Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Targeted harassment?

The article says he organized an targeted harassment campaign but afterwards says he did not. Which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFanCorp (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in extensive, tedious detail. Please review this article's talk page archives, linked above. Reliable sources say say this was a harassment campaign, and Benjamin (who is not a reliable source) disputes this. If there is a contradiction, it's not one that Wikipedia can resolve. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin is a reliable source for his denial, see WP:SELFPUB. wumbolo ^^^ 07:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. He can be cited for his own position, but that doesn't mean his statements are presumed reliable by themselves. We include statements from people out of respect for WP:BLP, but that doesn't mean we are obligated to assume they are accurate when they contradict reliable sources. In this case, we have his stated position, and we have multiple reliable sources. We don't treat these as equally valid. Grayfell (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Not what I said. He is a reliable source for the fact that he is denying it. wumbolo ^^^ 08:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Would it not be better to include that it is an allegation? AFanCorp (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, because that would be a WP:WEASEL and sources do not treat it as an allegation. Again, this has already been discussed. Please review the many lengthy discussion in this talk page's archives. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When we have multiple reliable sources saying it, and no other reliable source contesting it, we don't treat it too sensitively unless it is an allegation of a crime (per WP:BLPCRIME), and that doesn't apply here. wumbolo ^^^ 10:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is how it goes here. By definition, liberal pro-SJW publications are considered "reliable" source while conservative sources that defend Carl Benjamin are considered "unreliable". Gretenov (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, figures like Carl Benjamin and other members of the YouTube skeptic community tend to have a lot of things stated about them as true that are not necessarily true. Reliable sources for incidents regarding controversial figures like Carl Benjamin are not easy to come to at all unless it is very clear cut on what happened; in this case, it is not clear what happened at all, for if it was there would not be such strong, continuous disagreement over changing the wording to its very slightest. There are definitely a number of things stated about figures like Carl Benjamin, Lauren Southern, and similar figures that are very questionable, and Wikipedia is not immune to this because a number of the sources Wikipedia treats as reliable have their own biases against these figures; I believe this has been mentioned before on Wikipedia as an "institutional bias" that Wikipedia has by default.

Probably the most visible example of this can be discerning whether or not the labels "alt-right", "right-wing", "alt-lite" are accurate ways of describing individuals like Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, Faith Goldy, etc. I am not going to encourage debate here (THIS specific talk page) on whether or not these figures fit these descriptions but I will say that the brand a number of these individuals carve are intentionally provocative or have the deliberate purpose of encouraging discourse on topics treated as taboo by mainstream media. Some of the figures in these circles, like Richard Spencer, are very clear cut members of the alt-right by the most conservative definitions, but outside of that, it is not necessarily clear because these figures are very polarizing and divisive by their very nature.

In other words, some of the things treated on Wikipedia as fact on individuals like Carl Benjamin are not necessarily true, but there is not likely very much you can do about it right now. The very brand a number of these individuals build are intentionally provocative by default, and the very biases of some of the sources Wikipedia tends to favor are not guaranteed to accurately evaluate or report the actions and beliefs of these individuals. The basic skeleton of what happened in a number of contentious incidents like the Vidcon event are not what I am saying is disputable; it is known that Benjamin did attend the 2017 Vidcon and that Sarkeesian was speaking at that panel. The point I am making is that when it comes to determining the why of some of these events, and what the individuals actually believe is not guaranteed to be accurately assessed by the very sources that Wikipedia treats as reliable. And that is not likely to change for some time. I do believe that we should acknowledge this, and that not everybody is going to agree that what is treated as true or fact under Wikipedia's standards is going to be true, especially under figures like Carl Benjamin, but this is not likely to change in the near future. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you explain what this has to do with the article, please? This has veered into WP:NOTFORUM territory, and saying "I am not going to encourage debate here" followed by controversial opinions seems kind of silly, to be blunt.

On topic of how to improve the article, do you have a source describing him as part of the Youtube skeptic community? This is something I would like to expand on, if possible, but sources I've found are unreliable. That community has developed a reputation for dunking on easy targets like creationists and flat-earthers while embracing pseudoscience when it comes to social issues. Since this overlaps with Benjamin's prolific output regarding Sarkeesian, such sources might, possibly, help shore-up this section. As you say, sources are scarce, but if you know of any, please list them here. This article, and other articles on youtube skeptics (Phil Mason. TJ Kirk. etc.) desperately needs better independent sourcing. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

When I said I was not going to encourage debate, I was referring to whether or not these figures were alt-right or not, because that is not the main subject we were talking about. I was mostly trying to explain why there could be contradictions between what WIkipedia states as fact on these figures and what may actually be true. And no, I currently do not have a source at hand that describes him as a member of the skeptic community that likely fits Wikipedia's criteria in terms of sourcing. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well many of these figures are alt-right because they just are, and are described by all sources as such, e.g. Millenial Woes is described as alt-right in [1] and [2], and Jean-François Gariépy is described as white nationalist in [3] and [4]. Also, Phil Mason is not a member of the community anymore. But yes, grouping all of these people as a skeptic community, and applying every label to each one of them, is just guilt by association, and we should examine sources about individuals like the ones I provided above. A large number of people in the media are determined to smear the (centrist) skeptic community as alt-right, similar to how most of the MSM smear the (socialist) intellectual dark web as alt-right. We've had similar articles in the past deleted at AfD because they were only sourced to hit-pieces. OTOH, we don't use WP:PRIMARY sources for contested labels, except for WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPCRIME, and don't give more weight to the subject than to the third-party coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It is plainly obvious that the event should not be described as a targeted harassment campaign. Whether something constitutes harassment is (here) a subjective assessment, and we do not treat every subjective assessment of events involving public persons as gospel. Hell, imagine how Donald Trump's wikipedia page would look like otherwise. Besides, here's how one of the articles describes the events:

"Anita Sarkeesian [...] attended the YouTuber convention VidCon on June 22 as a panelist [...] Benjamin, who regularly makes videos criticizing Sarkeesian and her views, organized a targeted harassment campaign in which he and his friends occupied the first three rows at the panel under the guise of attempting to "engage" with her."

So it's not saying "as part of a targeted harassment campaign"; rather, it's saying sitting down at the event was the full extent of the harassment campaign. Why does this article not say "orchestrated a harassment campaign against Sarkeesian by coordinating to fill the first three rows in the audience and film her"? Because then it's clear what's subjective and what isn't. The next source says once that he is a harasser but doesn't get more specific. The next source says:

"The wounds of Gamergate are still so fresh that a meaningful reckoning doesn’t feel imminent. But at VidCon earlier this summer, the harassment campaign targeting female gamers moved offline when YouTube activist Anita Sarkeesian, a high-profile victim of the attacks, faced one of her abusers" - okay, so when it says "the harassment campaign", it means Gamergate. It doesn't explicitly call the event harassment, but rather says that the event is a part of Gamergate and he is a "Gamergate harasser". Thus, ignoring the issue of subjectivity, the first three sources still do not support the phrasing "as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her". The last source is behind a paywall. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We go by sources, not what you consider plainly obvious, 'Retardednamingpolicy'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be fine if all I brought to the table was calling it obvious, but I made a case too. If you do not have any counter-arguments, I will go ahead and change it back. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this has already been discussed in agonizing detail, you would be edit warring against consensus if you made that change. Instead of interpreting the source in the narrowest way possible to flattering effect, weigh the source in its larger context. Ask yourself this: are you giving Benjamin more credit than you're giving reliable sources? If your assuming he must have some position and than bending over backwards to interpret sources to match that assumption, you're distorting those sources and injecting your personal opinion into your edits. Benjamin was part of a targeted harassment campaign. Focusing on the grammar of one source is both pedantic, and misleading. It's perfectly possible for "in which" to mean that this was an extension of an existing campaign... which it was, according to multiple sources. Benjamin is a "gamergate figurehead" and gamergate, according to an unaccountably large number of sources, targets Sarkeesian for harassment. Reliable sources support all of this, as has already been discussed on Wikipedia to death. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH much? That's it – I'm unwatching this article, goodbye. wumbolo ^^^ 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a cute way to try and get the last word, but as I said: Reliable sources support all of this, as has already been discussed on Wikipedia to death. It's supported by sources, and is clearly not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim when evaluated in context. Therefor, ignoring consensus and trying to find excuses to remove it is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're interpreting the sources according to your own biases, rather than using the claims actually being made in them. The article you linked speaks of Gamergate as a past thing, as does the Wikipedia page as far as I can tell after skimming it, and that would be accurate: it's no more an active movement than Occupy Wall Street. But if you want this article to claim that the Sarkeesian incident is a part of Gamergate even though Gamergate is long dead, go ahead, I don't really care as long as it's phrased in a clear way. Otherwise all you have is (1) he used to be a part of Gamergate, and (2) one single source claiming sitting down constituted a harassment campaign. Sure, you can interpret the words so that it's part of a larger harassment campaign, but can you find any other reference to this campaign anywhere else on the internet? No. You can't claim there's a harassment campaign because one vaguely worded reference can be interpreted as saying it exists. That's not good enough. There's Gamergate, and there's this one incident. That's all you have. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Arguing for an alternate version of reality is a pretty novel way of trying to discount what reliable sources say, I'll give you that. Not sure it'll fly, though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing that needs to be contributed, because this has already been explained multiple times. The burden isn't on us to re-re-re-explain things to you, it's on you to change our minds, and bringing up the same stale points we've already addressed isn't working.

Multiple sources comment on his behavior at Vidcon and support that this was harassment in various terms so the article will have to reflect that. Sources are not obligated to meet your exacting standards. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I count five people speaking against it and two people for it. So if "consensus" means whatever most people think, as you're using it, then you have no case. If we're going by quality of arguments, well, in this latest comment of yours you refuse to engage with the arguments I have put forward and try to justify why you don't need to based on consensus which you don't have. And your appeal to sources has already been addressed. So, I am changing back the article. Furthermore, the only reference to filming is Sarkeesian saying they were "filming this panel", which is a clearer and more objective description of what's going on so I'm changing the phrasing to reflect that.

However, in the spirit of WP:CON, I will suggest a compromise: "harassed Sarkeesian by coordinating to fill the first three rows in the audience and film the panel". This is actually consistent with the sources, so you should be happy with it, but of course you are not because it reveals how ridiculous it is to treat subjective assessments as objective statements of fact. It's like Wikipedia describing a certain political proposal as uninformed just because the word was used in a few articles. But I've already made this point and you didn't respond to it then, so whatever.

Do not revert because you'd be edit warring against the consensus. Use the compromise I have suggested or address my arguments and convince us; after all, it is on you to change our minds. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Retardednamingpolicy: There's three people here, assuming that IP is you seeing as they both talk in the weird way you do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If anything, your presence here makes your side look worse. But it'd be more fair to say that you are entirely irrelevant. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly not objective - you should be ashamed of yourselves, but you clearly lack the character to even begin such an enterprise. "reliable sources" is such a ludicrous joke of a claim under the circumstances. Your bias is clear - and any pretense to objectivity is insulting to the intelligence of any outside observer. As someone who came to this article for actual facts - I am extremely offended by the McCarthyist smell emanating from this Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.35.36 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not married to any particular formulation of the language here, but multiple reliable sources describe Benjamin as a central figure in the Gamergate and in the harassment of Sarkeesian, in particular. I'll add that this Daily Beast article also describes Benjamin as someone who coordinated harassment campaigns. For my part, I think it's fine to put "what was widely described as" in front of "a targeted harassment campaign", but harassment is no more subjective than any other description.
• Consensus isn't a vote, and we can safely discount non-policy based arguments. Nblund ^talk 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please address my arguments. If I address any point you made I'd be repeating myself. And stating something is not the same as arguing for it. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are unclear on something, feel free to ask, but you don't have to address every editor who says something, and no one is obliged to satisfy you. We're all volunteers, and most of the people watching this page have been hearing slight variations on the same basic argument for a very long time at this point. Nblund ^talk 21:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The words 'targeted harassment' are a very serious claim and can be reasonably conceived as a legal issue, and should be deleted by the powers that be (the page is locked) unless it is proven with direct evidence such as a legal case or a video with overwhelming consensus on the final opinion. As mentioned in another discussion I posted, "these 'sources' calling him a conspiracy theorist are known for making extreme claims. Multiple SJW extreme left sources are treated as reliable? Why not start citing Alex Jones as a reliable source?" I've also got to note the admins have done very little to address the problems posted by the people, and are banking on this 'multiple reliable' sources claim. Two media bias fact checker websites have shown vox, salon etc to be known for its extreme left bias and unfair character assassinations on people. Also just curious, when you're outnumbered 100-1 on claims youtube vids and discussion forums on topics such as Gamergate and Carl Benjamin, wouldn't you want (or wikipedia should) to take that into consideration when labeling someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.95.224 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Category: conspiracy theorist?

