Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Attributing motives to Benjamin at VidCon

The article currently reads "A group of YouTubers who had frequently criticised Sarkeesian in the past, including Benjamin, coordinated to fill the first three rows of half the audience and film Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."

I feel that "as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her" is problematic for several reasons. First, it is almost a complete rip from the first cite. I don't believe it's a violation, but it is lazy. Second, difference sources (in the current article) have characterized what happened differently. Some say harassment, some say intimidation, some say engagement, some say trolling, some say distasteful. I don't think it is fair that we have gone to the worst description. Third, when we talk about the investigation into harassment, it doesn't conclude that there was harassment. Finally, I think the above 2 points could amount to a BLP violation.

If we delete the part about a targeted harassment campaign the passages loses almost nothing. We still mention "harassment" twice later, and "intimidation" and "hostile environment"LedRush (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC).

This has been discussed multiple times. Sources support that this was a targeted harassment campaign. It is perfectly possible for something to be harassment and intimidation and engagement and trolling. Accuracy is fair, so this accurate, sourced description is fair. Removing sourced content because some editors don't believe it's fair isn't neutral. If you can think of a way of properly contextualizing this, propose it, but rehashing the same stale talking points won't get you very far, so review the archives first, please. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few of the other discussions of this phrasing which have resulted in the content being kept in the article: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. It's a fairly mooted point, so you may want to start an RfC or something if you insist on dragging it up again so we can have some semblance of permanency to the consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I must say, I wish I hadn't gone into the archives. It seems that there have been lots of editors who have come and made similar points as mine with sources, and that a small number of editors have resisted the changes without much reasoning that I would categorize as substantive. I am willing to AGF, but I'm very worried.

Regarding the attribution of motives, it seems that we have a Mic article as the first attribution. This is not a reliable source, and seeing as it is dedicated to social justice and progressive politics, it shouldn't be used to make an extraordinary claim like this one. Furthermore, the article itself starts off by saying that Patreon looked into charges of harassment and found that Benjamin didn't break the rules. It only makes its extraordinary claim in a background section of the article which is directly sourced to Polygon, a video game website. Polygon's article is brutal, partisan, and filled with factual errors, but it still doesn't support the language that what Benjamin did at VidCon was a targeted harassment campaign. The next source is the Daily Dot, a website devoted to internet culture. That citation does not support that there was a targeted harassment campaign. In fact, it provides considerable evidence that Benjamin explicitly did not intend to harass. The third citation is to Vulture.com, a pop culture website that is also not a reliable source. The article is not a research one, but a top 10 list of things that happened in the year, and the one paragraph at best supports the use of the word intimidation. The fourth is a book to which I don't have access, but seeing the track record of the other three sources, I am skeptical.

So what we have here is a BLP article making an extraordinary claim about the motivations of a person using low quality reliable sources (at best) which don't support the language in the article. So why do we have to attribute motivations to Benjamin in WP's voice. We already say what he did, what Sarkeesian thinks about it and what the organizers think about it. It would be more encyclopedic to just describe the actions neutrally, and we would not run afoul of the BLP concerns raised in this article.LedRush (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Any responses? It's been a week and during that time other editors come in and try and correct this BLP violation but get reverted immediately.LedRush (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, because we've already been over this. Everything you're saying has already been discussed. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So it should be easy for you to summarize, because I haven't seen any answers to my points in the archives.LedRush (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We still have an extraordinary claim that is not backed by reliable sources, and for which there is much evidence against such a view...in the actual cited articles. This is a clear BLP violation and no one is willing or capable of defending it.LedRush (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The "quote" from The Daily Dot article

This sentence either needs to go, or editors need to stop twiddling it and simply quote from the article, because it is frankly an embarrassment:

In a video, "An Honest Look at the Alt Right", he criticised the alt-right for "collectivist" and "authoritarian" thinking, but argued that the movement is a reaction to what he calls "comparable racism from the left"

This is referenced from https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/youtube-alt-right-richard-spencer .

Here's what the Daily dot actually wrote:

Although he criticizes the alt-right for collectivist and authoritarian thinking, he argues that they’re reacting to a comparable amount of racism from the left.

There are several problems here:

The sentence specifically calls out one of his videos by title, yet it would be self-promotional to actually link to it, I presume? Balderdash. The Daily Dot article names the video and links to it in the previous sentence.

Secondly, this is the barest of feeble attempts at 'interpreting' the source. We've merely removed the opening 'although' and substituted 'but' in the middle. Lame! That's what teenagers do when plagiarizing an article. Not terribly encyclopaedic.

Thirdly, and most egregiously - our version puts "comparable racism from the left" in quotes, while the source does not - and I searched the transcript of the video, and I can't find those exact words in it (not saying I couldn't have missed it, it's thirty minutes long and I'd rather be clipping my nails). We've also put "collectivist" and "authoritarian" in quotes - seemingly because, uh, we're quoting him, but again - that's not what's in the source.

But wait, you protest: those words are in Benjamin's video! Well, regrettably, we are presenting alleged quotes without the source for those quotes presented.

This is absurdity piled upon absurdity. Our version is not comparable grammatically or linguistically to the Daily Dot's version. We faux quote Benjamin - but we can't link to the video in question, unlike what the Daily Dot at least did in that source.

Come on, editors. Let's stop the nonsense. In fact - I'm going to take the bull by the balls and stop it myself. Just freaking quote the Daily Dot article. Playing around with claiming things are quotes non-verifiably should immediately flash the big red "STOP - DON'T WALK" sign for any editor worth his or her mettle.

Wow. I told myself I wasn't going to bloviate here - at least not this soon, as this is a tempest in a thimble. But hey, that's what coffee can do. Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with just quoting the Daily Dot, since it seems like a tricky thing to get right. And we actually can cite his video as a primary source alongside the Daily Dot as a secondary source to provide analysis and interpretation, but in that situation the cite to his video would be more like a courtesy link for readers, with the secondary source being what we base the relevant sentence on. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I should probably do a public service, 'The More You Know' about the risks associated with coffee consumption and controversial article editing on Wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead changes

The only sections of the article that mention the alt-right are the quote referenced by Patreon, the sentence He has criticised the alt-right for "collectivist" and "authoritarian" thinking, and argued that the movement is a reaction to what he calls "comparable racism from the left", and ...while Salon has described him as an "alt-right sympathiser". Benjamin has denied associations with the alt-right. I don't think this can reasonably just be parsed to "he is a critic... of the alt right" (at best, we mention a single backhanded criticism, a source saying he is a sympathizer, and him denying association with it.) The lead change implies that he is unequivocally and uncontroversially considered a critic of the alt-right, which the article absolutely doesn't support. Note that old version, meanwhile, carefully doesn't take a position (it just says that he has talked about it, which is more neutral.) If we wanted to go into more detail and say that he has criticized the alt-right, we would absolutely have to add the Salon piece saying that he is a sympathizer. In fact, even the cite for that reaction line clearly associates him with the alt-right despite his denials. From the Daily Dot: Finally we have Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad), a YouTuber who rose to prominence during Gamergate, an antifeminist backlash among a segment of video game fans. Although he doesn’t consider himself part of the alt-right, Benjamin’s videos also focus on attacking favorite alt-right targets like (again) feminism, Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the overall notion of straight white male privilege. All of this is done in the deliberately provocative, anti-PC tone that is generally characteristic of alt-right rhetoric. Because Benjamin has talked with many of the alt-rightists who constitute his fan base, his video “An Honest Look at the Alt Right” is particularly illuminating. Although he criticizes the alt-right for collectivist and authoritarian thinking, he argues that they’re reacting to a comparable amount of racism from the left. Note the last few sentences and the 'although', which expresses clear skepticism that we have to reflect if we're going to rely on that source.

