rejected being classified as part of a right-wing «extremist movement». This is the only reason to include this source. The hand symbology, the comparison with Stephen Fry, and whatever are the considerations of the editors about these statements is totally irrelevant for the inclusion of this source and his quote. We should quote the source in an unbiased way, take his words in good faith, follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and as Greyfell said, «[...] leave it to readers to sort-out for themselves». Ajñavidya (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The insistence in not including a source relevant for the person's political positions —along with mislabeling and tendentious language— suggests censorship and severe POV pushing taking place in this article. The arguments for excluding the Cornwall Live source has been unsuccessful so far in this talk page, being based around trivialities such as whether 👌 is genuinely neutral symbol or not, whether Stephen Fry was being «trolled», or whether the source is irrelevant even when it contains a defense by the person against strong accusations. The many issues going on in this page need urgent attention. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given for excluding this content. Just because you do not understand them, or choose to ignore them, doesn't make them "unsuccessful". Ignoring what people are explaining to you is tendentious. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There is still no reason for not including this content. I don't want to repeat myself further, but this source is relevant as any other from the rest and could be argued to be even crucial since it includes a self-defense allegation of the person denying strong accusations; accusations that are furthermore included in this article as if they were a matter of fact. If his argument wasn't good, if he was lying, if he trolled other people, those are your personal considerations and are totally outside the scope of Wikipedia. The attempt by you —and other editors— to maintain this article in a biased sate without being able to justify the constant reverts is tendentious editing and a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Readding comment (I presume this was removed accidentally):

Ajñavidya, Your wording misrepresents the source. The source says that Benjamin refuted the idea that the ok sign is far right, he did not refute attempts to link him with the far right due to hand symbology. Perhaps I am simply missing it in the source. Could you provide a quote from the source which explicitly states that there was an attempt to link Benjamin to the far right and that he denied it/called it lazy journalism. If there is no such quote then the source does not actually back up "He has called out as "lazy journalism" an attempt to link him with far-right movements due to hand symbology" rather it supports "Benjamin refuted claims that the ok sign is far right" - hardly encyclopedic. Alduin2000 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC) readded by Alduin2000 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: I've already done it, but I'm not bothered to repeat. The attaining text from the Cornwall Live article is:

Posing for a photograph they [Mr. Benjamin and his supporters] used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America. Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism". In a statement shared by UKIP, he said: “Strangely, some journalists who should know better, want to attribute politically neutral gestures to extremist groups.”

“Presumably because hypersensitive communists think that calling someone a Nazi will shut down debate, saving them the trouble of engaging a few brain cells. It is also lazy journalism.” He added: “Liberals, like myself and Stephen Fry, know that the OK symbol is not controversial despite their best attempts to make it so.”

Now, I think that the text «He has called out as "lazy journalism" an attempt to link him with far-right movements due to hand symbology» is a concise and correct summary of what is told by the source; attending to the facts that Carl Benjamin didn't deny the gesture itself, but rejected the attribution of the gesture to «extremist groups» described as «white supremacists in America» by what he called «lazy journalism», and on top of that he further labeled himself as a «liberal» in contrast to this accusation.

PD: Apparently your previous comment was inadvertently removed by me due to a conflicting edition prompt. Sorry for that. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The quote does not say that there was an attempt to link Benjamin to the far-right, though. The only wording I would support would be something along the lines of Benjamin has called attribution of his use of the OK hand sign to extremist groups "lazy journalism" and an attempt to shut down debate. Alduin2000 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

«[Mr. Benjamin and his supporters] used an OK hand signal, which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists in America. Mr Benjamin completely refuted this and has called Cornwall Live's story "lazy journalism." [...] he said: "Strangely, some journalists who should know better, want to attribute politically neutral gestures to extremist groups"». What the source is saying is literally that he called «lazy journalism» an attempt to link the hand gesture he (and his supporters) made to far-right extremism: «[...] which many claim is a gesture used by white supremacists [...]». For me this is crystal clear, and I can't figure out why others don't notice such a simple and straightforward fact; it could also be me who's wrong. Nevertheless, I guess that «extremist groups» could be used instead of «far-right extremism», although I still consider the later to be a more descriptive and succinct term for this case. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin calling an attempt to link a hand gesture he made to far-right extremism "lazy journalism" is unnecessary for his biography and undue, especially as it is a facetious point. As others have said, please drop the stick now. The horse has long been dead. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: It's a quote from himself in self-defense against strong accusations. I have repeated this ad nauseam in previous replies, and the point I'm making is continually ignored. And what kind of argument is that that the source should not be included due to «facetious point» (or rather what you personally consider a facetious point). His quote and the source should be included regardless. Ajñavidya (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Classic liberal

IIRC Mr. Benjamin describes himself as a "classic liberal". The descriptor "polemic anti-feminist" should be corrected. 5JVL9 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't use self descriptions. If we did, most terrorists would be labeled freedom fighters. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The question is who, then, has the authority to describe Mr. Benjamin as a "polemic anti-feminist"? Certainly you would not want your political beliefs not accurately described. 5JVL9 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:IRS O3000 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The cites for "polemic anti-feminist" are NBC News, the New York Times, and (further down the article) Business Insider. All of them support the idea that this is what he is primarily notable for, which is why it's in the lead:

