Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

the claim of supporting Marine LePen is unsourced

The article states "Along with Trump, Benjamin has endorsed other right wing politicians such as Marine Le Pen.[26]".

This is not supported by the source given. Even though the quoted article, from an experimental academic journalism project named "Nieman Lab", is itself extremely thinly sourced, it never makes such a claim. It only claims Sargon criticized Macron, making a catchy graphic about him that was subsequently picked up by others. "If you don't support me you are my enemy" is not a valid maxim in life (Matthew 12:30 notwithstanding), and should not be such on Wikipedia.

If noone offers convincing arguments to the contrary, I plan to remove that claim from the article. Wefa (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the main relevant paragraph from the source:

To report that on April 29, at 6 p.m. French time, Twitter was bombarded by a number pro-Marine Le Pen memes would be correct; to say it was a planned “raid” announced the day before and coordinated from a Discord server would be more accurate (and a far more interesting story). Similarly, to say people depicted Macron as a Marie Antoinette-like figure isn’t wrong, but it’s more comprehensive to note that it came about following a video and posts from an English right-wing activist who goes by the name of Sargon of Akkad.[1]

Nieman Foundation for Journalism is a generally reliable source. I have no idea why you're saying that it's "extremely thinly sourced", since it's better sourced than most journalism, and that's not really the standard we use, anyway. The above paragraph cites five WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia tends to avoid primary sources directly, instead prefering secondary sources, such as the Nieman article. Benjamin's article in particular has a glut of primary sources, also, so we should avoid adding more if possible. The specific tweet of Sargon's cited by the Nieman article is no longer visible, as the account has been suspended. This is not a fault of Nieman, however.

So this is a reliable source directly linking behavior by Benjamin, who is identified as a "English right-wing activist", to a flurry of pro-Le Pen activity. I would say this is significant enough to include, but this needs to be rephrased to more closely follow the source. Drawing a link to Trump is understandable, but this is not supported by the source, making it WP:SYNTH, so this specific part should just be removed. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. a.) that Nieman article is a press critique. It deals with style of reporting. The quote you present mentions two occurrences which the Nieman author thinks are incompletely reported. But the Nieman article text does NOT claim any causality or link in acting here - he just criticizes what he considers similarily shallow reporting. He mentions Sargon criticizing Macron. That is not an endorsement of LePen. b.) and less importantly, the Nieman article is thinly sourced because it links to a bunch of tweets that have been deleted and thus effectively do not exist any more. Not existing tweets are not sources. Wefa (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, this source links Benjamin to a flurry of pro-Le Pen activity, but I did not say that Benjamin was pro-Le Pen. If you want to claim a lack of causal connection, that would be ignoring the context of the article, but regardless, I agree that the sentence should be rephrased to more closely match the source.

Even on Wikipedia, sources do not have to be online to be considered reliable. Especially with links within sources, WP:LINKROT is not an excuse, by itself, to remove material. We do not expect sources to always directly cite all of their sources, and we don't expect all of these sources to include archives or similar. Sources are not held to the exact same standard as Wikipedia articles. If we accept that a source is reliable then we accept that they know how to handle such sources. If a tweet later gets deleted, that doesn't suddenly invalidate every source which mentioned it when it was live but failed to include a screen-cap.

If you have some reason to believe this article isn't reliable, you need to explain it more clearly, because as far as I know, Nieman Lab has a good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. That's the standard Wikipedia uses. I don't know, exactly, why being a press critique would make this less reliable. If anything, holding journalists to a higher standard is consistent with both Wikipedia and Benjamin's messages. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

NO! This source does NOT "link Benjamin to a flurry of pro-Le Pen activity"! Are we reading two different sources? The source quoted here reports on two unrelated occurrences, and the only connection between these the source draws is the fact that the occurrences are shallowly reported in a similar way. Remember, the Nieman Journalisms Lab's main goal and area of interest is "help journalism figure out its future in an Internet age". As such they deal less with news per se as with the question how news is and should be reported.

Now, maybe, you think you can infer from the text and your knowledge of the writer a between-the-lines claim of causal connection or endorsement by the writer, but the text itself does not support that link. And its not what the writer THINKS what we base Wikipedia articles on, it is on what he WRITES and what is subsequently object of editorial judgment and organized fact checking by the (presumably) reliable news organization we quote as a source.

I will not pursue the sources issue at this point. While I disagree with you, it is of minor importance, since the article seems to be well sourced enough for the points it is actually making. Here we just need to stick to them :-) Wefa (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The text itself does link Benjamin to pro-Le Pen memes. It mentions the pro-Le Pen memes and says it would be more interesting and more accurate to mention Discord, and then says that similarly Macron was mocked through twitter, which originated with Benjamin. This is a link. Sticking to sources does not mean we have to ignore to basic facts, like the fact that Le Pen was the only candidate running against Macron at that time. This is explaining these two things as being closely connected. As I said, if you want to ignore the causal connection, you would be ignoring the context provided by the source. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An inferred link to specific events/behaviors that were favorable to one candidate and unfavorable to another is not equivalent to stating that Benjamin "endorsed" one of the two candidates. Stating that he "endorsed" Le Pen without a primary source citation, in a BLP, is synthesis, and disallowed by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. A tacit endorsement is not an endorsement. I have rephrased this accordingly. We do not need a primary source for this, however. We should use secondary sources, whenever possible, to establish due weight. Not every political comment he makes belongs, so this would require secondary sources to indicate it's worth mentioning at all. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That was my point - if the article is to say that he 'endorsed' Le Pen, it would have to be from the LP's mouth, which is appropriate and allowed in a BLP, when there is controversy about what the LP did/didn't express. Thanks for fixing the article. Anastrophe (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you have converted an open denunciation into a tacit one. Lets not mince words here for a second: the purpose of bringing LePen in here is denunciatory - link Sargon to Nazi LepPen and thus implicitly denunciate Sargon as a Nazi. The source did not say that - it is the Wikipedia author who infers that and uses it to undue purpose. Frankly, LePen needs to go from this text, as there is no substantial reason for her to be here. I changed the article accordingly. Wefa (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly we differ in our interpretation of the source. Benjamin's actions are what's being reflected here, and this includes important context specifically supported by the source which would not otherwise be obvious from the text. It is not up to us to determine how that should reflect on Benjamin, but it should reflect on him, since we are attempting to write an article which reflects his actions according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(outdent)Grayfell, you reverted me without seeking debate. You are not the Lord of this article who can overrule the rest of us if we displease you. Please seek consensus before reverting. And frankly, you need to stop projecting your inability to parse simple English language correctly onto Wikipedia. I will spell it out for you. The source wrote:

   To report [fact-1] would be correct; 
      to say [fact-1x] would be more accurate(...). 
Similarly, 
   to say [fact2] isn’t wrong, 
      but it’s more comprehensive to note [fact 2x].

Now, it's glaringly obvious from this that fact1 and 1x are linked, as are 2 and 2x, but there is no link claimed fact1/1x and fact2/2x. As LePen is in 1x, and Sargon in 2x, it thus obvious beyond doubt that the writer did not link the two, not even tacitly! Therefore LePen can not be in this article based on this source. You misread the text. I will therefore reinstate my change. Wefa (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You try again to argue that "important context" needs to be considered; the "context" being that Macron was running against LePen and thus, in your mind, it can be inferred that anyone who criticized Macron supports LePen. This is obviously bollocks, and WP:SYNTH to begin with. Wefa (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked Grayfells most recent edit which was reverted. The removed material stated, in its whole, Benjamin criticized Emmanuel Macron in his run against far right politician Marine Le Pen. The bolded part has been removed. I fail to see the controversy. Macron was running against Le Pen. This is a simple statement of fact. What's the issue? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeesh. I did not say that Benjamin directly supported Le Pen. Although I do think the source strongly implies that he indirectly supported her, and the source does specifically mention Le Pen as the context for Benjamin's activities (or rather, both as context for news media's coverage of right-wing trolling). I specifically altered the wording to removed the statement that Benjamin supported Le Pen. I also did not originally include the phrase "far right" before Le Pen, although again, this is a simple statement of fact according to an overwhelming quantity of sources. I retained "right-wing", and this was specifically because the context of the entire "political views" section is discussing Benjamin's political position, and the source specifically calls him "right-wing".

I do not really have a strong opinion on "far right" vs "right-wing" in particular, but it's indisputable that it's related to the attached source's commentary on the election, and also relevant to a section on Benjamin's political position. We are obligated to assess sources as a whole, not merely the thinnest possible slices which apply to the topic at hand. Media literacy means we have to assess the surrounding elements of a statement, not merely take it in total isolation, but I'm sure me explaining something as remedial as this would be almost as condescending as if I were to accuse you of lacking the basic ability to parse simple English language correctly onto Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to wade further into these waters, but apparently that's not stopping me :). A couple of concerns here would be Weight and Recentism. I realize, fully, that google result counts are not probative to determining the importance of an event (or idea or whatever). However, it is worth noting that if you search on "carl benjamin" "marine le pen" in a single query, it registers a massive.....375 results, and of course it's 374 when you exclude the first result which is to this selfsame article. That falls into the noise in terms of notability. Mr. Benjamin has expounded for hundreds of hours on his youtube channel, and on pretty much every imaginable current or near recent political or ideological matter.