As it is currently written, this article is not neutral. The term "conspiracy theorist" is an insult; it's fundamentally just a way of stating that you the speaker do not believe the target has anything useful to say. No article can legitimately claim neutrality while using that sort of language...regardless of the sources cited. The term should be removed from this one post-haste.170.250.183.56 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

that category shouldn't even exist. there are, of course, conspiricies, and everybody knows it. but "conspiracy theorist" has negative connotations: it's meant to connote a crackpot, someone who dreams up scapegoats and "proves" their collusion with weak arguments. So, unless somebody can provide some evidence that he's a crackpot with leaky arguments, let's remove him from that category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:12C1:44F5:3C53:3CB8:E323:1989 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the IP in that the category is unnecessary. If the source [5] that spurred the addition of the conspiracy theorist tag was more direct in labeling Benjamin a conspiracy theorist then this would be a non-issue, but considering WP:COP I support dropping the tag; this is of course pending more descriptions of Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist being brought forward.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If a reliable source says he espouses conspiracies, does it not make him a conspiracy theorist?HappenedAnd88 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@HappenedAnd88: working with the footnotes on the article, no currently-cited article states that the Benjamin espouses conspiracy theories.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it looks like he is a proponent of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which would definitely land him in "conspiracy theorist" territory.HappenedAnd88 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@HappenedAnd88: all well and good; if a WP:RS source notes that he is a conspiracy theorist, then we can re-add the category. Can you link the source?--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just espousing conspiracy theories probably isn't enough to warrant inclusion in that category. The "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory has, unfortunately, kind of entered the mainstream discourse. The category seems to imply that conspiracy theories are his bread and butter, and I'm not sure if that's really the case. That said: Vice does categorize him as a conspiracy theorist (link). I would still prefer to have additional sourcing. Nblund ^talk 02:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with @Nblund:; the Vice article does refer to Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist, but this is not the most common label attached to Benjamin (Right-wing YouTuber or Youtuber is much more common), and thus this is an issue if the category is due or WP:UNDUE. Pending more mentions of Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist, I am feeling it would be UNDUE to re-add the conspiracy theorist tag.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

While "Cultural Marxism" is definitely a conspiracy theory, this cat was added because of his strange comments about DiGRA and gamergate. This is directly explained in the article, and has been for quite a while, so I'm confused about why this hasn't been pointed out already. Per the source, this was a conspiracy theory, it was bollocks, it was a cause for disruption for people's careers and lives, and Benjamin was a significant proponent of it. This, therefor, meets WP:CATDEF per a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see the case here, since the Inside Higher Ed piece explicitly connects him to a conspiracy theory, but I think the bar for WP:CATDEF is a little higher. It seems like other members of that category are primarily known for advocating conspiracy theories and are explicitly and consistently called conspiracy theorists by a variety of reliable sources - this isn't a defining feature for Benjamin. He's closer to Milo Yiannopoulos than to David Icke. Nblund ^talk 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is running up against WP:SYNTH issues. We have many sources which describe Benjamin as a promoter of ideas which are overwhelmingly described by reliable sources as conspiracy theories, but the sources linking A to B are weak. Sources calling him a conspiracy theoriest exist, but could be stronger. I think they are strong enough, however.

Gamergate itself is a collection of many conspiracy theories, and we also have DIGRA as a specific example. Cultural Marxism redirects to Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Benjamin has also been documented as being "genuinely curious" about whether or not Richard Spencer is a secret government agent. That source also mentions him pushing the false propaganda that Heather Heyer died of a heart attacks. Is that a conspiracy theory? I would say yes (and many other sources agree) but I can see room for disagreement. Regardless, it's a key underpinning of many Unite the Right conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those are absolutely conspiracy theories. But I think Benjamin is selectively entertaining those conspiracy theories that justify his pre-existing political preferences - which is also true of a lot of figures on the far-right who aren't necessarily classified as "conspiracy theorists". I'm could be persuaded with some additional sourcing, but I don't think it's a defining feature just yet. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

But is it necessary to directly label Carl Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article? It seems unnecessary to immediately label him as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence unless he was actively espousing conspiracy theories (think Alex Jones style). We can categorize him as a conspiracy theorist and not necessarily need to label him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I understand if it takes time for people to answer to this, but I think this is a genuinely important question to ask. Is it necessary to label Carl Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article? I thought the first sentence was meant to describe the key characteristics of the subject of the article; if Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist as some of the sources say, it certainly is NOT the central characteristics of Carl Benjamin (I am bringing this point up because not everything our sources say on individuals like Benjamin may be necessarily true, more so than some other topics). He is already marked under Category:English conspiracy theorists, and the mentions of him peddling conspiracy theories in the article is already mentioned in regards to the Gamergate controversy. I could understand labeling him as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of his article if he peddled conspiracies in the multitude that Alex Jones or David Icke have, but conspiracy theories are just not a central component of what Carl Benjamin does. There are descriptions of Benjamin not in the first sentence of the article that could be argued as more relevant to him in general, such as atheistic, and yet these are not mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Again, I ask: is labeling him as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article genuinely necessary? If I get no response within approximately 24 hours I will remove the description of Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist solely from the first sentence of this article. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is worth describing him as reliable sources describe him. ANy change you make to delete it will be reverted, as you have no consensus to make such an edit. Removing sourced information without a consensus to do so is seriously WP:DISRUPTIVE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

These 'sources' calling him a conspiracy theorist are known for making extreme claims. Multiple SJW extreme left sources are treated as reliable? Why not start citing Alex Jones as a reliable source? When you make a claim of conspiracy theorist, you need to back it up with clear evidence on exactly what he said that makes it a conspiracy. This can be done having some track record of showing wacko claims over x number of videos consecutively. 99% of the audience disagrees with this assessment of conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.95.224 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@69.181.95.224: Where did this '99%' figure come from, Nate Silver? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, don't have a proven stat for it. It is probably such a ridiculous claim that people on youtube don't even bother support or defend it. You've still done very little responding to the key points others and I have made. Mostly what I see is just undermining certain points (not saying justified or not) others have made which aren't the key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.95.224 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The label of 'conspiracy theorist' hangs - entirely - on the Higher Ed article, which states, only that Benjamin "has fueled that conspiracy theory" - 'that' theory being that "members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development". That's it. That is the only sourced claim in this article of conspiracy theory, and only that his commentary has fueled the theory - not that Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist. Sorry, but that doesn't meet the threshold at all for the label - particularly for a BLP. There is no 'consensus' necessary when the article does not contain a reliable source stating, overtly, that "Carl Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist". All the discussion above that he is, is synthesis. Either there's a reliable source that states that, or there is not. Conflating "fueled that conspiracy theory" with "Carl Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist" is objectively synthesis. That is not an acceptable threshhold in a biography of a living person. Threats such as "Removing sourced information without a consensus to do so is seriously disruptive", when the one source in the article that is claimed to support it does not clearly state that he is a conspiracy theorist, is not collaborative editing. When it comes to a BLP, conflating one source that does not state something, as a coathanger to add an overtly derogatory category, is untenable. Either add a reliable source - actually more than one reliable source is necessary for such an addition to be leaked into the opening sentence - that overtly says "Carl Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist" - or drop the coathanger. Anastrophe (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh - furthermore - since the lede is intended to be a summary of the article, adding that tag to the opening sentence would require considerable coverage within the article, up to and including an entire section detailing his many (non-existent) conspiracy theories as covered by reliable sources, in order to apply the label. One single sentence in the article, referencing a tangential relationship to a single conspiracy theory, is clearly not adequate to support the claim or label. Anastrophe (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User User:Beyond_My_Ken reverted removal of the claim that he is a conspiracy theorist. This is not tenable. consensus is not required when removing poorly sourced claims from a biography of a living person. The claim, as I pointed out above, is not sourced. It cannot be in a BLP without clear sourcing - not by synthesis from single source that tangentially suggests that he 'fuelled' a conspiracy theory. That does not rise to to the necessary threshhold. I will not engage i a revert war. But this is simply a gross violation of BLP, and must be removed, as it is, essentially, libelous. [[User:Beyond_My_Ken] please reread WP:BLP. Show me - factually - how this poorly sourced statement is acceptable, particularly when the rationale for inclusion thus far is gross synthesis, in a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

User User:Grayfell has reverted removal of the claim. Again, this is not tenable. The edit comment stated that "Whether this belongs or not is debatable, but do not misrepresent this as defamatory. It is not, it is supported by reliable sources.".

There is a serious problem here. First, yes, I should have said "potentially defamatory", not defamatory. But even with that caveat - with a BLP, great caution is required for adding even potentially defamatory material. Nor is a wikipedia editor's opinion that emphatically "it is not" adequate. Beyond that, this claim is not supported by reliable sources referenced within the article, nor is there even a single sentence in the body covering this claim. This is objectively the case, as there are no references or claims within the article that Benjamin is a 'conspiracy theorist', only that in one case his commentary 'fuelled a conspiracy theory'. We cannot make claims about 'reliable sources' as supportive of including material, if those reliable sources are not actually cited within the article. Particularly with a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained on this talk page, multiple times, where this is sourced in the article. The burden is now on you to read that and respond accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You have explained your rationale for characterizing Benjamin as a conspiracy theorist. It is most emphatically not cited in the article that he is a conspiracy theorist, nor is there even significant discussion of the matter in the body - which is a prerequisite for it to be notable enough to be one of the primary characterizations of the person in the first sentence of a BLP (or any article). Anastrophe (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This may or may not be out of order, but it's worth pointing out, that on May 27, 2017 in the archives, user Grayfell wrote "His left-right self-identification isn't centrally important unless reliable sources say it is. It can be explained in the body, but it doesn't belong in the very first sentence of the lead without much better sources supporting it.". I wholeheartedly agree. The characterization that he is a conspiracy theorist is not covered in reliable sources, only tangential claims about his influence in _one_ conspiracy theory. "Conspiracy theorist Carl Benjamin" is not a string I'm able to find in any reliable sources - obviously because it is not a centrally important characterization as far as sources are concerned. He is far more often referred to as an anti-feminist; that characteristic is clearly discussed in detail in the article, and - if more labels are even necessary (they are not), that would be a far more appropriate one to be in the first sentence of the article. Which standard do we apply - that such a characterization in the opening sentence of a BLP requires strong sourcing within the article to support it? Or is the threshhold that various editors have read that he supported _a_ conspiracy theory and therefore that's good enough for it to be a primary characterization? Anastrophe (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The evidence of Benjamin's long-term conspiracy mongering is well presented here. however it's a Wiki, and it's all primary sources, so we cannot use it. It is, however, meticulously referenced to those primary sources. Whether Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist or not is simply not a debateable issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up an unreliable source as meaningful to the discussion isn't at all helpful, regardless of how 'meticulously' it is referenced - it has no meaning to this article. This article has no discussion of his being a conspiracy theorist. Likewise, an editor's opinion that Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist and that it is "simply not a debateable issue" is not at all meaningful to *this article*, which has no discussion of his being a conspiracy theorist. What is not debatable are wikipedia policies for BLP's, which require solid sourcing within the article for a claim being made about a living person _before_ it is included in the article. The policy does not say 'if you think someone is a conspiracy theorist, feel free to say that the subject of the article is a conspiracy theorist - don't worry about the sourcing, that can be added later'. Anastrophe (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That rationalwiki article is garbage. Furthermore, a lot of the content on rationalwiki reads like something between slander and trolling (check the pages of Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Paul Krugman, Christopher Hitchens, Hemant Mehta, Owen Jones and others for some examples). Are there any reliable sources out there calling him a "conspiracy theorist" ? Mcrt007 (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