• That stopped this month. On Dec. 6, Patreon kicked the anti-feminist polemic Carl Benjamin, who works under the name Sargon of Akkad, off its site for using racist language on YouTube. (NYT)
• Carl Benjamin, a British anti-feminist better known on the far-right as Sargon of Akkad, (NBC News)
• ...following the ban of popular anti-feminist YouTuber Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad. (Business Insider) --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say. Honestly, I'm a bit baffled that people sometimes complain about that on talk - the fact that he's an anti-feminist (or even that he's primarily notable as an anti-feminist) isn't at all controversial. Calling him "classical liberal" just because he's used that term for himself occasionally would be like referring to a commentator by their political party - even if it's true and noteworthy (and the sourcing for that self-description are slight enough that I'm not sure it's noteworthy), it's still not what they're notable for. You don't put eg. "so-and-so is a commentator and a conservatism" in the lead of an article unless they're notable for commentary on conservativism or from a conservative viewpoint; you focus on the parts that the sources say are actually important instead. In Benjamin's case, the sources say that the notable part of his politics is his strident anti-feminism, so that's what goes in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "polemic anti-feminist" may be one aspect of his views, however, it is not an accurate nor a comprehensive descriptor of his politics. What better source for determining his own political opinions than Mr. Benjamin? You may quote the New York Times, NBC News and Business Insider all you wish - these sources all have interpreted Mr. Benjamin's viewpoints through their own respective lenses, and may have gotten the information from the same source (reporters, press agencies, etc). I remain convinced that "classic liberal" should be used in place of "polemic anti-feminist", and that "polemic anti-feminist" be used, if necessary, later in the article noting his beliefs concerning specific issues. 5JVL9 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on independent reliable sources. Please review WP:RS. The current information in the article is supported according to policy. If you still feel your content should be added, then please provide links or citations to the sources that support your position. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoting the specific rape joke

I am trying to add to the lede the specific comment where Benjamin said he might rape Phillips but for the fact that "nobody's got that much beer." This should be in the lede (whether we think it is relevant or not) because of the extreme volume of coverage the comment received in reliable sources, rivaling even the original rape joke. It is not up to us as editors, but to reliable sources, whether something is notable enough for the lede. This particular comment clearly is.

The previous version, where we simply describe the "nobody's got that beer comment" as "similar" to his previous rape joke, is also synthesis. GergisBaki (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is synthesis to describe the comments as "similar", given the related coverage on the comments. Note that per WP:MINREF, direct quotations need to be sourced inline whenever they are mentioned, even if there is a source for them in another section. In this case, the comment wasn't even quoted in the body either. However, I am inclined to agree that the most accurate way to convey what Benjamin said is to quote it, so I've added the incite in the lead and quote to the body. — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The lede is becoming completely unbalanced again, I see. The amount of coverage does not mean the lede should be out of whack. See: WP:BIOLEAD. Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. Please stop this campaign, GergisBaki. We have had this conversation many times before. --SVTCobra 23:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The length of the text in the lead has hardly increased and still takes up one of three paragraphs. The amount of coverage in reliable sources is precisely how we determine due weight; "not necessarily" doesn't mean "never". — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

I wish to edit the youtube information section, so that it will include his new channel Akkad Daily. 138.51.117.53 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done We already have a link to his official youtube channel. Per WP:ELMIN: we generally include one link to an "official" website, but no more than that. We aren't a directory. Nblund ^talk 22:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Any news of the police investigation?

Can't find anything in the papers. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead adjustments

Currently the lead is very poor and overloaded.

The first two sentences are as follows: "Carl Benjamin (born 1979) is a polemic anti-feminist British YouTuber with the online pseudonym Sargon of Akkad. He is a member of the UK Independence Party (UKIP)." Currently the polemic is sourced by one or two sources and is simply a claim and not a definitive fact. It could be said later on the lead or in the main section that: According to [Source A] and [Source B], Benjamin is polemic as he uses contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position (i.e. Anti-feminism) by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position throughout his YouTube videos. The anti-feminst part is stated throughtout far more sources but is not neccessary for the first line as it makes it bloated but could certainly be mentioned later on in the lead.

I suggest the new first sentence be: "Carl Benjamin (born 1979) known online as Sargon of Akkad is a British YouTuber who commentates on political affairs in the United Kingdom and the United States through his YouTube channel. He was also a MEP candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) for South West England in 2019." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy-cicle (talk • contribs) 19:03, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

The lead description has been debated before several times. You can check the talk page archives to see why these descriptions are used. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

None justify the use of the word 'polemic' in the lead despite the fact it is already very bloated for a first sentence. Spy-cicle (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: this is where I have discussed on the talk page.  🕵️Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The burden is still on you to gain consensus for these changes. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lets Apply the BLP guidelines

this page is littered with false information, smears and unreliable sources. I suggest a clean up and the removal of ALL contentious material, as propose the BLP guidelines. I understand many are attached to a specific narrative, however everything that touches alleged anti-feminism and the gamergate controversy is highly contentious. Those sections could be tranferred to the GG article without problem, however a bio page is not the place to continue feuds from outside of wikipedia or support one side or another of those feuds. This page could be skimmed to a fraction of its current volume and become more accurate by letting go the contentious stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines. Please make yourself familiar to it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the specific guideline I think would help the article, if applyied : The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. I think the NBC and NYT articles used as sources in this article would fit the description of tabloid journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times and NBC News are both widely considered to be reliable. The information on Gamergate is supported by reliable sources, and there's no clause in our BLP policies that prohibits us from mentioning reliably sourced events simply because they reflect negatively on a person. Nblund ^talk 20:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Events, yes. But let's not go that fast. They WHERE considered as such. It is not the case anymore. I am just warning you that everything that touches those controversies will be challenged and that the editors who are attached to those page cannot control the fact that consensus change. With time, it will become accurate. You cant freeze stuff in one way and expect it not to change. I suggest you read the guidelines too, that is what will get applyied, eventually. Friendly reminder : Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. its from the guidelines. So the article must be written conservatively, with caution. As it stands, the present article do not fit that descritpion. Sorry, it speacks for itself even if you try to frame it otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make changes to the article, you will need to supply WP:Reliable Sources that support your interpretation of events. Consensus can change, but I can assure you that there's not going be a consensus for calling the New York Times a tabloid. And it would be a waste of your time and everyone else's to pursue that sort of claim. Nblund ^talk 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Again, from the guidelines : 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 Burdon of proof is on you to demoustrate that some parts of the article must be kept. Not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Do I really need to bring a definition of the words conservatively, contentious, caution, poorly sourced and questionable to support my point ? I taught common sens was enough, again refering to the BLP guidelines. with love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also note that I am bringing apossible solution to those who wants to preserve some valuable work : move those part to the GG article. I think most of what would be removed from Carl<s bio could be preserved this way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, and not just biographical articles. This article is already heavily cited, as required by policy. What specific sentences are not supported by reliable sources? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I wont make a full list as it would take too much time. My suggestion is removal of 90% of the material to make things easier by applying the guidelines I have underlined. You wont confuse me be trying to pretend that the rules on a bio are the same than a non bio page. The rules of BLP should apply everytime it is question of living persons and is not being applied properly on huge sections of wikipedia, affecting its credibility and its ability to raise funds. I love wikipedia and want it to have the best ability to raise funds, which is why I advocate to remove 90% of that page lovely person :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We're not going nuke the entire article based on problems that you're not willing to enumerate. Please sign and indent your talk page comments. Nblund ^talk 21:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Lets put in another way. At this rate Carl will have a bio page the same size as Hillary Clinton before next christmas, which is really distorted considering that the guy has done barely nothing noticeable, compared to Hillary. To that, add that all that bad press and exposure really helps him. Thats why I suggest to start over and apply better encyclopedic principles. You would not want to help him to raise funds, aren't you ? And calling this 'nuke' is a little overstated, as I'm also suggesting that by default to preserve in another article. Just not on a page where it could be potentially in breach of BLP guidelines :)