So, at this point, I tend to feel that the inclusion at all of this material falls well into WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENT. It's just not something that appears to have been particularly noteworthy, or material to the BLP.

Two cents tendered. Anastrophe (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The righwingwatch quote

The rightwingwatch quote is problematic. According to the source rightwingwatch.com, in the context of a long interview Sargon is postulating two bad options - the collapse of liberal democracy and the rule of law because of the success of SJW dictators or the success of the alt right. And he notes that the success of the alt right would be less intolerable to him than the other option. Which is, IMO, a somewhat stupid thought experiment, because if the alt right ever got its wish, it would pick up every single bad habit that makes the SJWs so intolerable. But it's a thought experiment, a retorical device, not a political program. Rightwingwatch only reports minimally on the context and turns that thing into a Gotcha! against Sargon. (the RWW articvle is titled "Sargon Of Akkad (...) Reveals His Alt-Right Sympathies"). And the inclusion into the Wikipedia article reduces that context even further. This perfectly illustrates why Rightwingwatch is not a reliable source. Their intent is not reporting but denunciation. Therefore we should remove that reference and the claim based on it. Wefa (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 i agree --Fleritarus (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done --Fleritarus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Carl Benjamin's Ancestry

I assert that it is not trivia to include his racial status. His racial background has had a profound impact on his political views, and are a point of constant contention with those on the far-right. His mixed race background has been used in defense of his self-proclaim liberalist ideology, to discribe how extremist political ideologies destroy the rights of individuals. I also assert that it is not poorly sourced. There are multiple sources where he confirms this ancestry, and it is widely known in the broad audience. Almost all public persons have information concerning their ancestry, and Carl Benjamin should have his listed as well. There is also a video source of Benjamin with his one half black African father. Beyond being one quarter black African from his paternal side, Carl Benjamin is of generally British descent, mostly English. here are some instances,

References

I will respond in detail in a few minutes, when I get the chance to give this proper attention. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

alright. Here is a tweet from a close friend of Sargon, discussing his ancestry recently. [2]

2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There are at least two big, big problems with these changes.

First, "black African" is not in the same category as "mostly English ancestry", nor is any of this contextualized at all. "African" is not a single, monolithic ethnicity. Which ethnic group(s) from Africa did Benjamin's granpappy belong to? Your proposed wording spent more space to use less detail to describing only one of his grandparents, while mostly ignoring the other three, but still using greater detail to explain their ethnicity. This is not proportionate to its sginificance, nor is it neutral, since it buys into a common, but deeply flawed view of race and ethnicity.

If this is about accusations of racism and xenophobia, Benjamin's deflections of those accusations, and his feud with overt neo-Nazis, a reliable source would have to provide that context. Without context, this turns his ancestry in to badly-formed trivia, which brings me to the other problem.

Posts to reddit from random anonymous users are not reliable or weighty sources, especially not for a WP:BLP, so they cannot be used on to provide this context. Tweets from some guy are also not reliable sources. As a vlogger, Benjamin's videos are also not weighty nor reliable for most claims, because he produces hours and hours of content. We need reliable, outside sources to filter out which parts are important and which are not. If a source like the Sunday Times mentions his 23andme results, so be it. Until then, this is misleading, because it is highlighting and distorting a handful of WP:PRIMARY sources to imply loaded point about race which isn't contextualized by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I used the term "black African," because that is what Benjamin himself uses, and describes his paternal grandfather as "fully black." He has never given an ethnic description of this black African grandfather. He has given ethnic descriptions for his other sides of the family, hence, generally British ancestry, mostly English/Welsh. (His exact words are "Half Welsh, quarter English, quarter Black.") I'm not pushing a loaded opinion, but his exact words. The accusation that it is distorting some sort of other reality is bizarre. In the political section, there are points about him being described as right wing and alt-right, but that he identifies as classical liberal. (section used to say classical liberal and center-left) Carl Benjamin identifies as being a mixed race person, as much as former president Obama does, and this identification has a notable impact on his life and commentary. This is completely separate from the discussion of whether race is a biological concept or not, as he speaks about it in the normal, and social sense. I'm not arguing genetics here explicitly. This is very political for Benjamin, as he has used his self-described race to argue how the far-right would purity spiral about race and ethnicity, and will ultimately self-destruct. In his recent debate with Richard Spencer, he argued this several times. As for the sources, I cannot find any from newspapers describing these facts about Carl Benjamin's ancestry. Why not have a "describes himself as mixed race" addition if Wikipedia's stance is to not allow authoritative statements without reliable third party sources? His statements on youtube were good enough for his self-description of his political stances of "liberalist" "classical liberal" and "center-left." 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If we here continue to state that his ancestry is "trivia," will we be pushing for the removal of ancestry from other youtubers? Is it not trivia to list Dave Rubin as Jewish? JonTron as Persian and Hungarian? Ana Kasparian as Armenian? Their non-third party self-descriptions are enough to warrant inclusion on their various pages. Are you going to use his self description as "quarter black African" as not "precise" enough? It's precise enough for him2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because I reverted you doesn't make me your enemy. I see what you're saying, but it's not quite that simple. There are now countless books about Obama, most of which discuss his race, and most of which discuss his own views of his race, and that's a central theme of his own autobiography which was published by an established publishing company with the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of reliable sources. I hope it's clear why comparing Benjamin to Obama is a non-starter.

As for other Youtubers, yes, I have pushed for higher sourcing standards on many articles. As a practical matter, primary sources are generally usable on Wikipedia for basic, non-controversial biographical details, but what classifies as "basic" turns out to be controversial. In general (but not always) his religion would be such a detail, as would his gender, birth date, and nationality. His parents' nationalities are borderline basic info. His grandparents' nationalities are no longer basic, as I see it. We need some reason to include this level of detail, and this needs to be supported and contextualized by reliable sources.

You say it's a notable to his life and commentary, but it's not entirely up to us as Wikipedia editors to decide what's notable. We need to use sources to get there. If you have reliable sources discussing Benjamin's race/ethnicity at all, that would be a starting point. We have such sources for his politics, and we use his primary sources as a response to those sources. In other words, the reliable sources establish that this information is significant, and provide a simple sort of context. We do not have anything like that for his race, so we cannot handle this in exactly the same way. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 Grayfell --Fleritarus (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin said "I wouldn't even rape you" in a YouTube video..."

I try to find sources for the context. He wrote this because he criticized her censorship kampagne. He wanted to show that a literal non-threat is also considered a threat. --Fleritarus (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the sources mention this video? It looks like most only mention the tweet. If you find the specific video, let us know, but most people already know that a literal non-threat can also be a threat. It's not clear why he felt a need to make this point using a real person who has received hundreds of rape threats. Depending on context, veiled threats can be considered assault (although not necessarily in this case). (On consideration, this example is more incendiary than helpful.) Without context provided by a reliable source, his literal statements aren't necessarily the point of why this comment was controversial. Per Phillips herself via the Redbrick.me source: "I don’t normally when I’m walking down the street feel the need to say to people ‘I’m not going to mug you’ because we’re normal human beings." Commenting on someone's hypothetical rape is aggressive and tactless even if it was "literally" a non-threat. Again, reliable sources would be necessary, but those I've seen appear to understand this point enough to not bother spelling these problems out in detail. The Vice article which mentions the tweet summarizes this point: "Carl of Akkad, much like the rest of them, seems to pride himself on a sense of purist thinking and a logic-before-all attitude. Problem is, when you're speaking on issues of a social nature that cannot be boiled down to textbook definitions of words, it's not really an approach that works particularly well." Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: has suggested that my comments might not be WP:BLP compliant. To clarify, the above is my attempt at explaining a complicated issue in my own words. If we do not share a baseline understanding of this incident, we will have a much harder time discussing if and how to include it in the article. I think my explanation, subjective as it is, is supported by sources, although it's arguably only indirectly supported by such sources. We must be able to discuss and clarify content which is discussed in articles. If there is some specific problem with my comments, I am willing to discuss them, but this should be done openly, such as here or on my talk page, if that would be more appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with most of you wrote. I emailed directly because I don't believe the comments above are compliant, so adding a comment then having it (or a portion) removed would appear to be a non-sequitur. But since the text is still here, "Commenting on someone's hypothetical rape is aggressive and tactless even if it was "literally" a non-threat." Whether it is aggressive/tactless or not is not for us to speculate in talk - not on BLP talk. The portion you struck but didn't remove could also be written as "Depending on context, veiled threats can be considered a threat of murder, although not necessarily in this case". You're expressing a speculative interpretation - that's not within our purview as editors. It can be considered in numerous ways, but we aren't supposed to commit those speculations here in talk, again, not when we are discussing the biography of a living person. Frankly I think all but user Fleritarus's comments should be removed, and we start over without inserting speculations of what may or may not have been his intent. If we're to find reliable sources, then let us find and share what reliable sources have said - not what we think they might say. That's all I'm saying. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I'm discussing this at all needs to be considered for this to be dismissed as mere speculation. By itself "aggressive and tactless" wouldn't belong on a talk page. I didn't make this comment just to share my opinion, however. The purpose of my comments was not to disparage, it was to explain. I believe my description helps explain why sources were even reporting on these comments in the first place. This is indirectly supported by the two quotes I also included. We have to be able to look at why these comments are noteworthy if we're going to include them. His tweet to Phillips was noteworthy because of what it implied, and what it signified, as much as for the literal meaning of the words when taken out of context. This is, I suppose, an unflattering way to describe his behavior, but it is based on sources. I do not, therefor, believe this is a sufficient reason to remove my comments. If we cannot explain why something belongs in the article, we hamstring ourselves from improving the article. I also very specifically stated, and I think we both agree, that sources would be needed to provide this context anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll also add that I appreciate your concern, even if I don't agree with it in this case. I think it's better for this particular issue to be discussed in the open. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anastrophe (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

wtf is a liberalist???