We have a single citation in the lede, based on Vice's characterization that he's a conspiracy theorist - with no additional supporting cited material in the body. Vice and other sources have stated variously that he is an anti-feminist, racist, alt-right, etc.. Shall we add those characterizations to the introductory sentence of this article? "Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is an alt-right British YouTuber, political commentator, polemicist, racist, anti-feminist, and conspiracy theorist, better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad." Thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Would that change conform with Wikipedia BLP policy, and survive challenge? Anastrophe (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't suggest it, you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it, I asked if it should be added. I am interested if this would be an improvement of the article, within Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Articles are supposed to be neutral in tone, not give undue weight to matters that aren't primary characteristics of the subject, cannot be defamatory, and should provide an unbiased encyclopedic presentation to the interested reader, unless I am misunderstanding the goal of the encyclopedia here. As this is a BLP, I'm not willing to experiment with adding material that may not fall within guidelines. I'm curious what "Works for me" is intended to imply. You would not challenge inclusion of those terms? If so, would you be willing to add them yourself?Anastrophe (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think calling this "defamatory" is over the top, but I continue to think the sourcing here is fairly weak. In other cases where there have been disputes over descriptors (I'm thinking primarily about the use of "white supremacist" in BLP intros) we have been able to point to a large number high quality sources that explicitly use the term to describe the subject. That doesn't seem to be the case here. It's clear that Benjamin traffics in conspiracy theories, but that's true for a number of figures who we don't describe as "conspiracy theorists" in the first sentence. Nblund ^talk 17:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Is "conspiracy theorist" a primary and notable characteristic of Carl Benjamin

Should the introductory sentence of this BLP include the characterization that the subject is a "conspiracy theorist" as a primary characteristic of the subject? Anastrophe (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My perspective is that it is not a primary or significantly notable enough characterization of the subject to be in the intro sentence. It is also very weakly sourced, with only a single source supporting the characterization in the lede, and no discussion in the body. My understanding was that a BLP required a preponderance of reliable sources to make such a claim about a person, particularly when the subject is objectively highly-polarizing. It does not strike me as NPOV to include this, with one source supporting it, and no discussion in the body.Anastrophe (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• No - Sources are not strong enough to establish that this is a defining trait. To be very clear, this is only about the introductory sentence. There are multiple sources which discuss this, although how explicit they are in making this connection is debatable. The body and categories are separate issues, but this kind of thing needs context. This should be provided in the body of the article, in proportion to due weight. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• No. It is in fact a BLP violation, as this is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim made in Vice, a semi-reliable magazine. Seriously, there's only one actual source mentioned in the lengthy discussion above, which instead focuses on WP:UGC smears and a bit of original research. I'm familiar with the dozen-or-two articles that exist in reliable sources discussing Benjamin, and none of them say that he promotes any conspiracy theories. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 10:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• No - one source (the Vice article mentioned above) exists which labels Benjamin a conspiracy theorist, and while this source should be considered reliable pending any mention at WP:RSN, this one instance is not enough to convince me that Benjamin should be described as a conspiracy theorist in the article lead. It is WP:UNDUE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• yes it is just more of the usual wikipedia libel against anyone to the right of bernie sanders. nobody cares and it is hilarious at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.32.242.71 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• No One source doesn't really establish WP:WEIGHT for the lead sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• No - agree with the comments from Galobtter and Wumbolo : the "conspiracy theorist" categorization does not belong in the article lead.Mcrt007 (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the various editors contributing to the discussion. Setting aside that consensus is _not_ required to remove any material from a BLP that fails WP rules for BLP's, there does appear to be consensus that the inclusion fails on multiple policy grounds. As well, this should satisfy User:Beyond My Ken's claim that there is no consensus to remove the claim. As a gentle reminder, 'consensus' does not mean that everyone agrees. It means that the preponderance of opinion is that the material does not belong in this BLP, and within Wikipedia guidelines, there's ample reason to remove it.

User:Beyond My Ken, I am going to remove the characterization that Carl Benjamin is a conspiracy theorist from the opening sentence. Will you allow this consensus change to stand, and not revert it? Anastrophe (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of what "consensus" means, and I always concede to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Rubin, Peterson, and Harris left Patreon

Considering the importance of the these people leaving Patreon, I want to add this to the lead of the article instead of the last line where it just mentions that Peterson and Rubin protested to the decision. Thoughts? Alireza1357 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Patreon ban - nowhere is Benjamin's response cited

Benjamin has posted his explanation about the text used by patreon to ban him.

1) His context. explaining that it was using alt-right terms against them + arguing it was clearly a satirical use rather than a literal one. 2) Patreon using off site content. 3) That the trigger for the ban was alt-right own dedicated harassment campaign to get him de-platformed.

It is an absurd situation that his own defense and explanations are completely non existent on his own wiki entry.

Can someone explain how can this be rectified? I know the "it is youtube" technicality. But it cannot be done like this esp. given BLP Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC) (adding signature now and time adjusted)

Feel free to quote his after-the-fact defense but please stop trying to whitewash the original statements from the article. GergisBaki (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have a feeling you're just enjoying dropping offensive language into an article. You're new here, and maybe in other places on the internet this is cool (like YouTube, apparently, since you keep sticking YouTube links into this article), but here it is not. It's unnecessary and it's offensive, and I question your motives. I also question your drive to mark Sarkeesian as "feminist"--I don't know why you do that, it's almost like that validates Benjamin's words: maybe it was his validation. I was happy to see Nblund revert you as well--if two seasoned editors revert you, it's a good indication that you're doing something not right. As for Benjamin's "defense"--his response is given, that it's not as detailed or YouTube-linked as you would like is immaterial. Finally, look at WP:VULGAR, which gives you no justification at all for this language: omitting the language does not "make [the] article less accurate or relevant". (And one can argue that in that other quote with the n-word it's not used gratuitously--besides, it helps point out the ridiculous quality of his remark.) Drmies (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys, please do NOT confuse my edits with others.

I have never added those language qoutes in this article, and did not even bother looking into their addition and deletion by other editors.

you can look at my edits which could not be described as untoward, whether we agree or disagree......

There is enough agony in those edit arguments without getting bashed for edits done by other inexperienced editors etc.

I know this article has had heavy edits so confusion is natural Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:GergisBaki keeps attempting to duplicate material in the lede that's already in the body of the article. The lede refers to the incident in question in general terms, and does not need a verbatim repeat of the material in the body. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• And now he's made a new sub-heading to display the gratuitous use of "nigger" and "faggot". User:GergisBaki, I suggest you stop this behavior immediately, because the next instance of it is going to provoke a report at ANI for consideration of a block or ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to point out that the quote of "White people are meant to be polite to one another" was him characterizing the alt rights views and not his own views. As it is written now the context is unclear and the section is misleading as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.36.135 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Where does a reliable source -- not Benjamin himself -- give that context? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/04/anything-youve-ever-said-will-be-used-against-you/ --Fleritarus (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Spiked, eh? The magazine that started as an obscure Marxist newsletter before pivoting to defending genocidal autocrat Slobodan Milošević and then a hard-right propaganda outlet funding by the Koch bros? Okay, sure. Even setting that aside and pretending this is a reliable outlet, I can't bring myself to treat an interview which asks absurdly loaded softball questions like "Are you worried about the implications for free speech?" seriously. Even setting that, too, aside, this is an interview, which is again, Benjamin providing this context himself. Benjamin is, obviously and understandably, keen to cast this in a sympathetic light, but we need reliable sources to establish the significance of this. For now, at least, Benjamin still has many platforms for expression, so any quote from him needs independent support to avoid cherry-picking. Is any outside observer providing this context? Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

One Sentence Paragraphs

We have a lot of one sentence paragraphs that don't really help this article feel like an article. Here are three:

In early 2017 Benjamin created a YouTube video and a Thunderclap with 13,165 supporters in defence of YouTube personality PewDiePie following a controversy about allegations of antisemitism against PewDiePie.[10][11]

Benjamin described some of Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse accusers as "gold-digging whores".[19]

His videos have been credited with popularising Kekistan, a fictional country and political meme that originated on 4chan.[24]

None of these seems to be that notable to me. If we're going to keep these they should be incorporated into a wider narrative so the article doesn't sound like a bullet list of things he's said or done.LedRush (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability is determined by reliable, independent sources. These short paragraphs are more significant than Benjamin's hot takes on any particular random issue, such as Brexit. Do you see the problem with this approach? Expanding info on his opinions while also removing outside coverage is is shifting the article away from what reliable sources say and towards what one particular editor thinks is important. Perhaps you have watched a lot of his videos to know that he's commented a lot on Brexit, but that's starting to look like WP:OR. He has lots of opinions, after all, and not all of them belong just because they are WP:V. Benjamin still has many platforms for sharing his opinions, but Wikipedia cannot and should not become an extension of that. This is not the first time this issue has faced this article. As before, we need to rely on independent sources.

That said, are these sections due? It's especially hard to make the case that Heat Street, which was a political gossip site that's now defunct, has any weight at all. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I think at one point Kekistan redirected here, before it was deleted and recreated, and I think this is leftover from that oddness. Benjamin is a professional pot-stirrer, so these kinds of things are going to accumulate. The article should reflect why Benjamin is notable enough for an article. He is not a recognized expert (as mentioned in WP:SPS, for example) on anything in particular, nor is he a journalist or other commentator with an established organization with editorial oversight or similar. If these WP:FARTs are why he's notable, the article is unfortunately going to have to reflect that, at least to some degree. Grayfell (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin has focused a lot on Brexit, as reflected in RSs mentioning that position and commenting on his speeches (both taped and live) to UKIP Brexiteers. I don’t have a particular issue with any of the one-sentence paragraphs other than the one regarding the Weinstein accusers, as that one is said without context and seems like a BLP issue. Even that could be built out in a paragraph about anti-feminism or anti-too. In short, all the topics could be fair game if presented more completely and didn’t turn the article into a bullet list.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right in Lede

I proposed moving the mention of alt-right in the lede from the list of things he discusses to a list of the things he's critical of. His most recent media coverage is based on him attacking the alt-right or neo-nazis with racist and homophobic language, and there is wide coverage of him being both critical of the alt-right and one of their targets.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/17/jordan-b-petersons-free-speech-fight-author-plans-/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39400/famed-atheist-deletes-patreon-account-over-banning-hank-berrien

https://www.businessinsider.sg/patreon-crowdfunding-platform-defends-itself-amid-boycott-2018-12/?r=US&IR=T

I'm not sure why the edit was reverted. While it is accurate to say he discusses the alt-right, it is far more accurate to say he is a critic of it.LedRush (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not wide coverage, this is niche coverage in sympathetic outlets. The Washington Times is borderline at best as a reliable source, and it merely repeats what Dave Rubin says, which is too vague to be informative even if we did have some reason to include his opinion with attribution. The Daily Wire is unreliable, and doesn't mention anything at all about the substance of Benjamin's videos, other than quoting Jordan Peterson's line about him defending himself from neo-Nazis. The Business Insider source only obliquely refers to the alt-right as part of Benjamin's slur-filled rant, and the quote about Business Insider has verified the existence of the video is a form of distancing. This suggests that BI doesn't consider this intrinsically trustworthy.