I will let you sit in your litter and come back when I have the time to make a detailed list of all parts and sources to be removed with detailed arguments. Put it that way. The article looks like a tabloid. It makes wikipedia look like a tabloid. Why would some users want wikipedia to look or act as a tabloid ?

"To that, add that all that bad press and exposure really helps him." "You would not want to help him to raise funds, aren't [sic] you ?" "The article looks like a tabloid."

Are you familiar with the concept of concern trolling? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to open an honest discussion about applying wikipedia guidelines before attemtping to make modifications to it. I dont think consensus was reached for many additions, for example, which is why I dont know how to make it better without essentially nuking it as interpreted by other users. That is a mere opinion. If really you are attached to freeze it that way... not my problem. But framing dissent as trolling is not even a veiled treat. Should I contact an admin in the context I am being treatened of being locked out for disagreeing in a talk page of contentious material ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please also note that I am not precipitated. I might not come with specific suggestion before a month, giving all editors of that page a lot of time to defend each part they like and want to keep and/or demonstrate how and why the whole is indeed respecting the guidelines. If the burdon of proof is met I wont bother trying to make removals or critical modifications. I could understand however that you faced trolls repeatedly here. Present day politically charged content tend to attract youngsters and vandals ... Which is why I think WP BLP guidelines exists as they are and should be applyied. If NBC and NYT want to sabotage their business, that is up to them. WP policies should not follow suit and sabotage itself because those decided to do so. Take your time, I will also bring a detailed description of what I mean by tabloid journalism and why I think it describes this article, according to WP own guidelines. But I also have a job so I will ask for patience as I go through the rest of the guidelines about context, sourcing, NPOV, verifiability, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, put it another way. Would you be at ease to let another set of competent and anonymous admins review this page in depth, looking to see if indeed, as many seems to think, encyclopedic principles are being respected ? I still believe that many things about this article fits the description of disruptive editing. Here is a usefull quote :

Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. That very openness, however, sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy, or self-promotion. While notable minority opinions are welcomed when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

List of admins who are willing to take risks : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you have the time to leave walls of text complaining about unspecified issues but cannot provide a single example of problematic content from the article makes it seem far more that you are not here to help the encyclopedia. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

single point of view as diruptive editing

Is it specific enough and short enough ? Ok, lets reduce my expectation. Lets fix the lead first. Lead is highly contentious and here is my suggestion for removal on the lead :

is an anti-feminist

and

During the Gamergate controversy, he promoted a conspiracy theory that feminists were infiltrating video game research groups to influence game development according to a feminist agenda. Since Gamergate, his commentary has been largely devoted to promoting Brexit, and criticising "political correctness", feminism, Islam, and identity politics. Benjamin is also known for his 2016 remarks about rape and a female Member of Parliament, Jess Phillips. In response to her complaint that she frequently received rape threats from men online, Benjamin tweeted to her, "I wouldn't even rape you." Criticism of this comment and, a later remark in which Benjamin said he might rape Phillips but for the fact that "nobody's got that much beer", dominated press coverage of his unsuccessful 2019 candidacy for the South West England constituency of the European Parliament.[5][6]

Argument : from the BLP guidelines

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 (...) The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk • contribs)

That content is cited to reliable sources, as required by the BLP policy. Also, you need to indent and sign your comments per WP:TPG. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I ran out of bread crumbs part way into all this text. WP content is the result of the consensus of editors. It is not controlled by admins. If you wish to change content; you must gain consensus according to WP guidelines. Your current path of walls of complaints will not convince. Try another tactic. Keep in mind that we require reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Poorly sourced : source doesnt provide unambiguous quote and also provides a rebuttal that challenges the narrative proposed. would need rebuttal to fit NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

82.46.188.202 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The wiki should mention that Sargon of Akkad is a Classical Liberal

 Done (in part): no reliable source describes Benjamin as a classical liberal, but I did include a mention that he describes himself that way in the section on his political views. Nblund ^talk 17:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Is he from Swindon?