Some other sources going into more detail about the dispute:

• Financial Times: Mr Benjamin has repeatedly denied any affiliation with the alt-right, though white supremacist Richard Spencer has described him and Mr Yiannopoulos as “great entry points” to his movement.
• Newsweek describes him as one of three new activists with links to the alt-right as members.

I'm not saying we need to go into depth on all this in the lead or anything (it's enough to make it clear, somewhere in the body, that he denies association with the alt-right and that several reliable sources have expressed skepticism about his denials), but saying that he has "criticized the alt-right" in the lead, and nothing else, is misleading and doesn't reflect how most sources have covered his relationship with them. We can't just take sources that generally say "he has criticized the Alt-Right, but...", cut off the stuff after the "but", and put that in the lead with no context. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The citations in the article are a Business Insider article which clearly says in its voice that Banjamin opposes the alt right and a Dot editorial which spends most of it's time on Benjamin (2.5 paragraphs) showing that Benjamin opposes the alt-right, with a passing mention that he has a fanbase in the alt-right. The problem with the lead is that we have 5 things that Benjamin unequivocally opposes and one thing he unequivocally endorses, but we've put them into two lists. If you disagree that he opposes the alt-right despite the numerous RSs which say this, just put everything in the "topics" part. Otherwise, you're distorting the cites and misrepresenting the article. And it's just bad writing.LedRush (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Dot piece isn't an editorial, and is the only source we have that goes into detail on the topic (in particular, it is our only source for 'criticizing' or for the particular criticisms mentioned at the moment); it is clearly going in-depth in a way that disputes his claims of not being associated. Turning its "although" into an "and", in particular, completely changes the meaning of the section being cited to it. The other article only mentions him in passing as an "opponent". Obviously, using the Daily Dot, which says "he has criticized the alt-right, but..." and cutting out the 'but' or turning it into an "and" in a way that makes their expression of doubt into an expression of agreement is misusing it as a source. EDIT: Given the disagreement between the sources, I feel the only thing we can do is note it and describe what the most prominent or high-quality ones have said. It's an WP:NPOV issue to automatically go with his self-description without making the disagreement when we have many sources clearly expressing doubt, but we do also have to cover the sources that have accepted his self-description or described him in line with it. If you really want to say more about the alt-right in the lead, we can put something comparable there - making it clear he denies affiliation with the Alt-Right, but also making it clear that some sources have described him as affiliated with it or have expressed a degree of skepticism. I think that on the whole just saying that he's "discussed" it is better. We could also drop the Daily Dot as a source (I'd be open to that), but be aware that it is the only source we have at the moment that uses the "criticized" language directly - without it we definitely can't say he criticized them in the lead, at least not unless we have another source for that. We could rely on the Business Insider article, but "opposes" isn't the same thing, and I don't see the rationale for giving it priority over the Financial Times or Newsweek pieces, which have equal weight; we'd have to cover all three (plus anything else we can find, of course.) Nor can we use the Financial Times piece while ignoring their expression of doubt - they quote Spencer in the very same sentence, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The one thing that I find...odd? amusing? peculiar? about the Financial Times piece is that they are taking the words of Richard Spencer as an authoritative source on the connections of Benjamin and Yiannopoulos to the alt-right. Spencer. I will not go into characterizing the type of person Spencer is - BLP associations and all. But lets just say it's akin to noting that a Flat Earth Society adherent states that the Moon landing was performed in a television studio. Yeah, I'm sure they did say it. Yup. They sure did. I give it due credence too. Anastrophe (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, "The Daily Dot piece isn't an editorial" - I don't think that's true. The byline at the bottom certainly presents it as such. Anastrophe (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer's opinion on Benjamin

I believe the insertion of Richard Spencer's opinion of Benjamin is a clear BLP violation. First off, this is Benjamin's Political opinions sections, not the reception section. This is supposed to be where we talk about Benjamin's opinions in a neutral voice, not what others say his opinions are. But even if it were in the reception area, I think it is highly inflammatory and biased to post Spencer's opinion of Benjamin. There is no indication that Spencer's opinion regarding Benjamin is particularly notable in any way.LedRush (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just so people know, the Financial Times and this tweet (reproduced and original) seem to be the only places where the "great entry points" language can be found. https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/783387496885264384?lang=en I find it interesting that the FT didn't note the date of the quote, omitted certain names, and produced a prepositional phrase where none exists.LedRush (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bizarrely, LedRush has not produced any evidence of a BLP violation, nor any reason to suggest that the Financial Times citation is UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could respond to my points above, could you please?LedRush (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It is, of course, a BLP violation and WP:UNDUE. The FT is a reliable source, certainly. But they've dredged up an old tweet as "evidence" that Benjamin is part of the alt-right - and helpfully, claimed so by a white supremacist! Drawing a connection between a white supremacist and Benjamin is definitely a backdoor BLP violation. Let's ignore that Spencer loathes Benjamin, as Benjamin loathes Spencer.

Benjamin disavows the claims that he's alt-right, and he routinely attacks them, broadly and specifically. Relying on 'but it's a reliable source' doesn't address the problem of the clumsy attempt at associating him with a white supremacist. If you want to associate him with the alt-right, there are far less inflammatory sources that are equally biased against Benjamin but don't go so far as drawing an association to a white supremacist. Hitler loved German Shepherd dogs, therefore anyone who loves German Shepherd dogs...Anastrophe (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because an editor decides to Godwinize the discussion and chuck in the word "inflammatory" doesn't mean that the article is suddenly not BLP-compliant. Please see the previous discussion on this page ad nauseum - Benjamin's "disavowals" of being alt-right (or far right) do not, in WP BLP policy, trump what reliable sources say about him. We can discuss of course what the best way is to say all of this, but pointing to the common targets he has with the rest of the alt-right has been the approach taken in the stable version of this article for some time. It doesn't suddenly stop being policy-compliant because an editor has a week bladder. Newimpartial (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from personal attacks. Your characterization of the article is not accurate. Richard Spencer was not in the article when I first saw this page, and he was not introduced into it until very recently. He is an extremely controversial and almost universally abhorred individual, so linking Benjamin to him based on non-notable opinions which were once incorrectly interpreted from one of his tweets is beyond the pale. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see why you are so stubbornly insisting that new, contentious, and extraordinarily damaging material be included and not gain consensus first.LedRush (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your non-policy-compliant attacks on and slander of Richard_B_Spencer, the founder of the alt-right, who insists that he is not and never has been a White Supremacist or Neo-Nazi.

In all seriousness, the opinions of other alt-right figures, as reported in reliable sources, are precisely relevant to the appropriate labelling of Sargon's political opinions and political thought. I am not saying that this has to be done through Spencer, but there is nothing "non-BLP-compliant" about doing so. And the attempt to remove such labels from the article, because Sargon doesn't choose to use them himself, is itself UNDUE; therefore, predictably, all attempts to gain local consensus to whitewash these labels have failed, as anyone exploring the graveyard of this Talk page can see. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If the labeling of Benjamin’s views don’t have to be done by Spencer and were never done by Spencer, why are you clinging so strongly to this newly introduced language?LedRush (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The addition is not BLP compliant. If editor "Newimpartial" thinks associating a BLP subject with a white supremacist is dandy BLP compliance not appropriate to employing a Godwin in rebuttal, I'm not sure there's much hope here. The section already has three cited references that suggest connections to the alt-right, without the one attempting to connect him to white supremacists. The fourth cite? That's classic WP:UNDUE - the other cites connect him to the alt-right, but do not attempt to link him to a white supremacist. So, three to one sourcing - the three cites establish the assertion reliably, and trump the one cite that is the outlier. Out it goes, any actually impartial editor would agree that it's an over the top attempt at smearing Benjamin by association.Anastrophe (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Correction - four sources already in the article connect him to the alt right. Anastrophe (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Patreon Ban Issues

There are 2 issues in the commentary I see.