We are interested in what reliable sources say about Benjamin. We are not particularly interested in what unreliable sources say, and we are also not obligated to take Benjamin's own take on this as fundamentally more accurate than reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in reliable sources and not unreliable ones. That is why I'm hoping that we will correct the BLP violations.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/jordan-b-peterson-dave-rubin-ditch-crowdfunding-site-patreon-to-stand-up-for-free-speech https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/technology/patreon-hate-speech-bans.html https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/alexander-hall/2018/12/17/shut-out-peterson-rubin-propose-free-speech-funding-site

Is there any RS out there that says that Benjamin used the slurs against someone other than a nazi, racist, or alt-right?LedRush (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin is free to argue that it's okay to use racist slurs against racists, and reliable sources, such as the NYT one you cite, are free to dismiss this as nitpicking. Newsbusters? L. Brent Bozell III's project? So the Parents Television Council guy who hated pro wrestling is now fighting against "censorship"? That's rich. Whatever, if that group wants to make the case that it's okay to use slurs as long as the people its directed at somehow deserve it because of their ideology, they are not credible to discuss how free speech works, which is unsurprising considering their history. They also do not appear to understand why slurs are offensive in the first place. Regardless, nowhere do I see any credible sources saying that Benjamin cannot be alt-right because he insults the alt-right. Trying to make that conclusion from unstated implications of sources is WP:OR. For what it's worth, I doubt a credible source is going to be oblivious to the far-rights long history of infighting, so I don't expect any sources to come along any time soon. Grayfell (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have conceded that he made his comments insulting the alt-right. Now, I'm not talking about changing an attribution from a reliable source to him that he's alt-right, I'm saying that because he is a critic of the alt-right and has been in the news in the last 3 months primarily for the way he criticized the alt-right that we be more accurate and informative in the lede.LedRush (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/patreon-carl-benjamin-and-the-new-puritanism/ (thanks Jeff, this is a RS according to WP, but obviously approaches UK politics in a partisan way)LedRush (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying I "conceded" something I never challenged is a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. It is possible for a member of a group to insult other members of that group. This is true even of Nazis (just ask Gregor Strasser). Judging by the short history of the alt-right/alt-lite/"new right"/etc., it's almost universal for them to engage in infighting, but this has very little to do with why he was removed from the platform, according to sources. The problem has never been the "target" of these insults, it's that he used, and legitimized, these slurs in the first place. Benjamin's attempts to reframe this point have been dismissed by Patreon as nitpicking. As I said, anyone who thinks this is a valid reason doesn't understand why these terms are offensive in the first place. James Delingpole's opinion would only belong with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that using slurs against people you don't like isn't meaningfully the same as "criticism". If reliable sources actually say he is noteworthy as a critic of the alt-right, I haven't seen them. Mentioning, as background, that the people he insulted were alt-right doesn't elevate this "critique" to be a defining trait, even by the lax standards of a youtube personality. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you should check your ownership of this article and your own battleground mentality. Your editorializing both of the alt-right and of Benjamin "legitimizing" the slurs (what a preposterous concept) is completely inappropriate. Benjamin hasn't reframed anything, but you choosing this language is again telling of a large bias. The fact that he used racist and homophobic slurs against racists and homophobes is an essential part of this incident, and one that has received much coverage (as the many links on this page point out). You haven't put forward a legitimate argument for your POV.LedRush (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article included my editorializing, you would be correct to remove it. The article doesn't, however. This editorializing is my attempt to explain why I believe sources do not support this perspective strongly enough to include it. I have not seen any reliable source explain that he was removed despite the target of the slurs he used. If anything, one concept hinted at from sympathetic sources is that Patreon was actively looking for an excuse to boot Benjamin. This was the ostensible reason for the boycott before the transcripts were published. After, reliable sources, as far as I can tell, don't specifically highlighting the target of those slurs as being vitally important to this story. Per the NYT On Dec. 6, Patreon kicked the anti-feminist polemic Carl Benjamin, who works under the name Sargon of Akkad, off its site for using racist language on YouTube. and Mr. Benjamin used the N-word and anti-gay language during an interview posted to YouTube on Feb. 7, Patreon found.[6] The source goes on to provide many other details, such as that Peterson and Rubin plan to start a competing service, and that Patreon's 5% charge may also be a factor for those quitting in solidarity, and that the ACLU sides with Patreon, not with Benjamin. It also includes a short paragraph mentioning that Benjamin claimed he was being "anti-Nazi", which is dismissed by Patreon and is not addressed again in the article. This doesn't suggest that this has received "much coverage", it suggests to me that it's a minor aspect which doesn't reach the level of WP:DUE for the lede.

The Business Insider source likewise says Seeking to further justify the ban of Benjamin, which users boycotting the platform claimed was based in "political bias," Patreon published the transcript of the video it said the company its decision on. Patreon said the segment fit its definition of hate speech, which the platform bans. Reading the transcript, it met Patreon's definition of hate speech, which it says "includes serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race [and] sexual orientation.”[7] It then says that Harris, Peterson, and Rubin's responses were before the transcript was published. Sources do not suggest that they knew this context before their reaction, which suggests that it couldn't have been a deciding factor.

The Fox News article does mention this perspective, but first in passing as the opinion of Peterson, and then as the opinion of the even-less-reliable Newsbusters. If you think these perspectives belong... Maybe, but we should include them in the article with context first, and then reassess the body. That seems like a lot of tangential content to cram into this article. If there were reliable, independent sources on this controversy, it would be a good addition to the Patreon article, but Talk:Patreon would be the place to figure that out.

Incidentally, at a glance, the section of that article dealing with this incident needs attention and better-quality sources.

consensus means you will have to work with me, or seek input from a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

So we have a bunch of sources noting that Benjamin made the remarks attacking the alt-right or neo-nazis and we have a source using that information as a way to mitigate the fact that Benjamin used the slurs. The only argument against usage seems to be your personal feeling that using the words in the way that Benjamin did "legitimizes" them. While an extraordinarily bad argument on its own, it is irrelevant to this article. We should be educating people on what happened. It's amazing to me that motive is so important in the vidcon section that we throw out WP's editing standards just to attribute motive to him, but when we have a bunch of RSs talking about Benjamin's motives here, you are fighting tooth and nail not to include it. For most people, learning of Benjamin's motives would likely make them view what he did in a less-negative light. Perhaps slightly so, perhaps a lot. Certainly this is the case for Peterson and others who have defended Benjamin on these grounds. By refusing to put in this information, you are deliberately giving the impression that Benjamin used ethnic slurs against minorities. Thus, it is violation of BLP.LedRush (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, I propose that we say that he used the homophobic and racist slurs against neo-nazis on youtube. That is supported by many sources, provides essential context, and dispels the common implications of the use of slurs (which is the source of the BLP violation). With that change, we don't need to move the alt-right mention from "topic" to "criticism" as we are more accurately and in more detail painting a picture of Benjamin.LedRush (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the sources that support the assertion that Benjamin was banned for using bigoted slurs to insult neonazis. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The ones above and the NYT article in the lede. Also, it is important to note that this happened on YouTube.LedRush (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Something's importance is determined by reliable sources. As already explained, the NYT source doesn't support that this was the specific reason, nor that it's important. It supports that he used the terms "during an interview", which doesn't seem particularly informative when taken in isolation. If I thought that it would improve this article, I would further explain why it is considered offensive and inappropriate to call straight people "faggots" and white people "niggers", even if those people are themselves bigots. Instead, you can accept that reliable sources treat it as offensive regardless of who the targets of those insults are. This is all that Wikipedia cares about anyway. If you think that the article should explain the IDW crowd's shared opinion that this somehow obligates Patreon to continue working with him, you can propose adding that to the body of the article. Right now, you are proposing we use these high-profile non-expert opinions to alter the wording of the lede to imply something which is not supported by reliable sources as factual. This isn't going to work. We could, possibly, present their opinions as attributed opinions, but based on these sources, this would be a brief summary in the body, not the lede. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that anything obligates Patreon to do anything, and I don't know that anyone else is either. I'm arguing that we should state the facts of what happened clearly so that we don't allow a false and obviously negative implication to exist in a BLP. When you state that someone was punished for using a racist slur at someone, the immediate implication is that the someone used it against a person of that race. Basically, the implication is that you are a racist. That is an exceptionally negative implication. Reliable sources state that Benjamin used the term against racists. You believe that this argument isn't persuasive and that such usage is still offensive. That's fine. I agree that it's still offensive too. But I also believe that many people will find it less offensive than the false implication. Furthermore, I believe that providing more neutral, information better informs our readers. We are avoiding facts reported in RSs just to keep an implication that Benjamin is racist against minorities despite the fact that we know he used the slurs against racists. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could argue that this isn't a BLP issue.LedRush (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We do provide this information in the body of the article, but reliable sources do not treat this as a defining aspect of the controversy, much less a defining aspect of "Carl Benjamin" as a topic. Your common-sense opinion that this makes his comments slightly less offensive, at least to some people who think that matters, is fair, but it's not supported by sources at all, as far as I can see. This isn't what BLP is about. We're not trying to make content more or less offensive in isolation, or based on WP:OR, we are trying to explain it in proportion to due weight. Even the sources you have proposed do not treat the target of his slurs as centrally important to this. As I said, Peterson, Harris, and Rubin all issued their defense before the transcript was even cited by Patreon. They chose to defend him regardless of who the supposed targets of his slurs were, so to say that this retroactively made it important after the fact is not supportable. From the sources I have seen, these are the only prominent perspectives which arguably treat this detail as significant, but they didn't even know this at the time. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. It is most helpful. I don't think this is a central point, but Peterson specifically pointed to the fact that Benjamin used the slurs against racists. I think you might have an issue that my change makes it seem that Patreon was motivated to ban Benjamin because of who he targeted, which is obviously not true and wasn't my intent.

The current language is this: "In December 2018, Benjamin was banned from Patreon for using racial and homophobic slurs." I think this is a BLP issue because it implies something very negative that would be countered if we just stated more facts that we acknowledge in the article itself. My previous language could be interpreted to mean that Patreon banned Benjamin "for" attacking racists. That is highly prejudicial against Patreon and not supported by fact. Let me see if I can get the facts in without becoming overly wordy.LedRush (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: Specifically, which 'ones above'? We can't be using a blog for this, for example. Do you get charged per word used by your ISP? There's no need to be so stingy with your words- please assist me in understanding your point or we won't get anywhere. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Side note: is this in dispute? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Benjamin&type=revision&diff=883718366&oldid=883638818. If not, I'll change back, but I don't want 3RR allegations because I didn't think this was what Grayfell really wanted reverted.LedRush (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: Well, if you've reverted three seperate editors who apparently preferred that wording, perhaps your insistence on your wording is contentious. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was that I thought the issue got folded into a different one accidentally. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to revert and discuss.LedRush (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: What, do I need to report you for you to go ahead and revert it? You offered to self revert, and here you are, not self reverting. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time you asked me to revert. I actually wasn't soliciting your opinion as I didn't make a change to something you reverted. However, are you asking me to revert because you think the edit is contentious? I'm a little taken aback by your aggressive attitude on a minor point about how much of the audience was filled...especially as it is supported by RSs and video evidence.