He's in the category "people from Swindon," but I was under the impression he wasn't from Swindon originally, and in fact, I think I've heard him say so; he has a fairly neutral accent, at least to my American ears. Twin Bird (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ditto on the accent, but a quick search pulled up nothing definitive. The accent people have doesn’t necessarily represent the common speech of where they’re from. Not saying that’s the case here, but I don’t think we can draw firm conclusions based on locality. Obviously, without sourcing, that’s original research. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

His accent doesn't matter unless reliable sources comment on it for some reason, which seems unlikely. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place and WP:CATDEF. He gained notability as a resident of Swindon, and lives in Swindon according to the article, so he is "from Swindon" as far as categories go. Place of birth is rarely a defining trait by itself. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Go with what’s verifiable. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't intend this to be a discussion on his accent; I'm pretty sure he's said he's not originally from Swindon. Twin Bird (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to edit the Rape comments section.

I'd like to edit and replace with a source this statement, as Carl Benjamin provided an example of Jess Philips giggling when male rape/men's rights was being discussed.

"Phillips has critiqued the idea of a "men's day" but has not mocked male suicide, which she believes to be a serious issue."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilddog73 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps what could be said instead is: "Phillips the idea of a "men's day" has critiqued and has openely laughed at the idea of male MPs raising men's issues in the Houses of Parliament but has not mocked male suicide, which she believes to be a serious issue." I would add this line to better reflect the footage but I think it may be better to seek more of a concensus. Spy-cicle (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Editor commentary about a Youtube video would be original research. Wikipedia content needs to be based on what is found in independent reliable sources, especially for a WP:BLP. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Spy-cicle that it would be OR, however the BLP guidelines can allow it to certain extent, with caution, and since it concerns another living person, I dont think we can safely add the opinion of Carl on that, it could also be potentially damageable for Jess Phillips so I would err in the direction of just avoiding. I mean, it was a non-rape comment, unlike suggest the lead of this talk. This is text book weasle speack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me correct myself. I did a mistake in my last comment so instead lets read the specific about self published sources : Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So you ccould not quote sargon himself, neither describe the video without doing OR or circumventing the guidelines about self-published sources. My proposition is to remove that section completely as it could become potentially damageable for either Carl or Jess. I would argue that as it stands it is more damageable to Jess than Carl. Since she is running for office, we should use caution and try not to influence how potential electors perceive her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like this section to be edited, changing, "Benjamin is under investigation by West Midlands Police for the comments." While I think this is superfluous and deems removal, I think that there being arguments for it's remaining be considered and that it be changed to the past-tense. Also, as noted in an article from a local newspaper, quoted a Police Spokesperson that Mr. Benjamin had been "dealt with by way of words of advice." If there is cause to keep the sentence I am questioning, I request an edit reading something along the lines of, "Benjamin was under investigation by West Midlands Police for the comments and had been 'dealt with by way of words of advice.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.154.11 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

References

I added the additional content about the conclusion of the investigation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Opposition to identity politics of all sorts

No mention of his opposition to the identity politics of white nationalists, e.g. arguing against Richard Spencer in an online debate, or trolling them by sending them male porn. It's almost as if it's a hit piece by leftist activists and hyperliberal neobigots rather than a NPOV article. No, surely that can't be... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.9 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. Please provide such sources and describe more specifically the content that you believe should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020

Update Channel views. The Thinkery = 135 million views Akkad Daily = 33 million views Sargon of Akkad = 300 million Haris920 (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've added the channel Akkad Daily and updated all stats to two significant figures. — Bilorv (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

List Akkad Daily on the right hand sidebar.

It is a newer alternate channel of his.

Created Sep 19, 2019

187K subscribers

28,781,689 views — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.194.25 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Bilorv (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Involvement with UKIP

Carl's political career is somewhat glossed over in this article. There is one sentence pertaining to his views on Brexit, and nothing on the events leading to his joining of UKIP or candidacy for MEP in 2019. Could someone please document this in this article? 73.210.59.230 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is already documented extensively under "Political career", and both UKIP and his MEP candidacy are mentioned in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe "he promoted the conspiracy theory that" is a neutral point of view

I would like to request that this particular line in the second paragraph be changed to something much more neutral, such as "he promoted the idea that" or "he believed that". The issue is that the term "conspiracy theory" in this context is picking a side on the truthfulness of the statement, whereas I don't believe it's within the interest of Wikipedia to pick a side on some issue.

76.68.123.75 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of reliable sources is that the Gamergate controversy involves a conspiracy theory, and so Wikipedia does as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely does "pick a side" on issues such as the earth being round, humans walking on the moon and Benjamin's ideas about DiARA being false. In short, we say what reliable secondary sources say about the issues. Take a look at the second of our five pillars (In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view). (While we're on this topic, however, I'd say that feminists were infiltrating video game research groups to influence game development according to a feminist agenda is clunky and redundant wording and we can both tighten this prose up and be a bit more specific about the conspiracy he promoted.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Patreon Wording issues

A key aspect of why Jordan Peterson, etc left Patreon is that Carl made his comments on someone else's livestream, not on his own video and not on his own channel. This was a step well beyond the scope that Patreon's own Terms of Service described. 68.49.40.87 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

From what I have seen, independent sources do not consider this distinction to be important, but if you know of one, let's see it. As the BI source mentions, Patreon itself hosts very little content at all, it mainly acts as a funding conduit for activity hosted elsewhere. Benjamin alone is responsible for the words that come out of his mouth, and it's unrealistic to expect Patreon to ignore objectionable content merely based on who clicked the "publish" button, for liability reasons, if nothing else. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war?