One his comment that "White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another" is clearly satire and sarcastic. This is clear in the context, in relation to his beliefs he has stated dozens of times, in the tone of voice used and universally in his comments after.

Second is of the general tenor of his ban and of the other creators that left. Patreon clearly bent their own rules stated in their community guidelines and by the statements of the CEO Jack Conte. Their terms of service applied to Patreon the platform, not the creator's behavior elsewhere. Carl's behavior occurred off Patreon. The other creators that left did so because they felt that this double standard and arbitrary enforcement was intolerable and a dangerous precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific change you want to make to the article? And is that change supported by reliable sources? Nblund ^talk 18:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

Please change "alt-right politics" in the introduction to "conservative politics" as I think this a more accurate representation of the broad range of topics he covers.

Also regarding the comment about his "targeted harassment campaign against her" in the YouTube Career section, please change this to "alleged harassment". Considering that this event was a controversy in both the left-wing and right-wing sphere of the YouTube community, I don't think the article should reflect a political bias towards one side of the argument or another, especially since there is a strong support for Carl Benjamin claiming he was falsely accussed of harassment. Later on in this very wikipedia article it is also disputed that it may not be harassment.

And lastly please remove the part that says "Although Phillips does repeatedly laugh during an exchange on men's issues, media sources note that it is unclear at exactly what she is laughing at during the hearing." That is so outstandingly false that I'm astounded that someone on wikipedia decided it was even okay to cite. "I'm not entirely sure why it's so humorous" - Philip Davies in response to Jess Philips laughing. "You have to excuse me for laughing but the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is quite frankly a laughable thing" - Jess Philips admitting to laughing at the idea of men's issues and Philip Davies' concerns over men's issues and wanting a debate over men's issues. "I wasn't making the point that men don't have an opporunity to ask, it's about men's issues" - Philip Davies. You can find the full exchange here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q as well as Jess Philips interrupting over other speakers to interject her own potentially sexist opinions towards men. I suggest to watch it in full.

That is all, I hope you take these changes into consideration, thank you and I hope you have a good day today. 5.151.197.82 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see the above discussions, and find a reliable WP:SECONDARY source directly connecting this to what Benjamin said. Interpreting a primary source to support a prior conclusion is not appropriate in this situation, and neither is editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

For some reason, adding this seems to create a bit of a fuss, so I figured I'd take this to the talk page. Benjamin first came to prominence as a proponent of Gamergate, itself based in conspiracy theory, and the article itself notes that he peddled a conspiracy theory about Digra. It should also be noted he peddles the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Docktuh (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Carl Benjamin is not the only figure to talk about "Cultural Marxism"; this talking point is common on the right and the circles that he associates with. This is not necessarily due to any perceived antisemitism, it appears these figures genuinely believe it. This latter point is irrelevant, but there are a number of figures that have discussed or are proponents of topics considered by Wikipedia to be conspiracy theories, such as Lauren Southern, Fjordman, Martin Sellner (the Great Replacement), and Stefan Molyneux that are not categorized as conspiracy theorists.

I am not an expert in Gamergate by any means. I am aware that this is an early flash point of what Benjamin's circles describe as "the culture war", and as a result I cannot say to what extent Gamergate is based in conspiracy theory due to the very conflicting list of sources one can find that will assert one way or the other. As a result, I am not going to take your word for it based on Gamergate but if somebody else also disagrees with him on this statement I will let them challenge it instead. One question I would like to ask: if Carl Benjamin is labelled as a proponent of GamerGate, then why isn't Phil Mason, another Gamergate figure, also labelled a conspiracy theorist? I am not going to argue that Phil Mason discredits your argument as a whole, I would need a much larger number of figures like Dr. Mason with Wikipedia pages to assert that, and I am not aware of how many pr-Gamergate figures have Wikipedia pages. I am curious as to if there is a line between being a proponent of Gamergate and being a proponent of Gamergate and thus a conspiracy theorist. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate centered on an actual conspiracy, so ... --SVTCobra (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate was an actual conspiracy. FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah, Gamergaters were very open about what they wanted. You should look into the conspiracy of the journalists if you claim to be impartial. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspired to astroturf, brigade and harass. It's not about the goals, it's the means chosen. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. What people now seem to call 'prominent Gamergaters' are people like Benjamin. They are very different than the 4chan or 8chan (or wherever they came from) trolls that 'took up the cause' in their own toxic way. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've read Gamergate controversy and Carl Benjamin. The view held by reliable sources appears to differ from yours. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a problem with "reliable sources" as they don't understand the subject. Yes, reading the Gamergate article and mainstream media, you would naturally conclude it was about "death threats" and harassment of women. Some people even believe this was its purpose. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a literal conspiracy theory. That it is a common talking point of the right makes no difference. Docktuh (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd call it an umbrella term for observable cultural trends they find disagreeable. If it is a conspiracy theory, you should be able to lay it out in a few sentences. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Marxists snuck into schools and governments to undermine Western culture by any means necessary. One sentence will do; I could have gone shorter, but I wanted to capture the "nuances" of the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's more an observance they exist in colleges. Quite openly, too. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. "Marxists teach Marxism" isn't controversial, nor is it a theory, not does it have anything to do with issues like gender, sexuality, and race that provoke people to talk about "Cultural Marxism" - which, in the sense the CT use it in, is neither cultural nor Marxism. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If they only taught the history of Marxism. A Penn State study found: "The highest proportion of Marxist academics can be found in the social sciences, and there they represent less than 18 percent of all professors (among the social science fields for which we can issue discipline-specific estimates, sociology contains the most Marxists, at 25.5 percent)." --SVTCobra (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent sources

Benjamin's campaign has prompted an increase in scrutiny for his past behavior, as documented in these sources:

• Walker, Peter (22 April 2019). "Ukip MEP candidate blamed feminists for rise in misogyny". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
• Ankel, Sophie (23 April 2019). "UKIP candidate blames actions of male mass murderers on feminism". indy100. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

• Birnbaum, Emily (26 April 2019). "Twitter suspends EU election campaign accounts for two candidates who were previously banned". TheHill. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

• "Ukip candidate Carl Benjamin accused Jewish people of 'identity politics' over the Holocaust". The Jewish Chronicle. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

• Brewis, Harriet (26 April 2019). "UKIP MEP candidate: 'Personally I find racist jokes funny'". Evening Standard. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

There are plenty of others covering the same issues, and a few others, but it's a start. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, the newest one is a daily mail smear article accusing him of saying that it's OK to sexually abuse boys. The accusations are entirely out of context (similar to saying that *I* said it was ok, because of the previous sentence). The DM are definitely going to get sued over it, but meanwhile, all the other outlets are parroting them. this document outlines the facts, but is a primary source. I don't think I've seen this level of journalistic underhandedness in a long time; so glad I !voted for banning the DM as a source. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Eww. That DM article is trash, and should not be cited under any circumstances, obviously. All the other outlets? I'm not seeing anything pop up, yet. Do you mean other tabloids?