@@Grayfell: Is this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Benjamin&type=revision&diff=883718366&oldid=883638818 against your wishes? If so, I'll revert. If you don't reply in about 90 minutes, I'll revert.LedRush (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell:No one had changed this language (which has been in the article for a few days without issue) for any reason other than for "clarity", but I'll revert to make sure and check in with you tomorrow.LedRush (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: I was the one who made that edit - I don't particularly mind what the wording is there though. I don't see how it could be that contentious. Just to explain why I thought my wording was clearer; I think it was a comment that you made (maybe not) that questioned what the first three rows of "half the audience" meant so I changed it instead to read "three of the first rows". Note that this isn't the same as "the first three rows" and that's why I changed it as such. I don't have a problem with it being changed back though if people think it removed a little context/information. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. You are right that “three of the first rows” doesn’t mean the same as the obviously incorrect “first three rows”. But RSs say that they took up the first three rows on one side of the venue, and this is confirmed by video sources in those RSs. I admit my language is a little clunky, but I think given the extraordinary contention that Benjamin was engaging in a harassment campaign, an accurate description of the size of the people there is important.LedRush (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(copied from above) The current language is this: "In December 2018, Benjamin was banned from Patreon for using racial and homophobic slurs." I think this is a BLP issue because it implies something very negative that would be countered if we just stated more facts that we acknowledge in the article itself. My previous language could be interpreted to mean that Patreon banned Benjamin "for" attacking racists. That is highly prejudicial against Patreon and not supported by fact. Let me see if I can get the facts in without becoming overly wordy.LedRush (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

how about "In December 2018, Benjamin was banned from Patreon for using racial and homophobic slurs, though he argues that he was using the language to attack the alt-right."

This makes the lede more accurately reflect the facts and the article without implying that Patreon defended the alt-right or neo-nazi's. I've used alt-right in my summary because the article quotes the YouTube transcript that Patreon published as using that term. If someone wants to use "neo-nazi" as others have in RSs, I'm fine with that too.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article has the following notice:

Notice about sources

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

I notice that there are many controversial statements about Benjamin that are sourced by non-traditional media that is known more their political perspectives than their actual reporting. I am comparing those sources to this WP page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources) as guidance regarding how to deal with these controversial statements.LedRush (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure there's been some here who've been editing this article for a while, so I don't want to move to hastily. However, I do see a lot of contentious characterizations of Benjamin and his ideas, and there are a lot of dodgy sources, so with BLP of utmost concern, I don't want to move too slowly either.LedRush (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we be using Vice? WP:RSP says there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice but that it is generally not as reliable for politics as for subjects such as arts and entertainment. Seen as though this is a BLP and the majority of the content of the article, including where Vice is used as a source, is political, isn't it best that we stick to the most reliable sources, sources which haven't been called into question as to their political coverage? Alduin2000 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For those who may not already know, all sources are judged in context. Vice is not inherently unreliable as an outlet (unlike Breitbart or the Daily Mail as examples which have also covered Benjamin) so each use of Vice needs to be evaluated based on the claims being made and the significance to the topic.

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is, first, to provide basic biographical details, and second to explain why a person is noteworthy. Benjamin is primarily noteworthy for his controversial opinions, so we need to provide that context. Actually, from what I've seen, he is exclusively noteworthy for his controversial opinions, so that's an understatement, but regardless, our duty is to the readers who don't already know who this person is. If those readers have a warped or selective understanding of why he's noteworthy, the article is flawed. If we mention that he has opinions, but fail to explain what those opinions are in a neutral way, and also fail to explain why anyone is paying attention to those opinions, we've misrepresented Benjamin. Vice's assessment, with attribution, seems like a useful way to provide that context. Vice may not be neutral, but it doesn't have to be, because we can still explain Vice's assessment from a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For some reason I must have misremembered seeing Vice used as a source without attribution. Anyway, given what you said my previous comment is wrong - using Vice doesn't violate the standards for a BLP. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, everything you said in that first remark is correct. Vice shouldn't be used to describe someone's political views at all, nonetheless 4(!) separate times. Why is this non-reliable source for politics used to opine about the politics of a BLP 4 times?LedRush (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As was just explained, it is reliable in context, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Grayfell (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As was just explained, no it isn't. Vice's assessment of Benjamin's politics are completely unnecessary to the article. Not only is this a BLP violation, it is one of the clearest cases of UNDUE I've seen.LedRush (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Alduin2000, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice. That also means there is no consensus that it is unreliable. This means that we have to evaluate every use in context. Saying it's "unnecessary" isn't helpful, since I have already explained one way I think it's useful to readers. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Vice is not reliable for politics, especially for contentious statements in a BLP. Using it once isn't warranted. Using it 4 times is bias. There still has been no argument for why it is necessary.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Except for the one I made:Vice's assessment, with attribution, seems like a useful way to provide that context. Vice may not be neutral, but it doesn't have to be, because we can still explain Vice's assessment from a neutral point of view. I disagree that "Vice is not reliable for politics". It is not always reliable for politics, but that's not relevant. Vice.com is frequently cited by other reliable news outlets for political coverage. It is not universally reliable, but few outlets are, so we have to evaluate every usage in context. "Reliable" is not the same as "biased", per WP:BIASED. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Vice isn't needed for context, and they aren't reliable to provide anything but their own non-notable opinion of Benjamin. So that means zero usage would be best, but that it would be nearly impossible not to violate BLP by using it more than once.LedRush (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: You keep talking about what's 'needed'. If we want to use content from a source, it's needed. Otherwise, it's not. Your continuous assertion that the amount of BLP we violate is tied to how many times a particular cite is included is ridiculous. Could you please talk specifically about what & where the BLP violation allegedly is, rather than continuing with the vague, heavy assertions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The article uses a non-reliable source to contextualize Benjamin in a negative light on 4 separate occasions. The BLP issue is self-evident.LedRush (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's so self evident, please explain it to me. Surely, it'll be easy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I just did...again.LedRush (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying 'the BLP issue is self-evident' is not an explanation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I'm glad that's not all I said.LedRush (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: @PeterTheFourth: @Grayfell: Is it perhaps a solution to have a separate section for Benjamin's self-claimed political beliefs. I can see some concerns that people may have with this but I think that comments about Benjamin from other sources can be easily put under a "Reception" section. I'm going to be bold but if anyone thinks this isn't a good compromise then leaving an explanation here would be useful. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that broadly makes sense. We have a political views section which is almost exclusively what non-reliable sources say about him with attribution, not about what he says his political beliefs are or examples of him taking actions or making speeches in RSs.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the two political actions, 'taking actions' and 'making speeches'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, we need to summarize mainly from reliable sources. If sources explain why his non-expert opinions are encyclopedically significant, use them and then perhaps use primary sources to fill in a few details, per WP:PRIMARY. Benjamin is reliable for what his own opinions are, but not for the significance or due weight of those opinions. Again, Benjamin's self-published youtube videos are not reliable sources. If reliable sources don't indicate why his opinions belong, they don't, no matter what section they are under. If they do, start from there. Don't add WP:OR from first-hand viewings and then try and backfill with whatever happens to be searchable. That's creating a warped impression and inflating this one youtuber's significance far beyond what is supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not personal attack me. Benjamin has been in the news as a proponent of Brexit, and he has made his own views clear on that.LedRush (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You added a paragraph supported entirely by primary sources, and I am now trying to explain the problem with this approach. Like everyone, he has countless views. Why does this view matter? Explain why Wikipedia should care, and use reliable sources. If it's been in the news, cite the news. It's not that complicated. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the cited link was to this article, while the cite template indicated a different source. This would be an easy fix, except it perfectly demonstrates my problem with this underlying approach. It's adding first-hand knowledge and then going back and adding sources after the fact. If sources do not say he is a "vocal advocate for Brexit" and then elaborate on his unqualified opinion about millions of pounds etc. finding primary source to amplify this perspective is totally inappropriate. Use reliable, independent sources to establish that this opinion is significant, and also to explain how this opinion is significant. Start over from reliable sources, please. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin has been in the news for his Brexit positions, his twitter bans, his Patreon ban, and his UKIP support. And I'd appreciate it if you stop with your personal attacks against me. I am not good at citations so I generally copy one and then fill in the details. For my recent I copied over all the information on the correct article except the link. I've fixed it.LedRush (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not intentionally making any personal attacks against you, but I am attempting to explain the problems with your recent edits. I am trying, and apparently failing, to explain exactly what I think needs to be changed to improve the article. You say that he's "in the news" for such and such, so please cite that news without editorializing. Summarize what that news says. The current edit doesn't do that in an appropriate way.

This article currently cites five of Benjamin's own youtube videos to provide details of his personal opinions about the topic, but we do not have any reliable sources explaining why this is encyclopedically significant. He attended a rally, but since lots of people attend lots of events, we need to explain why this incident matters. We cannot ignore the substance of a source and only use it to support a tangential point, and the raw quantity of primary sources he's published on this is a distraction.

We have a source which says he attended a Brexit rally with other UKIP personalities. This article says nothing specific about his stance on Brexit. It doesn't even directly say he supports Brexit. We can, of course, reasonably infer that he supports Brexit from that source, but it's clearly not that important, because it's treated as an aside. The context the source provides is about how controversial Benjamin is, and what this means for UKIP, but Brexit is not factually discussed at all. Using this source to say he is a vocal supporter of Brexit is technically accurate, but is unduly focusing on a minor aspect while ignoring the substance of the source.

It might help to think of it this way: For a youtuber like Benjamin, opinions are like products to be sold. By his own admission, he is "politically incorrect" and "offensive", so his audience is built through his controversial political commentary. His opinions about Brexit have not, from what I have seen, been cited by any reliable sources at all as informative for the topic of Brexit. When we present his opinions as encyclopedically significant, we are telling readers that this is important. We are, in a sense, sharing samples of his commentary without any outside context. This is likely helping him advertise his channel, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising.

Does that make this any clearer? Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I find your opinion clearer, but I still fundamentally disagree with your characterization. We have a significant number of RSs saying that Benjamin supports Brexit, that he joined UKIP (often described as a one-issue Brexit party), that he gave speeches to UKIP both privately and publicly. In a section about his own political beliefs, when we know that so many RSs talk about his position on the matter, it seems entirely appropriate that we add two short sentences on that. This is even more important as we use a large number of partisan and non-reliable sources to characterize Benjamin's views...with Vice getting 4 cracks at it!LedRush (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are a significant number of sources, you should've started with those sources. I don't know how else to say this.

If sources say he joined UKIP, so should this article (and it does). If sources say that UKIP is a single-issue Brexit party, that could be discussed at Talk:UKIP. If sources say that "Benjamin joined UKIP, a single-issue party focused on Brexit" only then should this article include that connection. We cannot bypass B to link A to C ourselves. We need sources to do this for us. To daisy-chain sources to make a connection not made by any source in isolation is WP:SYNTH. I can find many sources, includes ones we've already discussed, which characterize UKIP as being a far-right party, or an anti-Muslim party, or many other unflattering adjectives... does that mean all of Benjamin's opinions on these things belong? No, not without reliable sources directly explaining why Benjamin's opinions are being mentioned.

Any summary of Benjamin's position must start with reliable sources first. How many dozens or hundreds (or thousands?) of hours of videos has Benjamin produced or participated in? Instead of relying on editors to arbitrarily decide which define his position on Brexit, we need to use sources to explain this. Everyone who has produced as much content as Benjamin has will make trivial statements which don't have a lasting impact, and also eventually make contradictory statements, and statements which can be taken out of context. Wikipedia as a rule doesn't trust individual editors to keep track of all of this, because it's impossible. We need to use independent sources as a safeguard against editorializing, not matter how pure our intentions. Does this make sense?