There is a notice on my talk page that I an engaged in "edit warring". The other parties to the discussion - also participants in the alleged "edit war" - have not also been warned. Why not? 5JVL9 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Look harder. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

English liberal

I corrected the description of Mr. Benjamin's political beliefs. He describes himself as an "English liberal". Cleaned up the article, removed redundant information and reorganized information into a new section. 5JVL9 (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What he describes himself is not what we go by. Please stop trying to whitewash his history. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I edited the page in good faith, using the proper procedures and cited objective fact, also for purposes of formatting and therefore improving the article. Please do not engage in behavior that violates WP:AGF and WP:NPOV, Thank you. 5JVL9 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Zero Serenity is correct that we do not describe an individual based on how they describe themselves, but how reliable sources describe them. Otherwise we would not be able to use labels such as "neo-Nazi", "scam artist", "conspiracy theorist" etc. which many individuals would not describe themselves as due to negative connotations (that's the reason for the rule, not anything I'm associating Benjamin with). In this case, Benjamin is not seen as a liberal and the far-right political party he has stood for election under—UKIP—are certainly not described by most sources as liberal. See the second paragraph of the "Political views" section and note the heavy density of reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Because of this dispute, I have added the POV tag. 5JVL9 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That tag doesn't have much of a future. The answers you have received here are the right ones, and there isn't going to be an edit of the sort you have in mind... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The POV of this article (and pretty much every gamergate article) has been discussed to death. Unless you have a new reliable secondary source that says he turned over a new leaf, its not worth restarting this argument. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot remove the POV tag without first discussing the subject and reaching an agreement. This is not about "Gamergate": this concerns the wholesale dismissal of objective fact. 5JVL9 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

By you, yes. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I will follow the process described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution first. I have yet to present my arguments, therefore you or anyone else cannot remove the POV tag. Thank you for your cooperation. 5JVL9 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This exact issues has been debated several times already on this talk page, as well as on similar articles. Using reliable sources rather than various statements by an article subject is not a POV issue. Unless there are new arguments being made, I agree with the others here that the POV tag needs to be removed as there is no clear neutrality issues. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am actually going to remove the tag. Four people have commented in this section already objecting to the POV tag, and only one person supports it. That seems like a clear consensus, especially if the numerous past discussions are taken into consideration. – wallyfromdilbert (talk)

Actually, another editor removed it as I was doing so, which means now that five editors are now opposed to the tag. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

5JVL9, Well, a tag can be removed if its not valid. You can't just add a tag to force a conversation if the tag isn't appropriate. We aren't beholden to bureaucracy or the process if it is being misused.The article seems to present him quite neutrally considering just how controversial of a figure he is. What he says he is means nothing, we care what reliable sources say. Sure he may say he's a liberal, but that doesn't line up with a societal meaning of the term. Perhaps you could say he is a neo-liberal, but that is quite distinct from liberal. And regardless, reliable sources say something quite different: he's anti-feminist, which is the more relevant wording considering his central involvement in gamergate. This has been well argued before; don't attempt to change the wording again unless you can create a thorough consensus on the talkpage first. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree with the tag, for what it's worth. We can't just slap them on facts we don't like as a badge of shame. We also can't use them to discredit content we have tried to object to, but which have consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrected description of his political views. Moved antifeminist reference to political section. 5JVL9 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I literally hate Don Sargoon. But holy NPOV batman.

But even I'm not that corrupt with bias I would call this article NPOV. The lede is so disingenuous it's like an attempt to stack yellow journalisms best hit pieces on him. He is an English liberal YouTube commenter. He isn't 'anti-feminism' in the classical sense of feminism, he is anti intersectional third wave feminism perhaps. But many feminists are. The rest of the lede just reads like a dirty smear piece. As I said, I'm probably the antithesis of a fan of his, I loathe the man, but at least have some fucking integrity Wikipedia. We know you're utterly subverted and are now a propaganda site but shit. Pretend to have some integrity maybe? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

If you have genunine criticisms of the page in its current form suggest specific changes to the lede whilst being civil.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I already tried to be civil. Note the result above and below. 5JVL9 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and I have no dog in the game (I’m Dutch). The learned footnotes to publications like the Guardian, Vox and Salon made me laugh out loud. The article itself is a hit piece. I am reminded once more why I regularly consult Wikipedia on non-ideological subjects, but seldom on controversial topics. GdB (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSP. The Guardian and Vox are high quality sources, whilst statements from Salon are generally significant when attributed (as it is in its one usage as one of five reliable sources to verify that Benjamin has been associated to the alt-right, already a very softly worded claim). If there are other reliable sources not included in the article then please present them. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Who decides if The Guardian and Vox are are "high quality sources"? 5JVL9 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

5JVL9, if you’re editing with both an IP and a named account, you should stop, as that’s against policy. Stick to one or the other. Your reply above indicates you are. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You're poisoning the well and not assuming good faith. 5JVL9 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I’m just using my eyes, and trying to be helpful. Using both accounts simultaneously will get you blocked. Alerting you to as much was meant to be a courtesy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I am not using two accounts, nor am I editing this article without signing in. You may verify this if you wish. 5JVL9 (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as “who indicates reliable sources”, the Wikipedia community does. According to a set of criteria. See WP:IRS. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

English Liberal

Off-topic kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Corrected the record pursuant to WP:VERIFY. 5JVL9 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. Your change is not supported by reliable third-party sources, and you would need to gain a new consensus here on the talk page to change content that has been reached through multiple prior discussions. This has already been explained to you by several editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC) I agree with Wallyfromdilbert and I'd also like to add that tagging his perfectly valid revert as vandalism looks a lot like deliberate disruption. This needs to stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC) If you look at the other editors who oppose my valid edits, they have "feminist" user boxes displayed on their user pages. This denotes they are clearly partisan, are enforcing a political bias, and are violating WP:NPOV as a result. I have followed the requisite WP:VERIFY. You are gaming the system, refuse to follow your own rules, and as such, you are intellectually dishonest. This is why normal people do not edit Wikipedia. 5JVL9 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Kekistan