If the Daily Mail is sued, it would hardly be the first time, would it? Regardless, the truth won't be outlined by a duel of factoids between an anonymous Google document and a Daily Mail smear. We still need to go source-by-source, claim-by-claim.

I linked the above sources because I thought the outlets were at least plausibly reliable enough to consider or discuss. The individual articles will have to be judged on their own merits as WP:RS, same as always. The difficulty is striking a balance between due weight and offensive gossip. As I've said dozens of times, not everything about Benjamin which can be sourced belongs in this article. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Benjamin (mine is probably obvious) this is about making a fair, clear article. The DM source is a clear demonstration of why this matters. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, agree that the balance is in giving due weight. I wasn't meaning to imply that the sources that you cited were in any way similar to the DM article, just mentioning something else that came up under the umbrella of "recent sources". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I hear ya. I just wanted to make it clear for future reference. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Laughing at men's suicide?

The article has this "Although Phillips does repeatedly laugh during an exchange on men's issues, media sources note that it is unclear at exactly what she is laughing at during the hearing.[28]"

The link is to a Daily Telegraph article. I have read it several times but I can't see where is notes that it is unclear what she is laughing at.Varnebank (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Per above, the source doesn't mention Benjamin at all, and only obliquely implies why she was laughing. Importantly, it is an opinion article. It should not be used for controversial claims about a living person without attribution, but that is not appropriate here, either. Who is Glen Poole? What is "online magazine insideMAN"? What does any of this have to do with Benjamin's claims? We need reliable sources to explain all of this. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

New video evidence futher shows how Jess Phillips did laugh at male's issues, repeteadly showing how she does laugh over them. Please change the inaccurate part on his article that states "It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to; Phillips had not mocked male suicide and believes it to be a serious issue", because as this video proofs, this is false, it is truth she laugued at this and it is clear what Mr. Benjamin was talking about Medicorene4

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJk2bqTg3YI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicorene4 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We all know what Benjamin was claiming, but reliable sources don't agree with him. We cannot pass-along these inflammitory, speculative claims without a very good reason, and without context, both of which need reliable sources. WP:SPS are not reliable sources. How many times does this have to be explained? These are not even close to reliable sources. If and when reliable sources discuss this, the article can be updated accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir, i believe video evidence is the strongest kind of evidence there is. I only ask that, as this video shows she did laugh, the part that says "it is unclear what Mr Bejnamin's comments reffered to" be erased. Plan and simple. Please note that this video was released today and is not the one cited previously.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJk2bqTg3YI

Medicorene4 —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained several times, interpreting evidence must be left to reliable sources, not editors. Random, sympathetic youtubers are not reliable sources, either. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The article inaccurately states that "It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to;" in an authoritative voice. Benjamin has made it very clear to what he was referring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfsk_UfalNY . Buzzardswatchmework made fair, proportionate changes to the language to cure this BLP violation and it was inexplicably reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Benjamin&type=revision&diff=894312071&oldid=894300011 I've added a new citation that eliminates any doubt that could have existed as to what he was referring, but Drmies has decided to revert again despite the new source and try and get me blocked. Benjamin seems like a good source to talk about what Benjamin thinks, yet for some reason it is being stripped of the article and replaced with an obviously false statement made in WP's voice.LedRush (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: Born in Swindon

Sargon was not born in or grew up in Swindon. He has stated this several times in multiple videos. Remove this from the 'born in' section

 Done Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is this man using a traditional Assyrian/Mesopotamian name?

Sargon is only used by ethnic Assyrians, indigenous Christian Aramaic Semites from modern Iraq, northeast Syria, southeast Turkey and northwest Iran, descended from the Ancient Mesopotamians (Assyrians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Sumerians). Is this man Assyrian? If not, an odd name to use for an English right wing nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he has ever explained the usage. It might simply stem from an admiration of the legendary king. Also, not sure what him being a "right wing nationalist" makes it particularly odd. User:WoodElf 17:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

He has explained it dozens of times. It was his gamer tag cause he was a fan of the figure. He used the tag to create his YouTube account and went by it until his name was doxxed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling himself Sargon of Akkad is grandiose, but not as obviously so as if he had gone for Napoleon XIV. NRPanikker (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As if no one else ever had a grandiose gamer tag (or Wikipedia user name). --SVTCobra (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Better known as

Looking at recent news sources, Benjamin's political candidacy seems to have shifted the importance of his username. This source, for example, doesn't mention "Sargon of Akkad" at all, and describes Benjamin as a A YouTuber-turned-UKIP candidate. There are also now several sources which mention the pseudonym in passing, or for context, but which do not emphasize it as much. Based on this, I don't think we can properly state in Wikipedia's voice that he is still "better known" as Sargon. I've rephrased this to be parallel to Phil Mason. Mason's significance outside of Youtube (as a scientist) influenced the AFD, and that seems roughly similar here, where Benjamin is also notable for two closely-overlapping activities. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

We should add the incident where the Daily Mail falsely accused Benjamin of supporting pedophilia. I even brought sources that support this

Source#1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmox2h4lpXZwGKffqEpLjjlu2iyqf8Kdz4Qb0AhDct8/edit

Source#2: https://youtube.com/Iz0FPS-aImk

Don't know if Google Docs have a format or are allowed as sources, so in that case, the Youtube video should suffice VolseniMack (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

​The Youtube link returns a 404. But no we can't really cite a Google Docs file. In my opinion we should not even mention that someone "has been accused of supporting pedophilia" in a biography of a living person unless that was something that received a whole lot of media attention. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, thats because if I use "youtu.be" instead of "youtube.com" it says the former is on some sort of blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolseniMack (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to label him anti-feminist in this way

The opening sentence "Sargon of Akkad, is a British YouTuber, political commentator, anti-feminist..." creates the false impression that anti-feminism is what Carl Benjamin first and foremost is all about. That's false. He is a classical liberal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4641:AE95:0:A9A0:9549:D741:C951 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Antifeminism is, per many sources, a significant part of why he is notable. The article explains that he self-identifies as classical liberal. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin self-describes as an anti-feminist. A significant proportion of his output on YouTube (particularly when he was gaining in popularity) has been counterpointing contemporary feminists like Anita Sarkeesian. More recently he has again disavowed feminism in recorded interviews when discussing the controversial Jess Phillips tweet. I can't see how it's a contentious point that sources describe him as a committed anti-feminist. RandomGnome (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He is most definitely an anti-feminist. His entire argument against Kristi Winters was basically "feminism bad". Probably why he lost that one...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixing the grammar in the second sentence

I don't have the right permissions to edit it but the current second sentence is an absolute disaster, would anyone with access mind rewording it, "He is a" would work or the sentence could be changed to "He is one of UKIP's candidates for"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coramoor0 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Full quote regarding Jess Phillips at UKIP Conference 04/19/2019

The full section of the quote is: "If a woman is being a giant bitch and laughing about male suicide I’m going to be a giant dick back to her. Any questions?”