As I've said, James Delingpole's opinion should not be presented as factual, but can be presented with attribution. This is the same standard we're holding Vice to. Sources might mention Brexit and Benjamin together still need to explain the connection. Otherwise this is non-neutral, since it is still not explaining why his opinion is significant. Again, he is not an expert on Brexit, and has not been cited for factual matters on Brexit. Therefore, we still need to contextualize this based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to synth anything. RSs say he backs Brexit, he speaks at Brexit rallies, he gives speeches to UKIP containing support for Brexit. I'm not looking to add some contentious or potentially defamatory claim about him or his Brexit views.LedRush (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but which sources, and what, exactly, do those source say? Is this a fair summary of facts, or is this his non-expert opinion presented without context? The article is now providing a specific perspective of someone who isn't an expert, without providing any context at all. Your intentions are not in doubt, but this is still contentious. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

While I would agree he's not an expert on the EU and Brexit, UKIP appears to disagree: "Ukip said Batten had invited Benjamin to speak at a panel on the EU as a “subject matter expert” and that he was not an official party representative."https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/racist-troll-who-sent-rape-tweet-addresses-ukip-members-8tdvlp6qj. LedRush (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, so anything from UKIP would reasonably also need attribution, correct? Since the sources you've added have all explained that UKIP, and Benjamin's new-found role in UKIP, are intensely controversial. I don't think the UKIP is considered credible for factual information about political topics without this attribution. So instead of presenting Benjamin's opinions at face-value and then hunting for sources after the fact, we should summarize what reliable sources say. I don't have a subscription, but does this article, which is headlined "‘Racist’ troll who sent rape tweet addresses Ukip members" really emphasize Benjamin's "expertise" in Brexit, or as the snippet suggests, does it explain why it's controversial for the UKIP to be inviting him to speak on Brexit in the first place? Can you provide a fair summary of that source? Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for us to say that he's an SME on the EU and Brexit. I'm just noting RSs which say that he is has vocal opinions on it.

To summarize the article: Benjamin is a racist, sexist troll made popular by criticizing islam, feminism, and pc. Ukip is trying to attract younger members, and they welcome Benjamin to speak at their conference to do this. His talk focused on British liberty and he will give another address to a Ukip youth conference. Benjamin's role raises questions for how Batten is leading the party. Benjamin is a racist homophobe. Benjamin and Batten seem close, as they've appeared together in the EU parliament and Benjamin has interviewed Batten on YouTube. Jones left Ukip because she says it has moved far right, and she opposes Benjamin's inclusion in the party. Ukip said that Benjamin was invited to EU parliament as an SME. Ukip said that Benjamin has said some distasteful things, but the vast majority of what he says is sensible.

When a political party calls you an SME on something and invites you to talk at the EU Parliament, rallies, and internal meetings about it, it seems uncontroversial to note that you have a vocal opinion on it.LedRush (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should remove any mention of Brexit from the article. Instead of compiling primary sources to explain this opinion from Benjamin's own perspective, we should summarize these reliable sources, and only use primary sources to answer vital questions raised by those independent sources.

As one example, instead of presenting his claims about the billions of pounds he thinks it's going to save (which he is not an expert on) we should mention that he's attended pro-Brexit rallies with Robinson, etc. This is what the reliable source directly supports. From what I've seen, sources only start mentioning Brexit and Benjamin together after he joined UKIP, and only in that context. Are there sources which contradict this? If not, the article should also reflect that chronology and present his opinions on Brexit as a subset of his UKIP activity. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP

There are comments above that make claims about Benjamin in the emphatic, which are not corroborated and sourced in the article - there are statements by *third parties* characterizing what he has said, but not sourced material that overtly verifies the claims as being 'who Benjamin is'. The rules are quite clear - both the article AND the talk page must conform to BLP rules. I'm not one to remove or edit others comments. I would strongly urge those who have made claims above about Benjamin - specific derogatory claims - remove them from this page. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some things in the article are or were given in-line citations (out of an abundance of caution), but are cited to WP:RSes that can be used for statements of fact. Generally speaking we should avoid such unnecessary attribution anyway, since it implicitly casts doubt in cases where none exists - ie. if we do have a high-quality, mainstream reliable source describing him in a certain way, we'd need some indication from another source that that descriptor is controversial before we could present it that way in the article. In particular, I don't think there's any controversy over him being an anti-feminist. --Aquillion (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking of specifically worded characterizations that are not sourced, and are inappropriate to a BLP, which is why they are not in the BLP - but editors appear to feel unconstrained from adding their personal opinions about Benjamin here in talk space. read up several comments. I'm not going to repeat the statement, as we'll then just have a feedback-loop of BLP-inappropriate commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

anti-feminist

There seems to be a long standing desire to characterize Benjamin beyond the simple and accurate 'political commentator and polemicist' in the first sentence of the article. These changes invariably are 'negative' characterizations. Does not 'anti-feminist' fall within the characterizations that already exist? Anastrophe (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Political commentator and polemicist" is extremely vague by itself. Choosing less accurate language specifically because it may have subjective connotations to some people is a form of political correctness. If "anti-feminist" has negative connotations to some people, this still doesn't make it less accurate, does it? Likewise, there is a significant number of people, including many of Benjamin's fans and colleagues, who would see the term "anti-feminist" as a badge of pride. Which of these groups gets priority? Neither, and doesn't really matter, because that's not how this works. If reliable sources help us describe an encyclopedic topic, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Before I talk about anything else, I think it is necessary to state that antifeminism, in large, means opposition to feminism, but the issue is the fact that so many different brands of feminism exist. If we define antifeminism as simply being opposed to one form of feminism, then trans-exclusionary radical feminism or other branches of feminism that are critical of other branches would be considered antifeminist. I am not by means attempting to suggest that Carl Benjamin is a feminist; I am merely pointing out here that defining antifeminism as opposition to a certain branch of feminism can run into some problems when trying to talk about feminism itself.

I definitely understand Aquillion's reasoning behind his edits, but with the way he has justified describing Carl Benjamin as an antifeminist, "He is an anti-feminist, being critical of feminism and identity politics", opens up some problems. Putting aside what we have on Carl Benjamin for the moment, being critical of feminism does not mean that one stands in complete opposition to the movement. One can have issues with the means that the movement aims to use to achieve its goals, or could believe that feminism needs critical reforms but does not stand opposed to the movement as a whole.

Defining Mr. Benjamin as an antifeminist in the first sentence of his page entails that he is in hardcore opposition to the movement of feminism in itself. While he certainly has been very vocal in opposition to a lot of feminist movements, the general idea is the concept that the feminist movements he is opposing have become too ideological and extreme.

Simply put here, I think describing someone as an antifeminist in the first sentence of his/her article entails that this individual is completely/near completely opposed to anything feminism stands for, up to its principles. Things that are genuinely antifeminist, like the MGTOW movement, or a number of Islamist movements should thus be described as antifeminist enough to be described as such in the first sentence; for example, the MGTOW movement is very vocal in believing that the social enfranchisement of women brought forth in the modern era are leading to societal decline and are very open to actions like eliminating female suffrage that an individual like Carl Benjamin does not support. Since feminism, as a whole, is a very diverse movement, labeling someone primarily as an antifeminist should be done when this person has disagreements with feminist worldviews comparable to the way a MGTOW or most radical Islamists do. Hence, I believe that Aquillion's edits trying to emphasize Carl Benjamin as an antifeminist should be undone. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Which of these groups gets priority?" For me, the question is, is this undue weight for just one of the many, many, many topics that he bloviates on? Shall we now move to listing every possible iteration? 'polemicist, anti-brexit, anti-nazi," etc etc.

To be clear - I don't know if this is undue weight. I haven't dived into the RS's to see if this is how he is primarily characterized. I know he has been characterized as anti-feminist, by the NYT no less; does that constitute weight appropriate for the single opening sentence descriptor? Anastrophe (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, I added 'anti-feminist' based on the NYT source (since you expressed your objection to parsing the other parts to anti-feminist already.) If you feel more sources are needed: [8][9][10]. I could find more if necessary, but honestly it's not at all controversial - it's not an exaggeration to say that being a popular anti-feminist is one of his main claims to fame, perhaps his most prominent one. Beyond that, given the reasonably extensive WP:RS sourcing, if people want to argue that there's anything controversial about calling him an anti-feminist, I'd want to see other equally-prominent sources that disagree with these. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't argue or suggest that there are sources that disagree with the characterization. There's precisely one short paragraph in the article that discusses Benjamin being anti-feminist. Oh, but wait - now the three-sentence lede mentions him in relation to anti-feminism not once, not twice, but three times. I'm arguing undue weight. The second sentence of the lede more than adequately characterizes it. It's front-loading.

I would propose remove anti-feminist from the opening sentence. Leave the existing "Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy and early antifeminist videos.". Remove "is a critic of [...]feminism[...]" as well from the third sentence. The second sentence completely covers the both of those instances. As it reads now, there's a sense of 'doth protest too much'. We get it.Anastrophe (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources which say that this is no longer part of his notability, and apparently you agree. Do you know of any reliable sources which suggest this is inaccurate, or that his position has shifted? If not, why would the article imply that? Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. What, in what I suggested, would imply that he is no longer notable for it? I'm proposing leaving the second sentence in, which clearly establishes his notoriety as an anti-feminist. The other two are just front-loading it. Can you explain why it needs to be stated three times in the first graf of the lede that he is anti-feminist, gained notoriety for his videos critical of feminism, and that he is critical of feminism? It doesn't make sense. Or, if you prefer, leave the new 'anti-feminist' in the first sentence, and move the remaining two into the body. Again - it's noted in each of the three sentences of the lede. It's over the top. Anastrophe (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. The lede isn't great, we can agree on that. So what would be included if we were writing this from scratch?

• A link to antifeminism in the lede would help prevent redundancy.
• He rose to prominence through gamergate, which is an antifeminist movement.
• He is, per sources, still known for antifeminist content.

How can we succinctly indicate this in the lede without undue weight? Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

One option -

"Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber, political commentator and polemicist better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy. Since Gamergate he has covered topics such as identity politics, the alt-right, and Brexit, and is a critic of political correctness, feminism, and socialism."

- The anti-feminist videos previously mentioned are explicit to the gamergate controversy. Since this is expanded in the body, just noting gamergate is adequate.

Another option -

"Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber, political commentator, anti-feminist, and polemicist better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy. Since Gamergate he has discoursed on identity politics, the alt-right, Brexit, political correctness, and many other topics."

- I've only seen a small fraction of his videos, but they cover far more than just the few that can be crammed into the lede. Is he specifically notable as a critic of socialism for example? No, it's one of dozens of things he expounds his opinions on. For a short article, with a short lede, it's not necessary to go into great detail on the many things he bloviates upon. It could even stop at 'Brexit' for that matter.Anastrophe (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the second. This ties into the overly-long above section. He talks about many things, but he's not a recognized expert in any of them, so we shouldn't be citing random things as examples without support from independent sources. These sources do mention antifeminism, and probably political correctness (I dislike including that one, because I think it means radically different things to different people, but perhaps that point can wait). Independent sources which discuss his position on Brexit are very thin, from what I've seen, and they mostly relate to UKIP, which isn't yet mentioned in the lede at all. If we mention Brexit in the lede, we should use those sources to briefly contextualize why this is significant. The NYT source for the identity politics line doesn't say he "covers" the topic, it says he is critical of the topic. I think this is a significant distinction, but perhaps it's not going to fit here, either.