Three weeks ago, an IP indroduced this gem of political prose into the article. I consider that utter bullshit - the term "liberalist" does not even have a proper definition.

I propose to revert that change. Wefa (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, so I reverted it. Restore if necessary, but please include a reliable source, and please also comment explaining what this means and how this uninformative term is intended to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a stupid term Benjamin invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 98 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Married with children lives in X

@Jeff5102: That does not belong in the lede (MOS:LEDE), since it's not what he's known for. The 'troll' bit is contentious and may be a BLP problem since 'trolling' AFAIK, isn't his main modus operandi, social commentary is. The latter isn't even mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Since my edits were not met with unanimous approval, I've expressed my thoughts on the matter below.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The accusations of Carl Benjamin being alt-right

So, I looked over the talk page, and I see that there is a group of people who are using specific sources that don't exactly explain why Carl Benjamin is alt-right or sympathetic to the alt-right. I don't recall him being accused of anti-antisemitism, white nationalism or racism. He's anti-feminist, and I wouldn't mind considering him to be a sexist, but that doesn't justify him being alt-right. I've clearly explained why there is a problem with the sources, and how this Wikipedia article reads as defamatory;

"The "alt-right" label has been disputed in the "Political Views" section. We need to avoid libelous remarks as Benjamin has been debating against the alt-right for quite some time. Also, half of the summary is a literal copy and paste, and in general, it has been accepted that he leans right-wing, considering that classical liberalism is centre-right. I've linked a video when he rants against the alt-right and its problems for 50 minutes."

As expected, it has been reverted and the only explanation is to "stick to reliable and independent sources". And my response was;

"Okay, so I looked over to the "independent and reliable" sources; that redbrick article reads like a hit piece that contains no proof of him being alt-right other than he's anti-feminist, and nothing else; The daily dot article accuses him of being more sympathetic to the "alt-right" than anything, but it doesn't label him as such; Salon does the same thing; the gizmodo article is broken; and Vox calls him anti-progressive. In fact, this Wikipedia article needs more fixing then I imagined. I believe it is fair to summarize that although he calls himself a “classical liberal”, most liberal and progressive sources agree that he is on the right overall. And it is only Salon and The Daily Dot that call him an “alt-right sympathizer” at best. The fact that he’s being “WIDELY” labeled as alt-right at the very beginning is unfair, and comes off as defamatory. Also, that “kekistan” sentence is pointless and it isn’t properly cited."

It has been reverted, again, without any explanation. Look, I don't have any problem discussing the accusations against him, but it's clear that some people are willing to place these accusations at the VERY beginning of this article as a way to associate him with alt-right, even though it is only ONE source that calls him "anti-progessive", which basically means right-wing, and the others are progressive-leaning. This discussion belongs in the "Political Views", it isn't an absolute. And I've already disputed those sources that associates him with the alt-right, and how they're using their reliability to libel against a man without sufficient evidence. Jetski3000 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I've made a new edit that simply removes the Gizmodo article since it is broke (proof is given in the edit section). I've made a more summarized version of his political views, that reads as "Although he self-identifies as a classical liberal, several sources have described him as right-wing, anti-progressive, and alt-right. Benjamin has rejected those labels, and has been critical of the alt-right." in the introduction. I've also removed the Gizmodo link in "Political Views", and Vox does not call him alt-right or an alt-right sympathizer, but an "anti-progessive". This is as compromising as I could get. Jetski3000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

intro -POV-edits

Last month, the intro ran:

Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber known primarily for his political and social commentary. Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad.

I liked that intro: it was neutral, and covered the subject of the article. However, now it is changed into:

Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber and self-styled troll known primarily for his anti-progressive videos. Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad.

Moreover, in the box, the "genre" of his videos is changed from Social criticism and Political criticism into Antifeminism, Anti-progressive and Gamergate. I don't believe these changes are beneficial for the article; they were not discussed, they are poisoning the well, and the buzzwords that now go for his "genre" are hardly covering all the subjects of the vids. I would like to revert the intro and the infobox to the previous version. Any thoughts?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you here. The first version is much better. The times article confirms he was trolling (i.e. trying to get a rise out of someone), but not that he's nothing else. Kleuske (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The "troll" bit can go, as this should be contextualized in the body before being used in the lede. I think mentioning the content of his videos is very useful, though. I don't like the phrase "know for" in a lede, because it's usually filler, but he is discussed by reliable sources mainly because of his anti-progressive videos and tweets. "Social commentary" is too vague, and it fails to indicate why we have an article on him. The lede should at least indicate this if it cannot directly state it. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Would amending the first version with "known primarily for his anti-progressive videos" help? Kleuske (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the troll-part from the lead. Now, what do you think of this?

Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English Youtube-commentator who criticizes feminism and identity politics. Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad.

THis is much more specific than "social commentary" and it covers his vids rather well. Moreover, it sounds less negative than "anti-feminism."Would this make everyone happy? Jeff5102 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't an improvement, because "identity politics" is loaded and contentious. It's used as a right-wing buzzword that means very different things depending on source and context. Antifeminist seems pretty straightforward to me, and this also falls under the umbrella of anti-progressive. I don't accept that sounding negative is a valid reason for using euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

This is not a euphinism, this is exactly how the New York Times describes it. And the New York Times passes as WP:RS. By the way, these changes I dispute here were done by JzG; an editor who put edit summaries in as Alt-right agit-prop is not really "social commentary" and He is nto a critic, more of a bomb-thrower. This does not sound like as if this JzG is making his edits with the principles of WP:NPOV in his mind. Therefore; I'll revert the article to the version of 25 February, and then we can discuss further what might be done to improve it further. Please remember that the edits of JzG were done without any discussion on the talk-pages, and therefore can be reverted. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

JzG's edit summary language is a distraction. By this logic, I could say you're not being neutral because you're trying to make the article sound "less negative". Well, that's reasonable and important, because of BLP, but it only goes so far. Negative is subjective, and isn't always inappropriate. There is no predefined target for how negative this is should be. If sources are negative, this article should reflect that, right? For that matter, why is "opposes feminism" less negative than "anti-feminist"? We are all allowed to have our opinions, and are not expected to robotically eliminate all emotion from how we discuss things. Instead of trying to divine who's motives are purest and defaulting to that editor's preferred version, we should discuss how to summarize the substance of what reliable sources are saying.

The NYT source is describing Benjamin in passing as context for a larger story about how Youtubers have been locked out of their Google accounts. The NYT's guidelines are not our guidelines, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS regardless. The context of that story lists him as comparable to a neo-Nazi hate group, Atomwaffen Division! We can all agree that doesn't belong, so focusing on that single paragraph isn't going to work. We need to look closer at what's being said.

From what I've seen, reliable sources do not, in general, treat Benjamin seriously as a social or political critic. He has no real credentials, nor is he cited as an expert by these sources. Sources I've seen mainly focus on his fringe politics, such as "Kekistan", and his "wouldn't even rape you" tweet. Oh, and Gamergate. Trying to summarize this is incredibly difficult, but "social commentary" is not enough.

As I said, "known for" is usually filler, and this is a good example of why it's a problem. He's not "known for" commentary that just happens to be social/political. He makes videos that promote a pseudoskeptical anti-feminist, anti-immigrant, anti-progressive viewpoint, and these videos are the main reason anyone is talking about him. If we say "commentary", we're burying the lede and also implying a much greater level of credibility than is supported by sources. These are concerns I have that should be addressed. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"It's used as a right-wing buzzword that means very different things depending on source and context." That is so false, i cant even describe it. Read Mark Lilla. pro Jeff5102 --Fleritarus (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Lilla's work seems a bit crap, to be honest. It seems to me that Lilla and Benjamin share the same "rather narrow view" of identity politics, and it's not one that Wikipedia should use without a lot of careful context and attribution. Also, if you want me to read something, you're going to have to do a bit better than saying you can't even describe why I'm wrong.