Shouldn't we mention how he is recognized as the founder, or at least popularizer, of Kekistan and Pepe the Frog? I think that's kind of important. Praise Kek! 108.69.177.6 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I think the last time the "Kekistani" flag got any coverage in reliable sources was Charlottesville, where a woman was murdered. Is anyone even still using that meme? Regardless, alt-right memes are not welcome here, and "Praise Kek" is an alt-right meme. "Kekistan" is explained at Pepe the Frog#Appropriation by the alt-right. This article used to mention the connection, but the only source was a gossip column by Ian Miles Cheong for the unreliable, defunct website Heat Street. Too flimsy. If you know of a better source, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

UKIP membership

Carl Benjamin is no longer a member of UKIP. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iFOlozO9OI&t=41m7s 158.125.228.51 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree (more likely that he is inactive) unless you can provide a source for his current membership. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iFOlozO9OI&t=4768 EatingFudge (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin's religious affiliation

I added Carl Benjamin to the category of English Atheists but it kept getting reverted. He does mention being an atheist in some of his videos including this one where he's filling out a questionnaire on the subject of religious affiliation. That's direct evidence of Carl Benjamin's religious beliefs and that his entry does fit into the category of English Atheists.--CrossoverManiac (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to include this information unless it's mentioned in a reliable secondary source, in which case it would also need to be present in the body of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-feminist links

Reference 20,3 and 4 are supposed to be proof of anti-feminism - however they say nothing of the sort....? They literally link to an article that says anti-feminist and then have no evidence or further links to other articles that prove it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.114.156 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't access reference 4, but reference 3 and 20 say what they are cited for. We rely not on "proofs", but on what reliable sources say, as they have their own fact-checking procedures behind the scenes. — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar to the other two sources, reference 4 (The New York Times) says "the anti-feminist polemic Carl Benjamin". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Improvement undone, proof of double standard?

Undone edit summary: "Your perspective on quotation has not garnered consensus on the talk page, and it's not neutral to whitewash the most egregious part of a comment when it is discussed in detail by the given source" — Bilorv

I thought I had consensus. Previously on the 'nobody's got that much beer' talk someone opposed stated "We don't indulge in gratituous quotes anywhere on Wikipedia, whether it's paraphrasing movie reviewers or summarising an interview quote down to its bare essentials." — Bilorv This is under POLITICAL VIEWS. Accordingly Benjamin's view is that Jewish people should not engage with identity politics. That he is sorry about the Holocaust or doesn't give a shit or that he's again sorry is not relevant. Please remember that this isn't a platform to list Benjamin's so-called provocateur speech.

Add missing context of quote that could be positive to his image? No that is excessive! Remove excessive part of of quote that could be negative to his image? No that is important context! Certainly seems like a double standard to me.- EatingFudge (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You removed the half of the quotation that has been most commonly reported e.g. in the article's JC source, in Times of Israel, BuzzFeed News, i, PinkNews etc. This was clearly done with a motivation to whitewash Benjamin's article based on your edits to this article.

I actually agree that the sentence as written isn't ideal, the lengthy quote being part of the problem, and the other problem being that we don't comment on what news sources said about the quote. I'd suggest that the event is better reflect with some of these extra sources and the prose: Benjamin received criticism for saying at a 2018 panel in New York City, when discussing Jewish people, "I'm sorry about the Holocaust but I don't give a shit." The comments were widely described as anti-semitic [Times of Israel, i, PinkNews] or racist [BuzzFeed News]. — Bilorv (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And what of his not enough beer comment? Is removing the context/reason for his statement thats quoted in the source not also whitewashing? We need to enforce the rules equally and if whitewashing things that paint him in a positive light is acceptable then I shell endeavour to apply an equal standard to things the paint him in a negative light. However in this instance I wish to remove it because it is not relevant to his view on Jewish identity politics. The suggested revision is worse because it removes his political view on the matter. Not caring about something is not a political view and suggesting the hijacking of the category with this as a compromise is ridiculous. If you feel all his problematic statements must be said then perhaps a ‘’’Controversial Statements’’’ category should be added. EatingFudge (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Relevance is decided by sources and consensus. WP:CSECTIONs should be avoided, and they should especially not be expanded as a way to prove a WP:POINT. We're not interested in playing those kinds of games. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Including the "nobody's got that much beer" comment in full

I don't see why including the "nobody's got that much beer" comment in full is not an improvement. It is included in full in the Huffington Post article, so snippetting it in the article is a Wikipedia editorial decision rather than one made by secondary sources. As horrific as his remark was, I think it's necessary to provide some context. Alex (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alex, thats a very good point.

I've mulled over why the failure to include the full quote is a problem when others are adamant that it's not. Seems pretty insignificant but what we must consider is that because viewers who follow through to the sources are such a small percentage, all information provided here is by default all that will guide a viewer's understanding. This is an excellent reason for championing WP:NPOVD