Here's a question: how is he "political commentator" in a way which is different from "Youtuber" and "polemicist"? Has he been a commentator for any established outlets, or is this just a way to indicate he talks about politics? The term commentator usually implies he is paid to give his opinions. This is technically true, but crowdfunded youtube videos really seems like a different animal from the term's conventional meaning. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A person can be a polemicist and never mention politics. It's a one-size-fits-all sort of term. Youtuber likewise. What he does primarily for a living - since I don't think he's an active game developer any more - is comment on politics, society, whatever, and he aims for the provocative, no matter what the topic. So, he's a 'professional' commentator - there seems to be a whole genre of same on youtube, to fit whatever variety of inflammatory content one is interested in. His is minorly notable in the bigger scheme of things, but the controversy he attracts I think tends to draw a lot more interest in his bio than it would otherwise elicit. I think the article is too long as it stands already, but that's immaterial.

I'm not really opposed to _any_ version of the lede, so long as it doesn't redundantly evoke one particular aspect of the person that isn't inherently the most notable. He's been described as an anti-feminist by some sources, good enough.

"Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber, political commentator, and polemicist, better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy, and associated anti-feminist critiques. On his YouTube channel, he comments on a variety of societal and political topics, typically associated with current or recent news or events". Yet another version. I'm not in love with any of them, if someone has a better blend they can come up with, I'm all ears. Anastrophe (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that version may be a bit too open-ended.

As for length, an obnoxiously large percentage of this talk page's archives are me arguing that the article is too long and too reliant on primary sources. His fans do not seem to agree, or don't care. He isn't particularly notable strictly as a youtuber. Reliable sources only mention him in relation to controversies, which he typically seeks-out. The article should reflect sources first and foremost, but this is more difficult than it might seem, so the article is still bloated.

I also agree with what you are saying about "polemicist", but something about it still seems off. Do sources commonly define him as a commentator? Would this meet WP:CATDEF? I dunno. I'm not going to remove the category, but it still seems like we're failing to properly explain why this person has an article in the first place. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think we should work to trim some of the things cited solely to his youtube videos first. In context, I would argue that they're actually too self-serving for WP:ABOUTSELF, since they're effectively being used to try and make his views sound better (especially compared to how they're covered in secondary sources.) We should be able to find secondary sources covering key aspects of his views, if they're WP:DUE, and rely on those. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He is primarily known for his Youtube videos, so I think eliding refs to his videos works strongly against neutrality. He's characterized in a lot of extremely egregious ways (see above) which are not necessarily borne out in the hundreds? thousands? of hours of commentary he's produced on his channel. The egregious characterizations are extrapolated or inferred from what he's actually said; that makes them considerably less reliable than his own words -- and again, BLP, BLP, BLP -- just because some sources characterize him as a monster doesn't mean it goes into the article here. Most secondary sources that cover his commentary tend to be from media unsympathetic to his non-left-wing views. As it stands, the article is largely composed of negative characterizations, with the occasional half-hearted nod to his protestations that he is not the monster others claim him to be. I think the BLP as it stands barely toes the line on acceptability under the guidelines. If he is primarily notable for the things he says, then _removing_ what he says - or relying only on the cherry-picked, out of context snippets that are used by others to characterize him - would leave it as just a string of commentaries that he's a 'garbage human'. That's not how BLP's work. His detractors have the bulk of the content sewed up here. What needs to be trimmed is ...everything. An appropriate article on him should fit on a single page. He became noticed due to gamergate. he runs a youtube channel where he expresses his views. the Sarkesian panel section could be dropped down to three sentences. The Patreon ban could be dropped down to three sentences. Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He is not primarily known for his youtube videos in a vacuum. He is primarily known for whatever it is that reliable sources say about him. That's the standard all articles are held to. goal is to use primary sources to provide context for reliable sources. We don't use those sources to pad-out the article, or do intentionally downplay unflattering comments from reliable sources. That would be whitewashing, and is the opposite of neutrality. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course Anastrophe is right. The insistence to use non-reliable sources to make extraordinary claims regarding Benjamin's own opinions is obviously a BLP issue. We attribute Vice 4 separate times, but people try to delete Benjamin's views in his own words.LedRush (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [Sorry for the edit conflict change...if you want to move this above, feel free.]LedRush (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

As both Anastrophe and I have pointed out, he has produced hundreds of hours of content on a wide variety of random topics. Why do you, LedRush, get to decide which videos to include and which to omit? Grayfell (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of him producing hundreds of hours of content on how he classifies his own beliefs.LedRush (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. He's produced hundred of hours of videos expressing his beliefs. Beliefs on many topics, including, but not limited to, Brexit. As far as I know, most or all of these are topics he has no professional qualifications to speak on, and for which no reliable outlet has sought his input. So how is one topic objectively any different from any other, and why do you get to decide which belong and which don't? Grayfell (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

RSs have mentioned his Brexit stance and mentioned that he was invited to speak on these stances on behalf of UKIP. I mention his own beliefs because you reverted an edit which properly placed his views of himself first, so I thought you were talking about that.LedRush (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has views of themselves... so what?

As for Brexit, your summary of the issue completely failed to explain why sources were mentioning Brexit. Sources do not indicate anyone cares about his opinions on Brexit, not even UKIP. They specifically say he was invited to attract younger voters. The few people who still think UKIP has legitimacy were scandalized by all the racist and sexist things Benjamin's said. Does the article with the headline "‘Racist’ troll who sent rape tweet addresses Ukip members" focus on his Brexit policies, or does it mention them in passing? Use what your own sources are saying. If you add a source and then ignore most of what that source says, but still use it as justification to include more of his irrelevant opinions, you making the article more promotional. Do you understand the problem, here? Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I do see the problem now. You are extremely biased against Benjamin and should probably refrain from editing this article as you seem bent on ignoring WP policy and violating BLP so that your own biases can be reflected in the article. Also, you might want to delete your last post here.LedRush (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If you object to other sources in the article, go ahead and bring them up (or even remove them if you think they're serious WP:BLP issues), but BLP requires that we keep poorly-sourced statements out of the article until consensus is required, not that we leave it in. Citing his YouTube videos to attribute views to him - especially views that are controversial - is clearly a WP:BLP violation when those views are written in a potentially self-serving manner or include claims about other people (eg. "trying to use their own language against them", claims about the effects of Brexit, and so on); we need reputable secondary sources for things like that. Citing YouTube videos for statements like these fails WP:BLPREMOVE. If you feel those aspects need to be covered, your time would be better spent trying to find reputable secondary sources covering them. Note that I did not remove the parts about his Brexit stance that are cited to secondary sources, just the things whose sole cites were Youtube videos; nor did I remove his basic description of his political stance, though a secondary source would still be preferable given the self-serving way it differs from how others have described him. If you can find, in those secondary sources, coverage of the things I removed that would support it, by all means restore it using those cites. But we should not lean on YouTube videos to attribute controversial views to someone, nor is it appropriate for editors to use such primary sources to string together a justification for his views - not even well-meaning editors who feel they are doing the article's subject a favor. BLP does not require that the article make him look as good as possible, or that it reflects everything he's said that an editor found cool or interesting - it requires that we use the highest-quality sources to describe him. While we can rely on self-published things to a limited extent, citing so much of our description of his politics to random assortments of quotes and videos editors decided to toss onto the page itself violates both WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You are using low quality sources to portray Benjamin's views in extraordinary (and negative) terms, and not allowing his own expressions of his views to be used. You are committing flagrant BLP violations. We have secondary sources that say Benjamin use the language on youtube to attack neo-nazi's...and we have primary ones. You delete it not because of BLP concerns, you delete it because it fixes BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin and his fans seem to think the target of these slurs matters, but from what I can see, reliable sources don't think it matters. Is the assumption that it's less offensive because they also use those terms? Why would that be any better? Is it less offensive because they are bad people? "They deserved it" isn't a defense, and it completely misses the point. This seems like a bunch of flimsy schoolyard nonsense. The body already explains these details, but the sources certainly don't emphasize this detail, nor do they indicate this made a difference either way. They didn't ban him despite the target of his slurs, they banned him for using slurs.

If anything, the point could be made (by sources) that these companies were looking for an excuse to ban someone they saw as a liability, but the target of his slurs still wouldn't make this any different. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion: "He is not primarily known for his youtube videos in a vacuum". Of course not. Is the article full of references to his videos where they are not included as rebuttal/clarification/explanation to what the secondary sources say? Not that I can see. The majority of the article uses reliable left-leaning sources that tend to take glee in calling anything to the right of Joan Baez as nazis, racists, homophobes, etc.. Do their conflations exist in a vacuum? Of course not. If Benjamin's actual words are not to be allowed, then 'Alas poor Neutrality; I knew him'. It is not "self promotion" for someone who has been slurred to say 'no, I am not how you characterize me'. In a BLP, if third parties say negative things about the subject of the BLP, it is absolutely not "self-promotion" to provide a direct link to what he may or may not have actually said. Suggesting that it's self-serving is a non-neutral view of self-serving, so to speak.

Similarly, Grayfell: "Citing his YouTube videos to attribute views to him - especially views that are controversial - is clearly a WP:BLP violation when those views are written in a potentially self-serving manner[...]". I think this completely misses the spirit of the rule. Define "self-serving", please. Let's say Betsy Batmiss says in a moment of frustration, "I hate cats, I wish they were all dead!". A 'reliable' source with an axe to grind (like Vox, for pity sake) states That Betsy Batmiss is in favor of exterminating all cats, everywhere, by any means necessary. Is it a BLP violation as self-serving to link to exactly what Ms. Batmiss actually said, to provide context that a reasonable person could judge for themselves what Betsy Batmiss meant? Not at all. That's how the article can remain neutral. When an article is filled with negative characterizations that 'reliable' sources gleefully publish, it is most certainly not neutral to elide the person's actual words, while just leaving the characterizations. This is one of the main reasons that self-published sources do get a qualified pass in BLPs! Benjamin has stated, in depth, that he strongly believes in equal opportunity for women, for minorities, for whomever, and the reasons why he believes that. This however, will never be mentioned by Vox for example, even though they are an acceptable RS.

I believe that the 'self serving manner' discussed in the BLP rules is more intended to prevent BLP's being filling with pompous declarations from the self-important about how important they are, e.g. would BLP give a pass to Kanye West's statement "I am the number one human being in music. That means any person that's living or breathing is number two." as justification for characterizing him as the greatest musician of all time? Of course not. That would be an example of self-serving primary sourcing.

All that said, most of this can be solved by slash-and-burning (for the most part) both the negative characterizations and his responses. What do we end up with? A very short article, which would be appropriate to the actual notability of the subject, which is minor.Anastrophe (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone can, in good faith, argue that Benjamin doesn't come [edit atLedRush (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)]off better if he is using racist language to attack nazi's rather than using racist language to attack minorities.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. So if he doesn't come off any better, and he doesn't come off any worse, and reliable sources don't seem to think it's particularly important, it doesn't belong in the lede.

Anastrophe, I think you are confused about who said what, but regardless, The article tries to summarize the events for which he is notable. This meme that every single left-wing sources likes to call everyone Nazis at the drop of a hat is silly, simplistic, and has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works, much less this article.

Trimming the article doesn't mean trimming reliable sources just because they have some hypothetical ideology. There are reliable, right-wing outlets. For some reason, it seems like they don't like to talk about Benjamin as much (I wonder why... ) If those sources don't exist, this isn't really a problem we can fix. We work with what we have. Due weight doesn't mean false balance.

Independent sources will assess his words and actions by an independent standard, which is not, by definition, the standard Benjamin chooses. Him talking about equal opportunity is not in a vacuum, either. How does equal opportunity square with his views of Islam? How about all the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory stuff? We need sources to do that work for us, otherwise it's WP:OR. How about the multiple "debates" with literal white supremacists? The ones which always seem to provide them with the larger platform, and never provide a competent response?[11][12][13] "Equal opportunity" indeed.