There's nothing mysterious about why members of minority groups would want to band together to advance their shared political interests... Unless, of course, the assumption is that these interests are not valid. The term "identity politics" is used by Lilla, Benjamin, and many others, under the prior assumption that issues of identity are trivial, or no longer important enough to spend energy on. The obvious solution for these groups is to educate more people on why the issues matter. This could be done by, say, forming a political movement...

Identity politics could be swapped with civil rights. Both are saying very similar things, just using different terms from different perspectives. Neither would be appropriate in the lede. Benjamin isn't criticizing civil rights. He's not criticizing identity politics, either, at least not as it's understood by people familiar with the term. He's criticizing a restricted and contentious subset of identity politics, as he chooses to apply the term. So yes, this term is used by the right as a buzzword. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

So first you compare the word identiy politics with "a buzzford from the alt -right", although the alt-right is using idenity politics themself. The european version of the alt-right is named "Identitarian movement" by the way. Then you compare idenity politics with civil rights, although the civil rights are the opposide of idenity rights. civil rights are rights you have as an individual and not because of your group idenity. For me it seems and i am sorry that i am saying this, that you have no clou what you are talking about. The intro with New York Times source is much more neutral than the version we have now and i agree with Jeff here --Fleritarus (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And with that we're deeply into WP:NOTFORUM-land. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Self-identification has no specific privilege here. We describe people as reliable sources do. See Jared Taylor - he objects to being called a white supremacist, but reliable sources do, so that's just too bad for him. The "Good Men Project" source is unreliable and unsuitable for use, as is The Mirror (a UK tabloid). We have a New York Times source which says his videos oppose feminism, so that'll do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: But instead you didn't and implied "alt right" based on a source that places the term in quotes. Besides, If we don't state how people view themselves (supported by multiple sources) we're not doing our job. Besides, care to point out which policy you base that claim on? Kleuske (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We of course should state how people view themselves. But their own views are not necessarily definitive. The policy is WP:RS - we describe things how reliable sources describe them, not how they would prefer to describe themselves. No doubt Jared Taylor does not like being called a white supremacist, but that's how reliable sources describe him, so that's what we go with. Rachel Dolezal described herself as black, yet reliable sources disagreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. So we should state that Benjamin views himself as a "classical liberal" (even "liberalist"), and per WP:RS we can quote Benjamin himself to do that ("Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."). OTOH, we cannot go around using contentious labels like "alt-right" w/o some reliable source saying that (w/o quotes), especially if that's strenuously denied by the person himself (WP:BLP). Kleuske (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We can, and do, state that Benjamin views himself as a "classical liberal." We have many reliable sources describing him as alt-right, as evidenced by this very article (The Daily Dot, Salon, Gizmodo and Vox). That he "strenuously denies" the categorization should be noted, but there is no BLP issue with repeating something easily found in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Lets check it out...

Vox describes Benjamin as an "anti-progressive YouTube ranter", but doe not label him as alt-right.

The Daily Dot notes Benjamins objections to being called "alt-right", states that Sargon "criticizes the alt-right for collectivist and authoritarian thinking" and continue to offer an (editorial) opinion that Benjamin is wrong and they can read his mind. They do not claim (outright) he's alt-right, they merely suggest it.

Gizmodo (in an article about PewDiePie) quotes a dank meme (pardon the pun), but doesn't mention Sargon being "alt-right"

Salon (also in an article about PewDiePie) merely quotes Benjamin, but, again, refrains from any claim he's "alt-right".

These are the sources used by the article to use contentious labels. None of them actually claim Benjamin is alt-right. Not without employing a liberal dose of WP:SYNTH at least. I am getting quite curious as to the actual sources you base that claim on. Kleuske (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you see the Good man project as unreliable. I'm curious. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The most part of the intro should be deleted. Benjamin is against indentity politics. This is the only thing, which is clear --Fleritarus (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The Redbrick source says he's alt-right, the Daily Dot supports that he's alt-right as it lists his work among videos that either outright support or are in notable ways sympathetic to alt-right causes. and Benjamin's videos also focus on attacking favorite alt-right targets like (again) feminism, Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the overall notion of straight white male privilege. His personal preference for how he's describes shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't completely cancel out how his content and behavior is described by reliable sources. The Vox source both indicates and directly states that Benjamin is alt-right: What seems clear is that the attention appears to have emboldened Benjamin and other alt-right and anti-progressive YouTubers.... Even without this quote, the context of the entire article is that Benjamin part of the alt-right's obsession with Sarkeesian.

The Daily Dot line about "collectivist and authoritarian thinking" is cherry-picked, because it's a half-quote which cuts off the second part of the sentence: Although he criticizes the alt-right for collectivist and authoritarian thinking, he argues that they’re reacting to a comparable amount of racism from the left. If we're going to include this, we cannot ignore the context used just to conveniently emphasize this one isolated factoid. Criticizing a movement doesn't actually prove anything about a person's membership in that movement, especially if it's done as a prelude to defending the movement by saying their behavior is a reasonable response to it's racist ideological opponents.

As I've said before in the archives, The Good Men project strongly appears to be a "contributor" style blog-platform. Their Submission guidelines start with a pitch for paid membership. The writers are encouraged (but not required) to pay the site before submitting, which is a big huge red flag if ever I saw one. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:

1) The Gizmodo or Salon source can be removed (you don't say anything about them) while the Daily Dot, Vox and Redbrick source can stay.

2) We can't use the word "widely" as it is a peacock term and unsupportable from the facts about the corresponding citations.

3) We can't start off the first sentence of the lead with an attack description, particularly as he's a living person. Put that description somewhere else in the lead.

4) Amalgamate the positive and negative lead descriptions of him.

5) The "collectivist and authoritarian thinking" part can be reproduced in full and/or this article can be used to describe his views on collectivism/authoritarianism without the "racism from the left" qualifier that you get from the Daily Dot source.

6) The term identity politics is used positively by people across the political spectrum, particularly in academic discussions. I would say qualify it by saying "his understanding of identity politics."

7) I don't have an opinion on the Good Men project part.

Wingwraith (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Medium is a blog platform, not a WP:RS. No editorial oversight, and no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Who is JP McGlone, and why would his opinion matter? By that note, your opinion that this is an "attack statement" doesn't transform it into an attack statement. A variety of terms are used to convey the idea that his videos are anti-progressive and antifeminist. This is according to most of these sources. His opposition to what he labels collectivism is not in dispute, the use of this to counter the "alt-right" is what's being disputed. Since the Medium source is unusable, and doesn't mention the alt-right, this is WP:SYNTH is support of a non-neutral perspective.

"His understanding of identity politics" is a lot closer, but it introduces a WP:WEASEL problem. I personally doubt his understanding of the word, but Wikiedia shouldn't be that cavalier. Since this seems like a recurring point of confusion, I am not saying that identity politics is always a buzzword. I am saying that when used by some on reddit/4chan/youtube, it has become a buzzword through overuse and misused. We judge words in context, and in context, it's not all that clear what he's talking about. Presenting this as a term he uses in a way that may or may not be consistent with how other people use it is more confusing than informative. So what, exactly, is he opposed to according to reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:

1) I'll take it that you're okay with removing the Gizmodo and Salon source while keeping the Daily Dot, Vox and Redbrick source.

2) I'll take it that you're okay with removing the widely word.

3) Medium isn't an unreliable source it's no more unreliable than the articles/blog posts that come from Vox, Gizmodo or the Daily Dot, it's articles are regularly cited in Wikipedia articles and you've only to look at its Wikipedia page to see the QCs that it has. (We won't agree on this point, so it's best to let the other editors decide this) I don't know who JP McGlone is, but we also don't know who the UBirmingham student who wrote that Redbrick, student newspaper piece is either so if that student's piece is going to be used as a reliable source, then McGlone's piece must also be allowed to be used as a reliable source.

4) I didn't say it was an attack statement, I said that it was an attack description which would make any sentence containing that description and absent any countervailing description into an attack statement. (which isn't my opinion, it's just true: no sentence which contains just an attack description would be called neutral) Not that I'm concerned with that, just that the first sentence of the article doesn't start off with that (The first sentence would be: Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber. I don't care if you want to say how he's an anti-progressive/anti-feminist in the next sentence so long as his self-description is also somewhere in the lead.)

5) Then mention the Daily Dot quote in full if you need to use it.

6) I don't see why my phrase would introduce a weasel problem, who cares if his understanding is consistent with anybody else's understanding, it's HIS understanding. If you want to get all semantic about it then just say "his understanding of the politics of identity."

Wingwraith (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily okay with those changes, but we have to deal with this incrementally or we'll never get anywhere.

Vox, Gizmodo, and The Daily Dot are not WP:SPS like Wordpress or Medium are. Even student papers have a greater presumption of editorial oversight. SPS can only be used for relevant opinions with clear attribution, and generally speaking, only recognized experts are cited. This is especially true for BLPs (per WP:BLPSPS). Medium has been discussed multiple times at WP:RSN and elsewhere.

I think I understand what you mean by attack description now. I don't fully agree that this is never appropriate, nor that it would never be neutral, but in this case it makes sense to rephrase it to be in the second sentence.