Anyway

Mr. Benjamin's second comment has been curtailed by 85%, to the point of removing all meaning. In its stead, it has been paraphrased into a biased indictment. Besides the obvious use of "negative" to define his comment. (This is subjective and not for us to decide either way.) Context is the problem and Context is important. For example, if we were to declare Bette Davis a controversial misogynist of their time because they said "When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch.” this would be wholly disingenuous to the point of malicious lying. With the proper context: “When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch.” we are able to better understand Davis's true intent. I will stop here as I don't believe I'm stating anything unknown. Despite this, I am sure I will have to break down the subjects of humour, rebuke, and rebuttal to explain how this: “I’ve been in a lot of trouble for my hardline stance of not even raping her. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave. But let’s be honest, nobody’s got that much beer.” Cannot possibly be summarised honestly as "saying that he might rape her but "nobody's got that much beer"". Which is why I want to add the full quote so the reader can sort it out themselves. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. EatingFudge (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The quote is not taken out of context. It's clear from the snippet presented that it's a rape joke. Unless you disagree that it's a joke and it's about rape then there we are. We don't indulge in gratituous quotes anywhere on Wikipedia, whether it's paraphrasing movie reviewers or summarising an interview quote down to its bare essentials. Per WP:QUOTEFARM, Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. This isn't a platform to list Benjamin's so-called humour. It's a platform to repeat what reliable secondary sources report and many of them lead with this "nobody's got that much beer" fragment, and certainly all of them report it as something negative. What you seem to be missing is that Davis' quote uses the word "bitch" as a referent to how other people describe her (and other women), whereas in Benjamin's full quote, he's still joking about the act of raping a targeted individual, just in more detail. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I personally was confused by the "context" provided and the lack of consistency between the quote and source provided. I support putting the quote in full in this particular instance. Kirkworld (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize. Any version of the quote is going to be cut short, because the article cannot include his entire speech. The Huffington Post article included slightly more of the quote because that was the main point of that article, and they have their own guidelines anyway. The Wikipedia article attempts to cover a lot more, and therefor must be more succinct. The point should be to summarize why his attempted joke was encyclopedically noteworthy, not to provide public relations for Benjamin. The full quote is not necessary for this. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv Actually, what is being disagreed on is whether its JUST a rape joke and can be summarized as such. I dissent from this opinion and maintain the comment has ideas of humour, rebuke, and rebuttal. Far more than the shock value currently ascribed. WP:QUOTEFARM Are guidelines not rules, see second paragraph for why an exception should be considered. By the same spirit, this isn't a platform to discredit individuals of a different persuasion. It's a platform to amalgamate knowledge from all sources and distill it into a neutral unbiased encyclopedia. (Or have I been mislead by my idealism?) The Davis quote is an over simplified example. You’re welcome to poke holes in it but it sure was handy to have the entire quote there too eh?

Grayfell Normally I would agree with you that a summary is proper. However, as indicated by fresh people continually bringing it up, this summary is unduly biased and misleading. I'd like to think that was one of my main points above. "Wholly disingenuous to the point of..." Since us Wikipedians cannot be trusted to arrive at a neutral summary. The logical action is to place it in its entirety. We are not talking about the works of Shakespeare here, this article can handle the additional 28 words and the peace it can bring.

Additionally, Benjamin's preceding comment was quoted in full including the hashtags. Anyone else find it amusing that hashtags are given more contextual value than the setup for a joke? EatingFudge (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv You haven't cited any policy since EatingFudge's last comment, which did itself cite policy. You can't use "consensus is about the strength of arguments and citation of policy, not a tally of votes" as an excuse. So both on strength of argument and in tally of votes, the quote should be added in full. Alex (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus also includes previous discussions of an issue, but the steady trickle of Benjamin's fans who attempt to make the article more flattering will still need to follow WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I cited WP:QUOTEFARM and EatingFudge's comment only mentions this policy in an explanation of why to disregard it, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't mention a different one. Tally of votes is irrelevant and consensus has not been established. — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the current version (excluding the added words some are trying to include) misrepresents Benjamin's statement, and I don't see a need to expand the passage by adding more of his statement. The message is essentially the same -- and so I think we should keep it concise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

So to summarize. The gatekeepers think that because the bias is found in 'reliable' sources that it's acceptable and that the copy paste nature of modern media only adds to legitimacy via perceived consensus.

Seems WP:NPOV needs an asterisk because I have been grossly mislead. EatingFudge (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Here'a a compromise that should work for everyone. I've changed part of the summary, from "might rape her" into "might be pressured into raping her". This is a more honest and neutral summary of the quote. It only adds three words.

Although the most honest summary of the joke would be that he "might be pressured into retracting his comment about not raping her, but nobody has that much beer." Would anyone object if it were increased further to that?
Amaroq64 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no source that I'm aware of that uses "pressured into raping her". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't object any more strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The source already attributed for the summary is the source that uses this.

“I’ve been in a lot of trouble for my hardline stance of not even raping her. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave. But let’s be honest, nobody’s got that much beer.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/police-ukip-carl-benjamin-jess-phillips-rape_uk_5cd14f1ce4b04e275d4fb741

My summary is more honest and neutral, but it was reverted. It should be restored.

Amaroq64 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carl Benjamin's rape joke

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carl Benjamin's rape joke. — Bilorv (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Include brouhaha about "I find racist jokes funny"?

So, it looks like Mr. Benjamin caused another minor stir last year with what some have deemed offensive language. Here are some examples of what I mean: [3] [4] [5] It gets a brief mention here: [6] It seems to me lesser than the rape joke controversy, but I think it merits a mention. What do other editors think? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Those articles (discounting the BBC) all mention the rape comments, which seem to be the bulk of the coverage. I wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention of David Lammy condemning Benjamin for using the word "nigger", as that seems to be a significant story, but I don't think we should list everything Benjamin has said that he has been criticised for. — Bilorv (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor change to the lead

I came to this page after seeing the thread on BLP. I made this change [7] to the lead of the article. I believe the current lead is generally good, but this part —and a later remark in which Benjamin said he might rape Phillips but for the fact that "nobody's got that much beer"— is inappropriate. This kind of editorial aside is not encyclopedic in tone, and combination of paraphrase and direct quote is awkward. Also, it's just unnecessary. The lead is supposed to introduce and summarize the person's notability, and I think the quote "I wouldn't even rape you" is enough of an introduction for people to understand why these comments became such a big deal. The rest of the incident can be covered in more detail in the body of the article. User:Bilorv reverted me on the grounds that no changes should be made. Does anyone object to the content of my proposal? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

See also #How to summarize the rape comment, above.

What, exactly, is an editorial aside, here? It is what he said per multiple sources. What Benjamin said is certainly not in an encyclopedic tone, but is that want you meant? We have to use an encyclopedic tone to summarize very crude comments, and it's tricky to do that in an appropriate way.