Words in the heart of the quote "and laughing about male suicide" are replaced it with "..." The instance of laughing at male suicide being referred to in the quote

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The PoliticsHome source says It is unclear what comments about male suicide he was referring to. The Telegraph source is from 2015, several years prior to Benjamin's attempt to explain his comments. This source doesn't mention Benjamin at all, and doesn't actually say that Phillips "laughed" at suicide. It says she laughed at the suggestion that men’s issues should be discussed in Parliament on International Men’s Day... and then the opinion article mentions suicide with a link to an unrelated article from even earlier. Yet again, Benjamin seems to using a poorly-articulated detail stripped of context as a deflection for his own actions. Regardless, using the Telegraph source for this would be confusing to readers and would be WP:SYNTH. It is completely inappropriate for us to be subtly legitimizing Benjamin's claim that she was "laughing about male suicide" unless a reliable source directly supports this claim. We must also lean on sources to explain why this matters here, because it's not particularly obvious.

Encyclopedias shouldn't pass along confusing, context-free information just because someone said it in a press conference. If sources explain this context, let's see them, because the PoliticsHome one specifically says it's unclear. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

This is one of the worst apologetics I've ever seen. The quote is the quote and the telegraph clearly demonstrates that she does laugh at male suicide. Benjamin's own works connect the two. There is literally no cogent reason not to include it.LedRush (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Where does the Telegraph demonstrate this, and which source explains the connection to Benjamin? Any statements about Phillips must also abide by BLP, and if reliable sources do not say this, neither can we. Benjamin is not a reliable source for statements of fact, nor is he trusted to 'connect the two' in a neutral way. It is not clear exactly what he's even talking about, and this needs to be clarified by reliable sources anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Telegraph's "thinking man" section is opinion, so we can't cite it for facts; even then, he doesn't say that she mocked male suicide (read carefully - the author notes that she laughed at Men's Day, then brings up suicide as an unrelated point.) More importantly, The Guardian unambiguously states that she did not, so we have to go with that; and, based on that, we have to be extremely careful not to repeat Benjamin's lies about her in a way that could constitute a WP:BLP violation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the absolute height for being disingenuous. Everyone who know about this topic knows what Benjamin was talking about. It is caught on video. And you're willing to repeat an absolute lie, what you know is a lie, simply because a newspaper was stupid enough to print the lie. This is really disgusting.LedRush (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

She even admits to laughing and says "you'll have to excuse me for laughing".LedRush (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not WP:OR. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't knowingly reproduce obviously false information. I thought that was obvious. But then again, that assumes neutrality.LedRush (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing an article from a subsidiary of the Daily Mail, to prove a point about someone not even mentioned in the article, is many different flavors of bad-idea. If she wasn't laughing about male suicide, what was Benjamin talking about? Should we just say that Benjamin was completely wrong? Should we explain that he was using factually incorrect information to justify being a "giant dick"? No, we should summarize what reliable sources say about Benjamin. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]The Guardian source that says that Philips didn't laugh at male suicide is referring to the same exact incident that the Birmingham source is referring to. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-mp-jess-phillips-insists-10371356

Everyone on this page knows what laughter Benjamin was referring to, yet some want to deliberately pretend it is unclear when it is crystal clear.LedRush (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The sources universally indicate that his accusation was groundless and that it was unclear what he was talking about. It is possible that he misremembered or misread that editorial, or one much like it, in the same way you did abve, and that his (utterly baseless) comment about male suicide was therefore an innocent mistake on his part; but it is equally possible that it was a deliberate lie intended to smear his victim by making an accusation that he knew to be false. We cannot make that conclusion ourselves and can only go with what the sources say, which is that he made an accusation against her that was flatly untrue; we cannot speculate, as you seem to be, about why it was untrue, or try to fudge it into "well, what he really meant was..." The other source you added, after all, doesn't mention him at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not an editorial but his memory of the primary source. The most charitable interpretation of which is that she was laughing at the idea men being given time to ask questions in their interest on International Men's day. One of the primary issues related to men is the elevated levels of suicide and one of the first things Phillips mentioned, but she was already in her words,"laughing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, that's simply not what the majority of sources say. She falls under WP:BLP; we would need much better sources than these to imply anything of that nature, especially when we have multiple high-quality sources unambiguously stating that Benjamin's accusations against her were groundless. --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I agree that given the sources are unanimous in stating that Benjamin's accusations were not true that Philips was laughing at male suicide. However, you reverted my addition of information regarding what he was referring to (even if he was twisting the incident). This is not a BLP issue because it can still be stated that she was not laughing at male suicide and in fact finds it to be a serious issue. Furthermore, the event is well reported on by secondary sources. Therefore, I don't see any issue with adding this information. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is true that she didn't laugh directly about male suicide, but as already stated here, she did laugh at the request to have an event about the International Men's Day, which is dedicated for issues of men which includes men's suicide problem, which is the Nr.1 cause of death for young men in UK. Philips objected the request and justified her laughing with: "Every day is Men's Day". Since suicide is such a huge problem for men in the UK (and elsewhere), laughing about a parliament request for an IMD event is equipollent with laughing and brushing off the male suicide problem. Benjamin also explained a few times in interviews, since the question comes up each time he's getting interviewed, that he was referring to the incident in the UK parliament and stated that he was personally concerned since one of his family members suicided. 91.66.4.46 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Um why not go to the source, its on youtube, here is the video of Jess Philips laughing at Philip Davies (if you cant be bothered to look at the 10 minute clip its within the first minute and she starts laughing at him at 1:28) At 4:25 she goes on to say she doesnt believe that the men on the list (to talk about men's issues such as suicide, etc.) "have that much to fight for" as in belittling the issue. Jess Philips: "I absolutely care about men's issues and when I have parity and when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate (parity as in equal representatives of women in goverment) and that will take an awfully long time." But tell me how this was unclear as Sargon has repeatedly referred to Jess laughing at Philips. This wasnt even just a one off. BBC followed up with an interview of both and Jess says she is for men's issues then proceeds to interrupt Philip Davies as he raises issues then attempts to raise other issues irrelevant to the topic at hand. She even says dismissively "we thank you for your sorority" when Philip is saying the importance of women's day. Full Clip: (time stamps referred from here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q. Daily Mail report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI (contains all important sections) BBC post interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAk7oPxWXI Wikipedia is bias Comrades what do we do when previous information counters current dogma? Do any of fine upstanding citizens have a memory hole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.241.105 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC) WP:BE, etc.

We are not trying to interpret the event itself, and we are especially not interested in trying to divine Philips' motives for her actions. When forming an interpretation, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, (Benjamin is not reliable for Philips' actions or motives) and Wikipedia also strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources. A clip of her actions is a primary source. Interpreting a source and coming to a conclusion which is not specifically supported by that source is original research, which is not acceptable. If you have sources about this event which specifically discuss Benjamin's interpretaion, let's see them, but they still have to be reliable. The Daily Mail, for example, is explicitly not a reliable source on Wikipedia. If I were allowed to cite unreliable sources, I might, for example, mention that Benjamin laughed out loud about a fellow youtuber's murder. If we expect context and nuance for Benjamin's laughter ("gallows humour" or whatever), we would have to extend the same courtesy to Philips, right? Isn't that, ironically, what Benjamin was asking for? I bring this up to demonstrate a point, but I cannot cite this in the article, and for good reason. The standards for which Benjamin is held are the same as those which Philips are held. In both cases, we need reliable sources to explain this -not random Wikipedia editors like me or IP addresses like you. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Except Sargon was the only one not laughing, and actually said they shouldn't make those jokes. But who cares about being right. So if no "reliable" source left wing enough and not as overtly bias like we hunted the mammoth looks at the clip we can all see, we all know whats happening, we have to go with their lie of omission and go "we don't know what he is referring to, honest, its groundless, I swear, trust me. Nothing to see here, Jess is an angel who would never laugh at men's issues" . Phillips is at the very least in her own words laughing at a man asking for time to discuss men's issues in International Men's Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I can clearly hear Benjamin laughing and joking in the linked video, and the source specifically supports this as well. My personal interpretation of a primary source isn't useful, and neither is yours. Get it? You're ability to watch a clip of Philips and decide her intentions isn't any more trustworthy than my ability to watch a clip of Benjamin and decide his.