If we're introducing his understanding of something, we're making assumptions about his understanding. This is sometimes reasonable or necessary for practical reasons, but not ideal. This is also introducing a cryptic concept without any explanation or reasonable way to find an explanation. If we link to identity politics, we're not clarifying what he actually opposes. Is he opposed to social organizations based on language? education? nationality? All of them? This is so broad, extreme, and unusual, that it's more confusing than informative, and that remains a problem regardless of how we phrase it. I'm not denying that it's accurate in some sense, I'm saying that it needs to be phrased to provide more context about his statements, instead of his understanding. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I'll take it that you are OK with the Gizmodo/Salon and "widely" word changes.

2) Again I disagree, but like I said the best solution is to let the other editors decide. @Jeff5102:, @Fleritarus:, @Kleuske:: can you comment on this Medium bit?

3) I'll take that it that we both agree that the first sentence of the lead will be "Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber."

4) He's probably opposing gender identity, and I don't even understand what it is that you want, you don't like the phrase "identity politics" because (apparently) it's a right-wing buzzword and you don't like my qualifiers because they don't clarifying something which doesn't even need to be clarified. And of course there's always this article which describes him as an anti identity politics person. But truth be told, I don't really care about this, I'm ok with either options, I do know though that that's your fight with @Fleritarus: and @Jeff5102: so you take it up with them.

Wingwraith (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but notice you didn't ping every user involved in this discussion, only the ones who already agree with your perspective. I am dimly aware of the drama at ANI, but that is no excuse for WP:CANVASing.

I just said I'm not okay with it. I am suggesting we take this in chunks and deal with that after we have some common ground for the rest of it.

So are you interested in collaborating, or are you interested in putting words in my mouth? If you don't understand what I want, try asking questions. Obviously I think it does need clarifying, and blowing that off doesn't get you very far.

Nothing I have seen from him suggests he is opposed to gender identity. As far as I know, he's never opposed the concept of gender identity (of course he hasn't) so saying he's opposed to identity politics needs some further context, or else it's meaningless. It implies that he's a moderate/centrist/both-sides-are-badist, but not to everyone, and it doesn't really say anything factual about his position. Implying something to people who already agree with his perceptions but not to everyone else is a bad way to start an encyclopedia article. He's started that draconian petition for universities to to suspend all "social justice courses", so I think I understand what you're suggesting he's opposed to. The problem is that your proposed wording doesn't explain it in the article. That's not workable. We need to explain this to people who are completely unfamiliar with him. "Opposes identity politics" is not informative enough.

The Independent source says he's opposed to identity politics as part of a paragraph saying he's aligned with the far-right. If we included these two points together, as the source does, I would be a lot more comfortable using them as part of the summary. The NYT article currently used doesn't emphasize this in the same way, but it does describe him as a right-wing YouTube star and conspiracist. This seems a little hard to justify based on this one source, but plenty more agree with the sentiment. We have to explain who he is and why he's notable, and sources don't, as far as I can see, emphasize "identity politics" as central. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I don't know what you're writing about, I don't actually know if they agree with my perspective as I haven't even read some of their comments, all that I know for a fact is that they make up nearly all of the contributors to the debate. Yes I didn't notify the person against whom I am requesting an interaction ban be enforced, I'd be insane to do that and let's be honest based on how you edit you wouldn't have done so either if you were me. You're free to invite him/her to participate in that Medium debate, but do note that the numbers (should everybody respond) would most likely be against you and I've already made my opinion on this issue clear. The "collectivist and authoritarian thinking" part can be reproduced in full and/or this article can be used to describe his views on collectivism/authoritarianism without the "racism from the left" qualifier that you get from the Daily Dot source. You said that, "Medium has been discussed multiple times at WP:RSN and elsewhere." Where's the link for them? If this issue came down to a vote right now I would vote for yes, but may switch it to abstain (or even against) if you show me the link for those discussions. As I said I don't really care if this Medium piece gets included: if it does great, if not still great.

2) You are not ok with what? Spit it out already. We deal with it concurrently. This is a debate between equals so I'm not going to let you solely dictate the terms of the engagement.

3) We are collaborating, you just aren't reading and/or just playing coy. Your identity politics part is a good example of that. You say that when I've already told you that But truth be told, I don't really care about this, I'm ok with either options, I do know though that that's your fight with @Fleritarus: and @Jeff5102: so you take it up with them. Meaning: I'd abstain if it came down to a vote; if it gets included great, if it doesn't get included it's still great. But take it up with them, not me.

Wingwraith (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

'Opposing identity politics'?? Who came up with this prattle? The lede is far worse now than it was a couple of days ago... PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Actual sources came up with that prattle and Benjamin isn't shy about it, either (on his own views, he can be cited as a WP:RS). Since we're supposed to neutrally summarize reliable sources, it belongs in there, wether PeterTheFourth likes it, or not. Kleuske (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Kleuske here. It looks much better than the version of a couple of days ago.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In light of the above, I propose the following wording for the lead:

Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is a YouTuber from the United Kingdom whose alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin has been described as anti-progressive, being a part of the alt-right, anti-feminist and anti-identity politics. ; he self-identifies as a classical liberal

References

@Jeff5102:, @Fleritarus:, @Kleuske:, @Grayfell: the proposal is open for comments. Wingwraith (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand what was wrong with this version. I guess this proposal would be an improvement over what's there now, with adjustments for grammar and punctuation. Benjamin has produced a large quantity of material talking about his own opinions on a range of subjects where he is not an "established expert" as required of WP:SPS. WP:BLPSELFPUB is not a free license to include whatever you fancy, so we need to weight sources carefully, and limit those primary sources only to what's necessary. He's not quite so famous that we have a glut of sources to choose from, but those we do have, taken as a whole, emphasize his alt-right or far-right audience, even if they don't describe him directly as such. The article should reflect reliable sources, not serve as an extension of his social media profiles. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current version is the best we can have as compromise. by the way: the version grayfell likes is the badest --Fleritarus (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Fleritarus, here. The version Greyfell proposes a) ignores sources and b) isn't neutral. Kleuske (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ignores sources? How so? It reflects reliable sources which repeatedly describe his content as sympathetic to the alt-right. Neutral doesn't mean "Benjamin approved". It means that we summarize what reliable, independent sources have to say. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The only thing about benjamin in the source is that he is not controversial about arguing idenity politics --Fleritarus (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As per this discussion I've put my proposal (excluding the anti identity-politics part) into the article; you three of can debate that amongst yourselves. Wingwraith (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Antifeminist youtuber

Could we all agree that "antifeminist Youtuber known for his opposition to identity politics" is more accurate, equally well-sourced, and better English than "Youtuber opposing feminism and identity politics", the latter being (1) plagarized from the NYT and (2) poor, political caption style writing? Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The simply answere is no. You can read the difficult answere below.--Fleritarus (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That should be "above" Meters (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that there is no discussion above as to where the term "antifeminist" should be placed, nor any dispute that it applies. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Disagreement is as sure as death and taxes, so "all agree" is unlikely. I do agree that the current(?) text could be improved, but am not certain that the proposed text is that improvement. I have a couple of questions: 1. Where is the plagiarism? The NYT source has YouTube star Carl Benjamin, known by his username Sargon of Akkad, who criticizes feminism and identity politics.[3]; the source text is not reproduced verbatim; our article text based on that source is brief, and has inline attribution. 2. On what basis is the proposed text considered "more accurate"? 3. What sources are proposed to support a definitional categorisation (or labelling) of "anti-feminist"? 4. Why are "anti-feminist" and "opposition to identity politics" separated? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to review all the sources at the moment, but to answer the last question, the subject has been reliably labelled antifeminist since he first achieved prominence. The "against identity politics" thing is self-label (and weasel phrase) the NYT unfortunately parroted. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Its good to know, that you know what the NTY journalists are thinking. --Fleritarus (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what they are thinking, but I can read the article cited here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know what they are thinking, then how exactly is it that you came by the information that the author is "parroting" SoA, rather than using their own words? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The NYT, in this instance, is repeating the subject's talking points without evidence of critical reflection. That's exactly what "parroting" is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You're still guessing. Fundamentally, you don't know whether or not the author had watched a video and repeated two words they had heard, or come to that conclusion on their own. You are purporting to have knowledge you don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What part of "evidence of critical reflection" do not understand? Good journalism gives evidence of how it reaches a conclusion, whether that be in the form of sources or a chain of argumentation. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try a more direct approach. Here is what you are requesting "critical reflection" for: criticizes feminism and identity politics. Let's just off-the-cuff the meaning of "critical reflection". To reflect: think back on. To be critical: to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Put together: to analyse an experience. Here, I even googled it.[4] There's a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo in there, but you really only need the first sentence: Critical reflection is a reasoning process to make meaning of an experience. I have zero clue what "critical reflection" has to do with making a simple statement. I don't expect an explanation for every bit of minutiae, and particularly not for a statement of "what one does". Though I do agree with you that Bromwich hasn't offered a source for their statement. Further, if you're putting up obstacles: your citations for the proposed change and a "critical reflection" are requested forthwith. Hint: your proposed material clashes with what the NYT source actually says. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sub-note: You "What is your evidence that SoA criticizes feminism and identity politics?". Responder "I watched him doing it." The sum total of a "critical reflection" that could be given. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, trying to AGF: "opposes feminism and identity politics" is the *subject's* description of what he is doing. In the case of feminism, this is probably accurate. In the case of "identity politics" it is quite tendentious, since subject is *pretending* to oppose identity politics while at the same time endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics and articulating white genocide tropes that are, in fact, also versions of identity politics. That the NYT simply swallowed the tag line doesn't say anything good about its reporting, in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My evidence for the subject's antifeminism probably starts with Forbes <https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/06/30/here-are-all-the-crazy-things-that-happened-at-vidcon-2017/#49c3d736302a> Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You cant label people so easy. Benjamin is a youtuber. That is a fact. That forbes describe him as anti-feminist is an opinion. --Fleritarus (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