That said, how necessary it is should be decided by source, but you're right, it's not entirely necessary. If the purpose of removing it is to make the lead more encyclopedic, I think this would functionally be downplaying significant comments because of their content. If the purpose is to make a tighter summary that summarizes source in fewer words, we should talk about that, instead. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean his comments were unencyclopedic. What he said is a major part of his notability and needs to be covered in this article. I mean that the way this sentence is structured is unencyclopedic. The emdash parenthetical is conversational in tone. It reads like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia and should be removed. That's really my only problem with the lead, and my edit is one suggestion for fixing it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the comments themselves, I guess my preference is that we quote exactly what he said and then explain the impact. Readers will come away from the article better informed if we quote the comments in full than if we try to paraphrase them. But I think that kind of detail belongs in the body, and I can see there's been a long and angry discussion on that topic which I don't really want to get involved in. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I see there are proposals for a more substantial rewrite of the lead at BLP, so maybe this discussion is pointless. I think Bilorv's proposal there, to just replace the whole thing with Benjamin's widely-condemned comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 European Parliament candidacy. is probably a better solution for the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, that makes sense. I think that, per Bilorv's revert, this depends on the consensus at BLP/N. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not editorializing. It's simply better phrasing.

Sources use of Cast doubt changed to Critiqued. Critiqued: Evaluate in a detailed and analytical way. Cast doubt: Cause something or someone to be questioned. These two words are substantially different so as to potentialy mislead a reader and exchanging them for simply ‘better phrasing’ is ignorance at best. But thats ok, Watching the interaction I have come up with an even better phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingFudge (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As has already been explained countless times on this talk page, we are not interested in an editor's personal interpretation of a primary source. We are interested in reliable, independent sources. That this primary source is a youtube clip from the Daily Mail only further undermines the significance of this interpretation, per WP:DAILYMAIL. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me. Fixed the wording to matched the reliable source.EatingFudge (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, see WP:POINT. You clearly already know you have been challenged on this. Discuss first, and stop playing pedantic games. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I do realise I have been challenged on using the words of a reputable source. The reason given was better phrasing. So I picked a better word to use for best phrasing based on my reading of secondary sources and knowledge of the English language. Linking to the video hosted by the Daily Mail was only so people can have an unbiased understanding of what happened and was not used for interpretation.

As for WP:POINT I followed the example of others. If you feel that others have made a poor example for me, I may agree with you. Anyway, please enlighten me as to why we cannot use the words of the referenced reputable source, instead of the not editorialising but simply better phrasing word of current use. EatingFudge (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The original change to dismissed is not verifiable from any presented reliable source. The next change was to cast doubt, which the source actually did say, but the sentence structure was already a bit close paraphrasing and only differed by a couple of words. Source said: Phillips has cast doubt on the idea of a “men’s day” but has not laughed about male suicide, which she has said is a serious issue. We said: Phillips has critiqued the idea of a "men's day" but has not mocked male suicide, which she believes to be a serious issue. To avoid any possible clopping, I've changed it to Phillips had critiqued the idea of a "men's day" but said that male suicide is a serious issue. Note also that we said that Phillips "believes [male suicide] to be a serious issue", which is rather different to what the source said (she said that ...); we can't possibly discern a figure's true thoughts, only what they say and what their actions indicate. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah so its an issue of whether its editorializing or paraphrasing. Well since the introduced word “Critiqued” infers an impartial or maybe positive action while reputable sources say she laughed or mocked. And as you may know, these are negative uses therefore I would say the switch from negative to positive is more than a superficial modification, its editorializing.

And actually if we remove the non-reliable source politicshome and use the reputable telegraph (mentioned above) we can have a good idea about what he thought she was laughing at. Voiding the entire sentence. EatingFudge (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Both sources you cite say Phillips laughed at Davies, not the idea of a "men's day", if you want to get this specific. I don't understand why you believe PoliticsHome to be unreliable, and the Telegraph source you've given is an opinion column, a bit less reliable. I don't believe I've actually said anything to indicate that I think critiqued is the best word here, because I don't—I think criticised would be best, but we've not yet got consensus for anything but the status quo, and I'm not particularly convinced that writing hundreds of words to argue over the choice of one word is the best use of any of our times. — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your repeated utterence about the existance of a consensus for status quo does not make this false statement true. It is manifestly clear that a few ideologically driven user want to attack and criticise the subject, and are resisting any attemps to correct the page from other editors. These other editors are worn down by constant bad faith argument, ignoring of good points, moving of the goal posts, and then accusation of incivility when this is pointed out. Francis1867 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for any of that, Francis? It sounds like unsubstantiated ASPERSIONS to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it okay to use Benjamin's own videos as sources for this article?

When it comes to how Benjamin personally describes himself and his political views, I noticed that the cited sources are all from media outlets. On paper, this is fine, but if this article is to have an accurate collection of what Benjamin himself says he believes, wouldn't it be most accurate if we used his own library of videos. They are first-hand sources of what he thinks, and he has quite a large pool of content across his YouTube channels. We should include the information of what other media outlets and groups of people across the political spectrum believe him to be, but when it comes to how he views himself, I believe the article should take that straight from the horse's mouth. ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed more times than I can count. Wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary sources, and also for independent sources (which are not necessarily the same). Per WP:SPSSELF, his own videos can be used for routine, non-controversial details, but other sources are usually preferable. This info is typically limited to very basic biographical detail, such as full name, year of birth, place of schooling, etc. Opinions are not routine information in most cases, and any inclusion of his views without an outside sign of significance would be a form of promotion ("unduly self-serving" as WP:RS describes it).

To put it another way, as has already been discussed, picking-and-choosing which of his many opinion to include should be decided by reliable sources, not by editors. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, secondary sources are needed here to tell us which information to include (out of thousands of hours of footage of Benjamin), what relative importance it has in relation to other facts about him, and how to describe that information. Any short summary selected from hundreds of primary sources would not be a summary from the horse's mouth, but from the summarising editor's personal point of view. — Bilorv (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)