Laughing at a bunch of semi-jokes then maybe halfheartedly back-peddling later... So what? Yet again, what reliable sources care about this?

Benjamin's a real kidder, apparently, since a reliable source points out that he was also laughing at the Toronto van attack, among other things.

So why, exactly, would Philip's own words be relevant to this article? Anyone can ignore context and using primary sources to imply anything. Find sources for it. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

She did laugh, why pretend she did not?, i don't understand. Medicorene4 —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not pretending she didn't laugh. We know she laughed, but that's not all that Benjamin said, is it? He said she laughed about male suicide. No reliable source says she laughed about male suicide. Laughing at male suicide is a serious accusation. A video clip of her laughing can only be used to support that she laughed, and it still needs to be reliable, and weighed in context. We cannot imply that someone did something serious like this without a source verifying it. Not just editors, but at least one reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just went through the article and corrected a number of grammatical mistakes. I also rephrased a couple of things including the lead and the rape statements. Personally, I think we should try to put everything in proper context and not over or under compose it. I think the following gives everyone their proper dues, and it is properly cited:

"At a UKIP press conference announcing his candidacy, Benjamin once again refused to retract his comments about Philips, and he said: "If a woman is being a giant bitch and laughing about male suicide I’m going to be a giant dick back to her."[27] Although Phillips does repeatedly laugh during an exchange on men's issues, media sources note that it is unclear at exactly what she is laughing at during the hearing.[28] Phillips has stated that she believes male suicide is an important issue.[27][29] The Chairman of the Swindon branch of the UKIP called for Benjamin to be deselected, which was rejected by Batten.[30]"

I really think anymore or less information on this episode will do no more good. I believe what's outlined keeps everything in perspective. Sincerely, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: Your opinion is noted, but this is about consensus. There are obvious BLP issues here, and multiple experienced editors have expressed concern with this specific issue. I would request that you revert and gain consensus while discussion is ongoing.

"Although" is editorializing in this context. Nobody has disputed that she has laughed at during this minor event, but that's not the significant point here at all. The issue is that Benjamin is either misrepresenting this exchange, or is confused about what actually happened. We have reliable sources which specifically and unambiguously challenge Benjamin's account, and as a BLP issue for Philips, Benjamin's perspective should not be presented as false balance just because he felt the need to mention it in a press release.

For clarity:

• Benjamin is not qualified to summarize this event. Any summary of what happened needs to come from a reliable source without editorializing or SYNTH.
• Benjamin is the only person who is presenting this event as exculpatory. No reliable source supports this. To rephrase: no reliable source is saying that Benjamin's behavior would even hypothetically be more acceptable if Philips had laughed at male suicide. This wouldn't be an excuse, according to any source I have seen, even if it were true. It isn't true, also...
• Most importantly, No reliable source says that she "laughed at male suicide". We cannot, as a BLP issue, subtly imply that Benjamin might be correct in this, when reliable sources explicitly say that he is not.

Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Gonna be Captain Obvious here, but I fear that some people still don't get it. My opinion is that Jess Phillips acted inappropriately during that session where male suicide was brought up, and that she was laughing at the idea that men's issues do not get enough attention. However, I can't shoehorn my opinion into the article, because rightly, no one gives a shit about my opinion if it's not supported by a reliable source. It's kinda how this project works. Otherwise it falls apart pretty quickly. We show the facts as stated by reliable sources. That's it (or should be). RandomGnome (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The writing of this section is poor at best. It is very clear what Carl was referring to, absolutely everyone knows what he was referring to, and he has clarified that a number of times, therefore the text " It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to;" is simply wrong. What's contested is whether or not his claim is accurate. As there is uncertainty about the accuracy of his account the text should read "It is unclear if his comments are accurate" or "His account is highly contested" or even better just skip straight to "Phillips had not mocked male suicide and believes it to be a serious issue" perhaps better with a clarifying "Jess Philips had laughed at a suggestion of discussing men's rights at a committee but had not mocked male suicide and has publicly stated that it is a serious issue" (I'm not sure how any of wikipedias editors can confidently know what Jess Philips truly believes). The current text reads as a slightly dishonest and possibly politically motivated attempt to smear him as being a rambling idiot who makes illogical comments that everyone is unclear about when the reality is it's very clear what his comments referred to but his view is either wrong or highly debatable/contested. Sadly such poor/biased writing discredits wikipedia much more effectively than discrediting Carl or anyone else and ideally that sentence should just be removed. NickPriceNZ (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

additional comments about raping Jess Phillips

I think the updated video and police investigation should be added to the article - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/07/police-investigating-ukip-candidate-youtube-carl-benjamin-jess-phillips-comments

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.244.59 (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Just more smears then? There are lots of things this article omits intentionally. It was a comedy bit. Labeled a comedy bit in the description and tags. Every part of the video was a joke prior and after the bit in question. He said basically that he has a hardline stance about not raping her, but with enough pressure (from the media) challenging this position to not rape her he might cave. Obviously a joke at how strange the media is acting to be offended he wouldn't rape somebody, or about the inherent rapeability of someone.

Edgy commentator makes an edgy joke at the expense of the media, like The Guardian, who I sincerely hope can't be considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

psudonym

Typo in the first few lines. I can't correct it as the page is fully protected. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Looks like User:Nblund fixed it. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

White N-words

Someone boldly introduced a link to a very sparsely written article on white niggers in Benjamin's quote. I don't have an issue with the quote, but I reverted the linking to it because there is no source claiming that Benjamin's usage of the word was any of the varied usages listed in that article. Indeed, the article doesn't even have a UK usage section. If you watch the video or read Benjamin's reaction to the post, there is no indication he used the term the way the article does. Linking to the article is disparaging, and doing so without any source indicating that's what he meant is a clear BLP.LedRush (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: It appears that you're reading into what Benjamin means in a way that's not supported by reliable sources. We can't assume that he intended or didn't intend a specific thing - the article is intended to cover a range of uses. If there's a use you believe he intended to use the slur in that's not covered in the article, you should add it to that article, rather than complain here that the article is not comprehensive. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not complain that the article was not comprehensive, and I would appreciate it if you worked in more productive ways, follow WP policy, and averted your efforts from insults to improving the article.LedRush (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• MOS:LWQ. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If we read the article white nigger, we should quickly realize it does not describe any use Benjamin could have been intending. He is clearly not:

• Speaking as a black man referring to white people who do menial labor
• Speaking about Irish immigrants in the 19th century
• Referring to white activists in the American Civil Rights movement
• Referring to French Canadians
• Referring to Irish Catholics during The Troubles
• Making a comment about Richard Francis Burton

Therefore, it is neither appropriate nor useful to link the term. PeterTheFourth suggests we add Benjamin's use to the w.n. article, however, that is hugely problematic. It would either require reading Benjamin's mind or relying on his own subsequent explanation, which is (roughly) that the people he was speaking to were behaving in the same stereotyped manner as people whom they refer to with the N-word. There is no basis for adding Benjamin's use as any kind of "Use in Britain" section of the w.n. article since it is just one man's use. Benjamin is not notable enough to define the term.