NewImpartial, I think we both know that SoA is an antifeminist. I was trying to illustrate that you don't need to give a analytical explanation for every detail. Though to be clear, that Forbes article is an Op-Ed: WP:NEWSORG makes a comment regarding attribution for opinion statements. More importantly, I can now highlight the double standard. She was referring to Carl Benjamin, a YouTuber who goes by Sargon of Akkad online, who showed up with other anti-feminist YouTubers, filling the first three rows of the audience and recording the panel on their phones. I don't see any kind of explanation of how Kain came to that conclusion that SoA is an antifeminist. Just a statement of fact. Now I, being reasonable, won't make you try to jump through the same hoops you've laid out above, but I did feel the need to point it out. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to AGF here, so I will point out a nuance that I'm not sure you caught. That the subject "opposes feminism and identity politics" is the subject's claim that the NYT parrots without apparent critical insight. That he is an "antifeminist youtuber" is, as you say, a more descriptive label, which is also established by Forbes in the context of what happened (so ironically) at the anti-bullying panel. The "opposes..." formulation carries a lot of baggage/selfjustification that the simple label "antifeminist" does not. All I am asking is that the uncontroversial label "antifeminist" be included in the lede of the WP article. Also, the Forbes piece in question is reporting, not op-ed, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I haven't said that "antifeminist" is more descriptive than "opposes feminism". Btw, what the NYT article says is "criticizes feminism and identity politics". Emphasis added because you still haven't quoted it correctly. I don't care which formulation you use, they are synonyms and mean the same thing. Oppose: to be against. Anti: to be against. Literally the same thing. By contrast, criticize: to find fault with. Not quite the same thing. I do not feel like repeating, or trying to explain, myself for a fifth time. You have made your assessment; I don't agree with it, and thus don't support your assertions. I've made my assessment; you don't agree with it. We are at an impasse.
2) Forbes has attached "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" to the article, and the article is full of opinionated and personal language. Typically those are signs of an op-ed opinion piece (sorry I am confusing op-eds with opinion pieces). The article also came out a week after the end of VidCon and the author admits to not having been present for any of it. Could you clarify what you mean by reporting? because I'm thinking of "onsite reporting" when you say that. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Forbes piece is their tech contributor discussing VidCon as a whole, in terms of various takeaways; that is not what any media outlet I know would call "op-ed".

Also, I don't know why you would want to hang your argument on distinction between WP's "opposes" and the NYT's "criticizes" - if anything, you are implying that the WP formulation that I was trying to replace was illegit. I didn't add thr concept "oppose", or "anti-" to the article.

Finally, you said above that "antifeminist" was a statement of fact. That's what I meant by descriptive.

By the way, did you see the comment I inserted at 18:52? Because I haven't seen address it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I've corrected "op-ed" to opinion piece. I was confusing the two.
2) I'm not arguing for or against the characterization in the article. Though I hasten to add, the material has been removed from the article. I was responding against your characterization of "parroting". Nor am I hanging my argument on that fact alone.
3) I meant that Kain was stating "antifeminist" as a statement of fact, no explanation given. I agree with that statement, but that's neither here nor there.
4) No I didn't see it. Hang on while I read it. Oy vey... I can't say I didn't anticipate it. In the case of "identity politics" it is quite tendentious, since (sic) subject is *pretending* to oppose identity politics while at the same time endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics and articulating white genocide tropes that are, in fact, also versions of identity politics. I need a citation for "endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics" and for "articulating white genocide tropes". The alt-right characterization is based on his attacks against Feminism, BLM, Islam and straight white male privilege (refer to, for example the Daily Dot article). I've never heard anyone accuse him of antisemitism, however, that is brand new to me. On the topic of "white genocide" ... I can only think of comments he's made about George Ciccariello-Maher's tweet which said "All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide". I don't really know of any further comments on the subject that have been reported on. In all reality though, we report only what reliable secondary sources say. Period. End of. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Explain on the article's talk page why Wikipedia is obligated to pass along this granular trivia based on passing mentions in flattering interviews.

@Grayfell: Since when was an interview not a credible source of information on a public figure? And since when was someone's own words not a credible source on how they SELF-identify? I'm just trying give a more accurate picture of Benjamin, which is surely the point of a Wikipedia article. I'm struggling to see the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoremasterRaven (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy is a good goal, but adding more raw information isn't necessarily more accurate. Wikipedia favors independent sources, and comments he has made in interviews are obviously not independent. While an interview is nominally better than his own youtube channel, it's still very far from ideal. An exception might be if this comment has been mentioned or contextualized by a reliable, independent source, in which case we go by that context. It's worth explaining that when I say "reliable" I am not disputing that he has said this, I am disputing that it belongs in the article.

One of the problems with this article is that Benjamin has said a lot about his own beliefs, and we cannot reasonably be expected to decide what statements are important and which are not. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to list everything he's said. It's not up to you or me to decide which of his specific views are encyclopedically significant and which are not, so instead, we rely on reliable sources to do this. Diving into his own material to try and find nuance for what he believes is a problem for several reasons. Basic, non-controversial biographical facts can be supported by WP:BLPPRIMARY sources, but the less basic and more controversial we get, the less usable these sources become. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but no source can be a more credible source on a statement about what he has said himself than footage of him saying it. I would suggest this information is important to include as it gives the reader more nuance and understanding of his political identity which is lacking currently, by providing what he thinks of his views and why he chooses the label that he does. Moreover, how come the statement up now (evidenced by Benjamin being interviewed on The Rubin Report) is okay, but my extra nuance (evidenced by Benjamin being interviewed on The Rubin Report) isn't? LoremasterRaven (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The above commwnt runs entirely counter to the emphasis on reliable secondary sources in WP:BLP and WP:RS and must therefore be entirely disregarded. Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. In regards to when the subject is used for a source on themselves the guidelines are written as such: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. It is not unduly serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources" Not only was it technically published independently (The Rubin Report), but surely, because this is about how the subject self-identifies it does not violate these rules. Moreover, no one has answered my question about consistency. LoremasterRaven (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree that this article isn't consistent, but you're probably not going to like where this leads us... As I've said a lot on this talk page and its archives (it sure seems like a lot, anyway) we really, really need to clamp-down on using his own material for details. We are not here to regurgitate his social media, and doing so makes the article look trivial. I don't think it's some great sin to include primary sources for his opinions (opinion about his own opinions in this case), but content like this is self serving. It is providing more flattering details about the political opinions of a man who's career is centered on sharing his political opinions. So is it unduly self-serving? There is no end to the hypothetical amount of nuance that could be provided, right? He's made a career in part out of providing "nuance" for his own opinions so this could keep going for pages and pages if we let it.

Regardless of his specific views, the typical way this is handled on other WP:BLPs is by evaluating independent reliable sources. If they don't emphasize someone's opinions, we don't usually give that person more of a platform for that information anyway. Without independent sources, nobody really cares that much about what football club a professional chef goes for, even if it's important to the chef. Nobody really cares about a politician's shellfish allergies, even if she's voting on fishing subsidies. Primary sources are very often used to provide a response to comments or accusations. We follow the context set by outside sources. In situations like this, the context is provided by sources and the social media is used to fill-in details, it is not as an excuse to talk about what he ate for dinner.

So, very few, if any, reliable sources I have seen discuss his views in depth. Compare this to... I don't know, Milo Yiannopoulos? Jordan B. Peterson? Uh... Stephen Pinker? There are all popular with the reddit/skeptic/anti-PC crowd, but they all have a much better track-record for outside commentary. People are talking about them more than they are (yet) talking about Benjamin. It seems like Benjamin is typically cited by sources as an example of an angry youtuber, and seldom much more than that. Harsh, I know, but there you have it. Whatever we say about him in this article should be proportional to independent coverage, even if we do include his rebuttal to these characterizations. The lack of depth isn't a problem that Wikipedia is equipped to solve, if that makes sense. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is flattering, when it is purely descriptive. However, I do understand your point about why the article should be focused on independent sources, even if my opinion dictates that basing an article primarily off polemic, rather from the horses mouth, is problematic. I still don't understand, however, why the statement about his label of 'classical liberal', which is sourced from a similar interview, by the same interviewer, is okay, when it leaves out important information that I have suggested providing, using a similar source. LoremasterRaven (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Could use a section on his conspiracy theories. Besides the liberals, feminists and jews or whatever, he has been known to parrot Russian propaganda about how the chemical weapons attacks were false flags [5], the white helmets are terrorists, and Russia is the last bastion of Christian values. --134.228.15.146 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but he says lots of stuff. Can you find a reliable source? By that, I mean a third-party source? Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal vendettas should not be part of wikipedia. Just because USA, UK and France jumped to conclusion ... this doesn't make Carl a parrot. 217.224.89.183 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, it all comes down to what WP:RS have to say about it. This isn't a forum to discuss opinions about Benjamin, this is a page to discuss how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Much to his chagrin...