We have to summarize sources, including unflattering ones. BLP is vitally important, but it isn't a license to whitewash. Grayfell (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• You'll have to be specific about what sources and lines in the article you object to and why. I should point out that Vox, the only source anyone has complained about directly, is only cited briefly and only in the reception section, in language that makes it clear that it's characterizing how he's described rather than as a statement of fact. While Vox is a reliable source, it's not cited in the Political Views section (which is the one you seem to object to) - that section is cited to top-quality mainstream sources like the New York Times, NBC News, and Business Insider. --Aquillion (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk about Vice, in that it is not a reliable source on this subject and yet it is used 4 separate times to characterize Benjamin. There couldn't be a clearer BLP violation. And I have edited my mistake above...I don't believe anyone in the world could be stupid enough not to know that it is better to attack nazis than minorities.LedRush (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Greyfell, those were some great jokes in your cites. I'm not sure you could be more biased than you are seeming here.LedRush (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You may disagree with him, but please don't assign bias or motive. You are free of course to believe there is bias or motive, but on talk pages, it's uncivil to express those beliefs. Yes, personal beliefs leak out here - Aquillon's have, Grayfell's have, mine have, and yours. But you need to make an effort to discourse civilly, no matter what you believe the other person believes. Otherwise, as happens here, and practically everywhere on the internet, it just becomes camps of competing ideologies, digging their heels in harder and harder. That works against the 'prime directive' of wikipedia: making a high quality, unbiased, encyclopedia. When factions fight over controversial figures, you wind up with an article that only demonstrated the polarization of the editors. The goal is to present the relevant notable information about the subject, and try to leave out our own biases. Which is primarily why I argue that the article needs to be slash-and-burn edited. In the overall scheme of influence and notability, Benjamin is a very well spoken provocateur, which attracts interest, because he is able to express what some people feel about identity politics and its associated ideologies. That makes him notable to a small - in relative terms - audience. A lot of people felt outraged at Patreon's actions WRT the incident that got him banned - the founder of Patreon had explicitly stated in a long-ranging interview that Patreon does not review material that is not posted on Patreon's platform in determining violations, and the Terms of Service were NOT clear on that specific. Then they did exactly that to justify banning Benjamin. He's a clever idiot for calling White Supremacists <the two epithets he used>, as it fulfilled the provocation part of what he does, but he "crossed a line" that the identity-politics-driven Patreon 'trust' or whatever division couldn't let go of.

...aaaaaand now I'm digressing far afield of what I started out with. Please avoid impugning motive or assuming malice with other editors. We differ in personal opinions, thats reasonably inferred, but we already have heels digging in, and that sort of thing does nothing to advance the quality of the encyclopedia. <stowing soapbox now as I have a raging headache - no wonder!). Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Although I think Vice passes WP:RS, I've edited the page to reduce reliance on it; it's now only cited a few times, all for just brief mentions of its opinion (with in-line citations unambiguously making it clear it's just Vice's opinions), alongside other source with comparable opinions. I don't think that a sentence or two from them is particularly WP:UNDUE - they're a reasonably high-profile magazine. --Aquillion (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

First, Grayfell, "Anastrophe, I think you are confused about who said what, but regardless" - yup, I got them exactly backwards attributing to you what Aquillon said, and vice versa. Sorry about that.

I want to respond to your statement though: "How about the multiple "debates" with literal white supremacists? The ones which always seem to provide them with the larger platform, and never provide a competent response?[4][5][6] "Equal opportunity" indeed." So, I skimmed through the links, which essentially say that if Benjamin participates in a debate with White Supremacists, he is therefore giving them a platform and assisting them, so he's culpable as a co-conspirator, so to speak.

That doesn't jibe with what I've heard from other videos he's done, so I looked up the specific video they are referring to - an unbelievable four and a half hour-plus slog between Benjamin, Richard Spencer, some French white nationalist, some other youtuber who made the bulk of the arguments against Spencer's bizarre, Pie-in-the-sky notions of a white ethnostate, some guy who appeared to be the 'moderator' who did nothing of the sort, and another douchebag who came in later.

I did not watch the whole goddamned four hours, I can only take so much vitriol. I think I watched 30? 45? minutes of it starting maybe 15 minutes in (lots of kruft at the beginning in sorting out the livestream). It's illuminating. Benjamin did do poorly in the debate, because his utter loathing for Spencer's bigoted ideology largely overwhelmed him. Nevertheless, he was clear and consistent in his utter rejection of any idea of racial superiority of whites. He passionately disagreed with Spencer, and was frequently quite angry in his rebuttals of the stupidity of Spencer's ideas.

However, I can easily quote this small portion: Spencer asks Benjamin (regarding Spencer's claim that the racial immigration laws from the 1920's directly resulted in "white people" putting a man on the moon) - "Why didn't Ghana reach the stars? Why didn't Liberia reach the stars?" Benjamin replies "I guess it was because they were black, Richard." Taken in a vacuum? There you have it! Benjamin's a racist, white supremacist, he said that! And that's how people - when provided only with the characterizations reliable sources employ, will take it. Problem: he was mocking Spencer with a response dripping with sarcasm. If editors would like to verify that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiUH-tWHbr8 at 1:02:30 (it's only a few seconds long). Reliable sources can easily take a person's words in a vacuum and use them to characterize someone as exactly the opposite of how they are. If this weren't a BLP, the reliable sources would explicitly trump Benjamin's own words. As a BLP, the subjects own words can be employed to 'even the playing field'. Benjamin's as far away from being a white supremacist as you and I are, and he did nothing to promote, enhance, advance or support the white supremacist's horseshit. I happen to think it's important to debate these people. Yes, there's lots of stupid, easily influenced people on the 'net. There's also lots of smart people who can see through the weak ideas white supremacists cling to. Hiding white supremacy - pushing it further underground - only makes it fester. Sunlight's the best disinfectant, etc etc.

But - once more, as I tire of this (as I'm sure you guys do as well), stuffing the article with Benjamin's responses to inflated claims intended to portray him in a negative light is not the path to take. The 'incident' at the Sarkesian discussion deserves two sentences. He showed up, Sarkesian called him a garbage human. Benjamin was accused of being insensitive by showing up. Done. Patreon banned him after he used racial and homophobic epithets to describe alt-right white nationalists, on someone else's youtube channel. Patreon's founder had previously said they are only concerned about such activity _on the Patreon platform_, and their Terms and Conditions were not explicit on such a distinction. Others left Patreon in solidarity. Done. Damn this headache, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is a common, reasonable position to take... but Benjamin is, at best, a flashlight on a smartphone. He's not disinfecting anything, he's just sort of... providing a warm spot for gross things to multiply. This is what I think those sources were indicating. The people who see through the white supremacists are probably not the people we have to worry about, right?

"Bleach, in an aerobic environment, is a great disinfectant for most situation" doesn't have the same ring to it. That's obvious. As Benjamin doesn't seem to realize, the things which have the best 'ring' to them aren't always accurate. Benjamin isn't as pithy as these chuckleheads he debates, and being angry at people, even for legitimate reasons, isn't good enough. For at least some people in his audience, being pithy works better. Benjamin's style is a celebration of snark, (pseudo)skepticism, and "political incorrectness". His audience obviously likes his style, but he's debating people who are better at those tactics than he is. If he didn't know this at first, he damn well should've learned it by now.

This is directly similar to why he was banned. He was banned for using offensive slurs because, like a kindergarten teacher, Patreon didn't care "who started it", and neither, apparently, does his audience. If he's not aware of, and interested in, how his audience interprets his "debates", he's not a good communicator.

I don't personally think Benjamin is a Spencer-level white supremacist, but that's not the only option. Instead of treating white supremacy as pass/fail, almost all of the "SJW" social scientists Benjamin so despises treat it as a continuum. It is possible two conflicting ideologies to both be racist, and opposing a specific racist ideology doesn't always oppose the underlying racism. Since, like it or not, Wikipedia tries to use academic definitions, we should consider this as well. We do not have to pretend that the only options are "literal neo-Nazi" or "classically liberal free speech crusader". This is false balance. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a sudden urge to go wash my phone. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Aaaaaah! Remember, WP:NOTFORUM - this discussion is nearly at the point where it ought to be hatted. What we think about him doesn't matter. The purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't for us to do research or evaluate claims or anything like that - the purpose is to provide a readable summary of what reliable sources say about him. The article emphasizes the things it does (even if it casts him in an unflattering light) because most of what reliable sources have said about him is unflattering. That's all. We can cite his self-description a little bit, in limited ways, to illustrate absolutely central points, but citing massive paragraphs to him alone in order to "balance out" reliable secondary sources is WP:FALSEBALANCE - as long as he's portrayed unflatteringly in the media, that will ultimately be reflected in his article here. If people think the coverage is wrong or biased or unfair or whatever, they should take it up with the sources that have covered him (or try to find better coverage, if they think it exists and passes WP:RS.) But arguing over him here ourselves is a waste of time; this isn't the place for that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing The University Times is probably better than relying entirely on Benjamin's own youtube videos, but it's ultimately just a student newspaper - giving it equal weight to Business Insider, the New York Times, and NBC News is WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

DiGRA

Regarding this source:

• Straumsheim, Carl (11 November 2014). "#Gamergate supporters attack Digital Games Research Association". InsideHigherEd.

Benjamin's vague allegations are repeatedly refuted. Per WP:FRINGE, and as an encyclopedia, we have an obligation not to validate these non-expert, unsupported allegations. What, precisely, is the BLP concern here? Does it not also apply to the journalists and academics named by Sargon when he says that "DiGRA is the poisoned spring from whence all of this evil flows"? However we present this, we cannot imply that Benjamin is qualified to make the allegations, nor can we allow them to be left unchallenged. This reliable source explicitly challenges them, and we have to provide that context. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that although it was said in the edit description that the article didn't call what Benjamin said a "conspiracy theory" it in fact does. This is a direct quote:

At DiGRA’s annual conference this August, Shaw and Consalvo participated in a roundtable session on “identity and diversity in game culture.” Notes from the roundtable were discovered online, showing how participants discussed the impact of feminist game studies on the video game industry, and whether academics could influence developers. Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development.

Sargon of Akkad, a YouTube user who regularly discusses “gaming, anti-feminism, history and fiction” on his channel, has fueled that conspiracy theory. The connections between DiGRA, Shaw, Golding and other journalists, Sargon argues, suggest “DiGRA is the poisoned spring from whence all of this evil flows” -- meaning Gamergate and the argument that gamer culture is dying.

Alduin2000 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not understanding the edit summary saying that this wasn't cited. The citations seem extremely strong and very straightforward. From the source: Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development. Sargon of Akkad, a YouTube user who regularly discusses “gaming, anti-feminism, history and fiction” on his channel, has fueled that conspiracy theory. That unambiguously characterizes his beliefs on the topic as a conspiracy theory. (I'd also add, for what it's worth, that that section in general and that part in particular have had extensive discussions in the past to agree on the current wording - obviously consensus can change, but I'm not seeing that here yet, and obviously it'd need more than just a bare objection from one editor.)

EDIT: Although, reviewing that section, I found several ways to improve it and to reword it to follow the sources more closely. The Inside Higher Ed section is better separated into its own sentence given its specificity relative to the first sentence of the section; it also mentions multiple videos, not just one. We should lead with the fact that he was fueling a conspiracy theory, both because they do so and because it's important to present that disclaimer. And I think the second part of the quote - how he thinks it became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers - captures the 'conspiracy theory' that that source focuses on more concisely. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the quotation because it wasn't in the citation. I removed the attribution of certain views as being a conspiracy theory because that is not supported by citation. It said that Benjamin has fueled a conspiracy theory regarding academics influencing game developers. Aquillion has fixed the underlying issues.LedRush (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)