Also, as Nomoskedasticity says with the Manual of Style link, it is generally frowned upon to put links inside direct quotes (although it is seen in lots of places). Cheers and happy editing. --SVTCobra (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've re-reverted a re-addition of the wiki link; per MOS:LWQ. Concur with the comments of SVTCobra, above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we should avoid linking inside quotes in general, and especially if there's any room for interpretation regarding the person's intent. It was a crude racial slur, I really doubt he was making a reference to a 19th century derogatory term for Irish Americans. Nblund ^talk 03:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Position on UKIP SW Eng list 2019

The article says "In the 2019 European Parliament elections, Benjamin was second on UKIP's list for the South West England constituency," and then cites two sources. However neither of these say he is second on the list - one of them says he "is one of two candidates the Eurosceptic party named on Thursday to stand in the southwest region." Is there any source for his actual position on the list? 90.255.24.88 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you go I just Googled it https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-2019-full-list-mep-candidates/ 2.100.161.141 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Jones Philipps

I believe that the section should be edited from she believes its serious to she claims she believes its serious or she stated that she believes it serious, more POV. 2604:2000:814B:B300:752A:C1D9:BAFA:F7E1 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a specific policy against that; see WP:CLAIM and MOS:ALLEGED. She's an authoritative source on her own beliefs, so adding an expression of doubt that would throw her assertion of her own beliefs into question isn't appropriate. We can only express doubt by citing a reliable secondary source commenting on it or specifically expressing disagreement; and we don't seem to have such sourcing here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Article lead

GergisBaki, I don't think your recent additions to the lead section of the article really belong there. You say that Benjamin's comments were widely covered during his candidacy which is true. This doesn't mean we should add about specific later comments that got much less coverage even if they are linked; in fact I think that them being linked means the later comment would be covered by comments that he "wouldn't even rape" the Labour Party MP Jess Phillips. Furthermore, Benjamin's response is not required by BLP to be in the lead because the statement is not defamatory but a quote of his own words - his response can be outlined in the body of the article with all the other context. characterizing them as jokes intended to satirize racism and empower victims of rape - in which source does it say that Benjamin characterised the statement as "intended to satirize racism and empower victims of rape"? There is a mention that victims of rape have applauded his comments but perhaps I missed where the sources say this specifically. Also, sources are not required in the lede if the information is contained and sourced in the body of the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument that the other comment (about how he might rape her with pressure) doesn't belong in the lede. What belongs in the lede are the most notable things about a person, and notability is determined by mentions in reliable source. While the second statement, that he might rape her with enough pressure, got somewhat less coverage than the original comment, it still received a ton of press (much much more coverage than most of the other stuff in the lede (gamergate, etc)). Therefore it belongs in the lede.

Surely his view that it was a joke belongs in the lede. As to the intention of the joke, I don't think that's terribly important, so you can remove it if you wish. But his statement that the use of racial slurs and the rape comments were a joke are important to include in the lede per BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GergisBaki (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin has certainly been covered more recently due to the EU elections so I think my previous edits may have been a bit hasty although I'm still not totally sure that all of these comments should be covered in the lead. Nevertheless, I think it's better to use the quote if the later comment is mentioned and I have moved the statement of his intentions into the article - I didn't initially realise that the sentence had been referring to both his use of slurs on YouTube and the separate incident with Jess Phillips so that's why I was confused as to where this is mentioned in the sources. I agree that his classification of these comments as jokes are important if we are to include the second statement which would otherwise be a blatant threat (and in this case it would be required in the lead due to BLP). If the second statement was not in the lead then I think it would not be as important to put his characterisation of the first as a joke (because it is not an explicit threat so his characterisation would not be required in the lede for BLP I don't think). Alduin2000 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Has any reliable source actually disputed that these were intended to be jokes? By that I mean do any sources presume that he was sincere about being willing to rape Philips under pressure? From what I have seen, the issue was never his sincerity, and describing a comment as a joke doesn't magically make it acceptable in all circumstances, as I hope everyone over the age of 5 realizes. Benjamin's "joke" comment reads like a response to an allegation that nobody actually seems to be making. Sources are saying his jokes are grossly inappropriate, and he's saying "they are jokes" as if that mattered. Tabloids like inflammatory comments, so it makes sense they would repeat this, but we've already agreed that tabloids don't belong here, right? So what are reliable sources saying about his position, and how are they contextualizing it? Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am not really going to address the arguments as they stand above, but offer my thoughts on the lede as currently written and more in general than specifics. The lede is far too long and detailed for an article of this length. The lede ought not include direct quotes nor election results down to 1/100 of one percent. It is far too focused on coverage Benjamin received in the last six months (if that long) than the entire subject. The one specific thing I will address is the statement "Benjamin lost the election" which doesn't seem right. If I understand the system correctly, the party runs, so it was UKIP which lost. They could have had great success and beat the polls by large margins and Benjamin still wouldn't have become an MEP since he was second on the list. The UK didn't vote for individuals in this election, regardless of how much people like Farage and Corbyn are the face of their parties. UKIP were polling to get zero seats and that's what they got. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is too detailed given that context can be more fully given in the body of the article. Despite that, the lede should summarise the article and Benjamin has gotten a lot of coverage due to the European elections - I support leaving some information about it in the lead and removing the detailed context. I also think that an increasingly detailed lede on a page like this is almost certain to lead to problems of bias and persistent disagreement of what should be added etc. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I may be in favor of briefer ledes than the average Wikipedian, but imho they should just touch upon each of the section headers which can be found in the Contents table. I would boil down the lede to 4 maybe 5 sentences. In the scheme of things, Benjamin is not that notable for his political career. Lawrence Webb (no, not Lawrence Webb) who was ahead of Benjamin on UKIP's list doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Yes, the news relished in the spectacle but this page is over-dramatized. If people weren't so emotional and almost edit-warring, I'd write my version of the lede in five minutes. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I made the radical shortening of which I spoke. Feel free to adjust (or even revert) as needed. Cheers. --SVTCobra (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Simpler is good. This seems like an improvement. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede should mention the most important parts of a person's biography. Importance is not a matter of our opinion; it's a matter of what is mentioned by RS. RS have spent infinitely more space on the rape jokes (both of them) than other things mentioned in the lede, e.g. Gamergate. Therefore this change is without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GergisBaki (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment, but it's not that simple. I honestly don't know how much of this is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FARTs, and how much of this is part of his lasting, encyclopedic significance. It's too early to tell, anyway. I agree that these comments are significant, but figuring out exactly how to present this is not obvious. Grayfell (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If Benjamin ends up getting RS mentions for other subjects that exceed the two rape jokes, we can remove them from the lede at this point. I understand the opinion that this emphasis seems petty. But RS are our only guide for this and they view these things as the most important part of Benjamin's bio. Therefore they deserve the lede mention (of two sentences). GergisBaki (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like an improvement because it is. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing & BLP

I have now removed text from the lead section, citing WP:BLP. I have no objection to a well phrased inclusion of the events (and believe SVTCobra's recent bold edits provide such); but the text ... speculating on whether and under what circumstances he might rape ... is an unsourced misrepresentation of the article subjects comments; they were clearly not serious, and we should not misrepresent them as though they were. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The text belongs in the article for the reasons stated above (notability). Sargon says he was kidding and that the matter was “not serious,” but this should be presented as his opinion, not fact, as a police investigation has been opened into the matter. From my point of view it’s obvious he wasn’t speaking literally and equally obvious that his comment (predictably) led to the harassment of the MP in question 107.77.221.57 (talk)