Since we're dealing with a BLP, here, we should be scrupulous concerning neutrality. Than includes his description of 'alt-right', but also his denial of the same. The quote is sourced to Benjamin himself, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, but since a) it's attributed and b) concerns himself and his political views, it's neccesary to include them in order to present a neutral and balanced article. Hence @Newimpartial: why are his own political views given WP:UNDUE weight. Please explain. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not at all how WP:NPOV works. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not an argument. I don't "interpret" anything. I'm arguing for inclusion of his own statements on his own political views per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It is, btw, exactly how WP:NPOV works. Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we include this content, we need more encyclopedic text than 'much to his chagrin'. If there's a reason to include quotes from his youtube videos, we should represent it properly, not like a blog post. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree with the wording, that can be fixed. You could have just reworded it. You did not, you reverted with spurious arguments. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not we've got a WP:OWN issue here and if the reverters are truly interested in reaching a consensus or are merely trying to suppress alternative views. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For my benefit, what is the 'alternate view' that we are suppressing? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I note you carefully avoid answering any point made. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't address the point you made that I am trying to suppress alternative views without knowing which alternative view I'm supposedly suppressing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Come back when you've got something substantial to add to te discussion. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't be snide, Kleuske. What "alternative view" do you feel is being suppressed in the article as it stands? I can't see any. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Kleuske, the Lede of the article already bends farther than I am comfortable with to include PRIMARY (and rather weaselly) disavowals of the subject's actual political affiliations, without the UNDUE insertion attempted recently. For those who believe this material is DUE in the Lede, the correct course would be to actually add a section to the article about the subject's self-characterization, if adequate sources can be found, and then to summarize that in the Lede. If the sources can't be found, or if the NPOV "best version" of the new section doesn't emphasize his disavowals, then the weasel material should not be in the Lede. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: We are discussing the section on "political views", which contains a sourced disavowal of alt-right views or even sympathies. Claiming "weasel" content, without identifying the offending content is disingenuous when arguing against inclusions of his own statements on his own views. So please explain how someone saying "i'm not with the alt-right" is "weasely"? If we only cite critics (the very press outlets frequenlty criticized by Benjamin) and ignore his own statements, the neutrality of the article is dubious at best. On his own political views, Benjamin is an acceptable WP:PRIMARY source, which, as it is a direct, attributed quote. How are Benjamins statements on Benjamins political views WP:UNDUE. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First, I apologize for my error - I was under the misapprehension that the added text followed the first mention that Sargon identifies as a classical liberal (in the Lede), rather than the mention in the "political views" section. So at least we are having the discussion about the right passage, and I take responsibility for my inattention that led me to think we were discussing the earlier passage where I hope we both agree the mention would have been UNDUE. There has been a good deal of ill-advised POV editing of the Lede of this article, but it was my responsibility to recognize that we are dealing in this case with the later and more appropriate passage.

That said, I still feel that the interpolation is UNDUE. Sargon's statement on YouTube about the results he got on an online quiz, and his conjecture concerning the political perspectives of those who interpret his positions as objectively supportive of "alt-right", misogynist, identitarian politics does not reflect any particular expertise or authority he might have. The article notes that he self-identifies (some would say, mis-identifies) as classical liberal, and that others have identified him as right-wing and grouped his position with anti-progressive and anti-feminist politics. The proposed section does not clarify any of this in any way, in my view: given his contributions to online conversations about feminism, anti-semitism, anti-racism and Islam, his own feeling that people call him right-wing because Vox and Daily Dot are further left than he is are disingenous at best. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, your view might be right. However, WP:SELFPUB tells us that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field. This is the case here. There are a few conditions to be met for this, but I do not see User:Kleuske's edits violate those conditions. At least, mr. Benjamin saying that he is not an alt-right mysogynist is not "unduly self-serving" or "an exceptional claim," it does not involve claims about third parties; Kleuske's claims about the opinions are directly related to the source, the guy in the video is really him, and the article is mostly not sourced by the vids. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: Your reply has nothing to do with what he's saying. He's not talking about whether or not it's reliable, but whether or not we should include it (and we clearly shouldn't.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We should. This person is notable because he makies vids in which he expresses his views on youtube. Therefore, his views are what he is notable for, and removing his views for WP:UNDUE-reasons is peculiar at least.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. He talks about politics sometimes, who cares? We do not include every view he's ever expressed in a video. The way we decide what to include and what not to include is through reliable sources, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The two comments under discussion here are Sargon's report on an online politics quiz, and his interpretation of why other people label him right-wing. The second item is not a piece of information about himself, but his interpretation of other people's place on the political spectrum, which is clearly not within his area of expertise. The former item is pure trivia; neither is encyclopaedic in nature. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sentence structure

A piece in The Daily Dot stated that Benjamin is not part of the alt-right, although his videos concern "favourite alt-right targets [such as] feminism, Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the notion of straight white male privilege".

(bold emphasis added)

I don't find this sentence neutral, because of the although. although (usually better than though in formal registers) is a contrastive link. This suggests that there is some contrast going on. Should it be changed to and? wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there is no requirement that sentences in sources be "neutral". Second, in this case there is nothing POV about the contrastive link. The logic here is that Sargon addresses favorite alt-right targets with an approach consonant with the alt-right, but he also disavows being part of the alt-right. "And" would not communicate this logic correctly; "but" or "although" is required. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 14:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A comment posted by a Random person

Off topic

I was doing work on this page when a random person posted this in the middle of the article. I will reply to the best of my ability with the bias of my personal positions. I found this page completely by accident while looking up the historical Sargon of Akkad but can someone at Wikipedia explain to me why this whole section is not taking into account situational context? Somehow I feel like this whole page makes this person seem like a bad guy when, with context, people could be able to come to a conclusion that they would feel is more accurate to the potrayal of this person, with their own thinking as I know there is more context than what seems to be denoted as simple hate speech. If someone that is reading this would kindly change this section to include a bit more context on the issues this man talks about and regarding his statements, in an unbiased sense obviously, that would be much appreciated. Wikipedia has many editors, that Benjamin himself would classify has SJW'. For example the page for Frank Stallone after the David Hogg incident was completely modified many elements of his career were deleted. There is a type of editor like that. Myself and other have tried to post the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, which shouldn't be on her page but on the page of Feminist Frequency. But hold and behold when we did it on her page they were quick to intervene, on Frank Stallone not so much. This is my interpretation of it, and please use the talk page to post your opinions, not the article. Also use your ability to edit if you do not like the content of an article, but keep it neutral.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC) I was writing a retraction when someone was quick to intervene, deleting this post, that just enforces my train of thought. His logic was that I wasn't allowed to post my opinion on the talk page. Wikipedia is private entity and is allowed to make this rule, however having not been hinted (or bother to read them for that matter) of these rules. As my first reflex is always to post my mind, and so it seemed with the people with whom I had exchanges. The person also said if wanted to speak my opinion to get elsewhere... Where? The retraction I was writing went along the lines was about forgiving people who have stopped me from writing the criticism of Sarkeesian because her page was bombarded during Gamergate which gave editor neutral and non-neutral a hard time, where has F. Stallone not so much. So the quick response for her is understandable compared to an old singer. However they are people who get too emotionally stirred and are willing to write an article an be as nasty as they can be because of personal value and opinions. Is one going to add stuff to an article based on what they've seen on Fox news or VICE, and they get salty. Which my answer to that person's comment. The person who deleted the post originally also added the talk page is meant to have a talk to improve the page. Technically it is what I did I took a person's concerns, who clearly doesn't know how to use Wikipedia, and responded. Did I do some mistake responding... Maybe. However I used the Talk Page according to your definition of use.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC) And please if anyone feels they have better answer for that person please post it.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Bringing up unrelated wikidrama from Gamergate is disruptive and distracting. If you say you understand this, why are you continuing to do it? Smearing this crap over into yet another page is not productive, and only invites more hassles and more headaches from other editors, most of whom are already long-past sick of having to deal with it. Discuss how to improve the article based on actionable suggestions. Not vague feelings. This isn't the place to discuss Sarkeesian or Stallone or Hogg, except as they relate to Benjamin according to reliable sources. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Benjamin is absolutely not a reliable source for information on these people, in case that wasn't clear. Introducing other contentious topics is stirring the pot, but provides no useful insight into how this article could be improved. Stallone attracted a lot of attention to himself, so his article was reevaluated. Is this some sort of mystery? No, and it has nothing to do with this article. By asking you to go elsewhere to share your opinions, I meant "not Wikipedia". You are free to start a blog or your own Youtube channel or find a subreddit... or not, whatever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. This isn't a platform for publishing original research. For the most part, that includes talk pages. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the article, make it. If you want to rant about how emotional you assume other people are being, find a different website. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Friend to your first point I wrote about Gamergate once, and now I've used one element of the subject matter (Sarkeesian) to make an analogy. I used this subject matter as well as Stallone because I have witnessed it first hand, not to stir the pot. This is what I perceived when I saw this, so it's not a vague feeling. Also I say first hand that there will be a bias. My analogy with Sarkeesian and Stallone was to explain why one page would have more devotee than another, it had nothing to do with Benjamin's personal opinion. You say: Benjamin is absolutely not a reliable source for information on these people, in case that wasn't clear. Now you are contradicting yourself by giving your opinion, also I have never said otherwise or complied with this statement. If you have misread or I've made a typo please present the piece of sentence and I'll gladly rephrase it for you. You say: "Stallone attracted a lot of attention to himself (so did a lot of people), so his article was reevaluated. Is this some sort of mystery? No, and it has nothing to do with this article." That's fine but why did the editors explained the situation neutrally with the same standards you'd give another, and destroy previous work by others because they are too emotionally stirred by the comment of an 1980s Pop singer. I think I am the only one who did it on the spot and I don't technically care about the guy, he's a goofball. You say: "If you want to rant about how emotional you assume other people are being, find a different website." I didn't rant. Someone expressed a concern, I responded using an analogy, based on my experiences here. Feel free to do the same. Also by responding to this concern I explain to this person how to use the site, and where to express a concern. And responding in my opinion, will make that person feel like they have been respected and will probably result in that person coming less frequently.Filmman3000 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Gain consensus

I read that to edit this article you need to Gain consensus. Where is it done or is it a sandbox thing?Filmman3000 (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See below. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is about this edit.

The specific details of how he arranges his YouTube content is only relevant to the extent it is mentioned by reliable sources. I cannot recall ever seeing any reliable source mention his historical stuff, but if so, it's only been in passing, and never with enough weight that it needs an entire section. The use of a separate channel for live-streaming is, perhaps, worth a single sentence, but it's a technical detail which doesn't really matter when describing him from an encyclopedic perspective. This article isn't about how YouTube's weird notification system has forced content creators into slicing up their content in weird ways. This article is just about Benjamin. If reliable sources do not explain these distinctions, it's just spam. This isn't a platform for helping him promote his crap. Him reading public domain books doesn't belong in the lede unless it is supported by a reliable, independent source as a defining activity. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I get your logic in Ancient Recitation and agree it's probably an hobby with decent subs numbers because it's him. In regards to the sentence: He hosts three other channels The Thinkery, Ancient Recitations, and Sargon of Akkad Livestreams. My logic was in regard following paragraph: He has hosted live streams with guests, including internet personalities such as JonTron, Kyle Kulinsky, Dave Rubin, etc. These live streams come from his other channel Sargon of Akkad Livestreams, not the channel called Sargon of Akkad. Some importance is devoted to this specific channel, according to the editors who crafted and chose to keep the sentence for the article. In regards to views, The Thinkery (244,436), Ancient Recitations (69.007), and Sargon of Akkad Livestreams (146,512). Hence a short explanation which could be expended upon. This is my logic.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources mention The Thinkery? Do those sources explain why he created a separate account? If so, let's see what those sources have to say and go from there.

The number of subscribers is misleading, because where would the cut-off point be? Many game streamers, comedy skit channels, and ASMR people have multiple millions of subscribers, but still don't meet WP:NBIO. That may or may not be relevant, but without reliable sources, it doesn't matter. We don't entirely ignore these numbers, but they are not significant by themselves. We do not get to determine how many subscribers is popular enough. Yet again, we need to rely on reliable sources.

For the lede, each notable guest he has streamed with should all be supported by reliable, independent sources. These sources should indicate in some way why these streams were encyclopedically significant to Benjamin, not just of interest to the other person. We do not mention every interview journalists or talk show hosts have conducted, even when interviews are the main reason the person is notable. We only mention them in proportion to coverage by reliable, independent sources, same as everything else.

Mentioning the existence of other channels is not the same as using Wikipedia to imply they are significant. If sources mention these streams, a single sentence mentioning that he uses multiple channels seems sufficient to avoid confusion. That's really all we're trying to do, right? Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Grayfell that the channels aren't really relevant, especially in the lede. They're not why he is notable, as shown by lack of coverage in reliable sources. I don't even think mentioning he has multiple channels is worth noting in the lede, maybe not even the article at all because his other channels aren't the subject of a single article. Also, I'd like to add that the info about where he got his alias from was moved to the bottom of the lede because it was argued it is borderline trivia. I don't know if a consensus was reached but that was the argument from what I remember. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To reply to this sentence: If sources mention these streams, a single sentence mentioning that he uses multiple channels seems sufficient to avoid confusion. I agree a simple sentence is good enough to mention the channels. You can have it.2001:569:7BF5:DB00:D50:AF85:3B1C:72B5 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the name dropping from the lede. The lede is intended to be a summary of the body, not the other way around. I have also added two of the four channels to the infobox. Template:Infobox YouTube personality apparently only supports up to three channels (which seems like a reasonable limit to be honest). Since no reliable independent sources mentioned the Ancient Recitations one, it didn't get included, but I have no strong attachment to this detail. Any changes should be supported by reliable, independent sources, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vice source

@Bonadea: where does it compare Benjamin and Watson? The only sentence where these two are mentioned is:

Still, that hasn't stopped men like Carl and "Infowars editor-at-large" Paul Joseph Watson from becoming the right-wing commentators of the digital age.

and that's not a comparison. wumbolo ^^^ 20:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be changed to likened instead of compared? Alduin2000 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps put to "See also" ? wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

In the Youtube Career section, is it listed that Carl Benjamin took part in a "targeted harassment campaign" against Anita Sarkeesian, yet one of the sources cited (12) fails to directly attribute Benjamin himself to a harassment campaign and the other (13) clearly states that he was not participating in any harassment campaign after an investigation was done. However, it does seem that Benjamin did mean to cause Sarkeesian some level of discomfort.

Therefore, I am proposing that the wording of this line be changed to not specifically mention a "harassment campaign", such as changing:

"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."

to:

"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian in order to cause her great discomfort."

The sources already cited for this line support this version better than what is currently listed. 198.140.222.129 (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There are reliable sources calling it a harassment campaign. You can find them in the above discussions. Someone must have removed them from the article, because now the article only contains the Mic and Daily Dot articles, and not the Kotaku, Polygon, and some other article talking about it. wumbolo ^^^ 14:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

None of those sources are reliable or objective, and are fully subjective opinions. For a NPOV, none of the articles should be used as it fundamentally changes the complete tone of the article making it biased against him. Even stating that "he sat in the front row ... to cause her great discomfort" is an opinion not backed by objective fact, only subjective opinion -- of the writers of the article. This in itself can again be proven by her own actions, and statement(https://feministfrequency.com/2017/06/26/on-vidcon-harassment-garbage-humans/) as she directly targeted him, and harassed him and resorted to an ad hominem as he was an audience member. As a public speaker she has no protection from detractors showing up to hear her speak, and as a public speaker she used her platform to attack an individual who had no actual recourse to respond. 24.212.254.133 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)MA

References

legally actionable. It's a false criminal accusation.

"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."

I don't donate money to this site so that it can wasted on libel lawsuits. Seems like Sargon has a good case for libel here why has no one realized that sitting politely is not "targeted harassment". I was there this is not what happened how do we fix this and keep misinformation from appearing on a wiki page again? This is not platform for personal views on a subject only facts right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staticpage (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that what you said is hyperbolic, but the evidence is quite lacking for there being a "targeted harassment campaign" against Anita Sarkeesian. I support removing that wording, what do you all think? Jdcomix (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be stating an opinion as fact. Violates NPV. I agree it should be removed. OnceASpy (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• This has been discussed over and over above. And harassment is not illegal. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. While harassment can have legal implications, it's also a word commonly used by reliable sources in a much broader sense.

New editors and single purpose accounts are, of course, welcome to comment on this, but Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Since this is already being discussed above in multiple places, please be aware that consensus in this section doesn't cancel out the other discussions where this has already been covered. Grayfell (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

not substantiated by source

"Benjamin contested the claim against the video, which used substantial portions of The Guardian's video, but was not successful." Given the process of DMCA takedown via youtube, the fact that it was put back up means that he won the claim. the source says that "According to the conservative news site Breitbart London, YouTube took down Sargon's video in response to a request by the Guardian. Sargon then appealed for help on Twitter, saying the newspaper had filed a "false claim" of infringement. The video has since been restored, although it's not entirely clear why." Thus it does not say if the claim was successful or not, or who was in the right. This makes the claim that he failed the claim unsubstantiated conjecture. 73.223.253.98 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Carl Benjamin, 2016.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)