None of the sources currently referenced directly support the text which I have quoted above; they quote his tweets & video comments, but they do not support a statement that he "speculated" about raping someone. That text is an original interpretation of the sources, which is not what we do. As above, I have no objection to a well phrased inclusion of the events, as directly supported by the sources, but this text is not it. Editors should also familiarise themselves with WP:BLPRESTORE and note that the discussion, and consensus for inclusion, come before the edit warring. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument you're making. I have removed the word speculated but otherwise this is clearly notable and supported by RS. He is under police investigation as the previous user said, so it's not obviously a benign comment. Benjamin's interpretation belongs in the lede but whitewashing the comments are undue. GergisBaki (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There is literally one sentence in the lede on these two comments, which are by a huge margin the greatest source of RS coverage for Benjamin. It is not undue. Nor is it inaccurate. Just deal with this. GergisBaki (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Just deal with this is not an argument. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The first comment he said he wouldn't even rape Jess Phillips. In the second comment he said he might rape her with enough pressure. This is how RS interpret it. Therefore the description (that Benjamin, in comments he says were jokes, talked about whether and under what circumstances he would rape this woman) is accurate. GergisBaki (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I continue to disagree vehemently with the changes you have made to the lede, but what is this "RS" you keep referring to? --SVTCobra (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument you're making. That much is clear. The lead section currently contains no references, and is not a simple summary of the article body - it contains original interpretation & analysis - which is not what we do, by policy (See: WP:NOR). Specifically, Press coverage of Benjamin's 2019 candidacy for the European Parliament was dominated by ...; the body of the article does not mention press coverage. None of the sources referenced in the body mention press coverage. Specifically, a video comment during the campaign about whether he would or would not rape her., which, while facilely true, devoid of context is utterly misrepresentative - it is clear that he would not. That we include Benjamin's categorisation of the comments as "jokes" provides some of that context; perhaps sufficient, perhaps not. Providing the full text of the video comments, "I've been in a lot of trouble over my hardline stance ... nobody's got that much beer", as we do in the article body, gives better context. Notability is not a determinant of content (See: WP:NNC), so this is clearly notable isn't dispositive; nor is it a reason to include original research. Neither does WP:UNDUE allow us to make our own interpretations of sources. We are assured above that these two comments ... are by a huge margin the greatest source of RS coverage for Benjamin, and yet no sources are provided. So, WP:PROVEIT. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki, may I suggest you read MOS:BIOLEAD. You are including levels of detail which have no place in the lead. Your constant reinsertion of the number is 3.22% is just one example. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Spending one sentence describing the comments for which Benjmain is most notable (based on RS mentions) is not undue details. If you want to remove the percentage, fine. But the text about the jokes stays. GergisBaki (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What is RS and "RS mentions"? I am unfamiliar with this nomenclature. --SVTCobra (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You blindly reverted my edit which re-added things about animal rights and vegetarianism (not mentioned in the body) and non-neutral word "ridicule". It is too difficult to summarize the whole rape comment situation in a single sentence. It immediately goes into specifics about whether it was jokes or not; whether he intended to rape her or not; what wording did he use, etc. It's a complex thing. 'The reader will immediately see the table of contents and there's a link so they can jump to the rape comment controversy. The reason 3.22% is an awful detail to include is because there's no context. Is that a good or bad result for UKIP? Who knows without context. Not winning any seats is a succinct summation of the result. Again, the reader can just jump to the section on Benjamin's political career. Or they can follow the link to the election if they want full coverage. If you read MOS:BIOLEAD you can see it is supposed to be a brief summary of the article. It should not put undue weight on a single event even if it is what they are most known for; it should summarize their entire life/career. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Georgis is generally correct, this issue deserves to be explained with a moderate level of detail (ie one sentence) in the lede because of how often it is mentioned in reliable sources. the version Cobra prefers is obfuscatory and fails to mention the second comment about rape. That said I cannot find support in the article for the animal rights thing, and have therefore deleted it. 107.77.221.156 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

But you added it back yourself by blindly reverting me, because I had already removed it. You have also added things back which even GergisBaka has conceded can be omitted. You did these things without reading the talk page, despite the explicit request to do so and read the policy on summaries. I argue it is impossible to summarize in one or two sentences the whole rape comment controversy, it raises more issues than it solves because it is such a complex situation. The reader will have read the body of the article to know what it is all about. --SVTCobra (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Having "he says they were jokes" in parenthesis is just ugly writing, but the part about "whether he would or would not rape her" is just completely misleading. The only way to fix these issues is to expound upon the subject and then we lose the point of summarizing in the lead. Just let people read the body of the article. They can jump there directly from the table of contents. --SVTCobra (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source for coverage of campaign being dominated by rape joke

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/far-right-internet-personalities-europe

This is from Buzzfeed News, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. (Not to be confused with Buzzfeed, Buzzfeed News is a separate operation within the same company.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources GergisBaki (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, Gergis? You are moving the goal posts. I thought you were going to prove reliable sources took Benjamin's comments as serious threats. Now your proof says jokes in the title? This source does nothing of the sort. Now, you are pretending your focus was including a quite subjective adjective such as dominated in the lede/lead? The choice of adjective was not the center of our discussions! We are talking about full sentences. If the adjective was "dominated by", "focused on" or whatever, that's irrelevant. But I thought you were going to show us how Benjamin was somehow debating with himself "whether to rape Jess Phillips" even though he called it jokes or that reliable sources perceived it as credible threats. That's what you told me for 48 hours or more: "RS says this" and "We must follow RS" and "Wikipedia is dictated by RS." Based on what you presented here, I feel fully justified in changing the Lede/Lead back to an acceptable version regardless of anything you have ever said. This is pathetic and you have wasted many hours of my life. You can report me for WP:3RR if you want, but I will return the favor if you revert me. I hope it won't come to that. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead - AGAIN

The lead has once again been changed to be misleading about the rape comment controversy. Merely saying whether he would rape Labor MP Jess Phillips, statements which Benjamin characterizes as jokes implies people took Benjamin serious and he was contemplating rape, but he brushed it off as jokes. The debate was quite literally about whether it was appropriate conduct to make such jokes, especially as a candidate for public offices. I find it misleading to the extreme. There is, in my opinion, no way to summarize this adequately in short form, so we should just say there was a controversy and let the reader jump down to the section on it. The editors who keep doing this have left some messages on this talk page, but refuse to answer questions and do not counter when engaged to debate. I think this should be considered disruptive editing. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I have gotten a vague reply on my talk page that reliable sources were taking Benjamin serious that he might rape Phillips. I have asked them to name the sources. No reply as of yet. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Stating that you would even think about raping someone is, indeed, a rape threat. There is no "controversy" over whether such a thing is appropriate; all mainstream reliable sources categorically view it as vile, inappropriate and depraved. The "controversy," such as it is, is over the fact that a putatively-mainstream political party would put such a person up as a candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the first comment was explicitly he would not. Either way, I don't think anyone has considered it a credible threat, but rather a matter of hate speech or harassment. I am not an expert on the topic, but got myself involved because I wanted a proper MOS:BIOLEAD for this article which had become littered with statements not found in sources or the body of the article. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that this controversy over the lead seems to be brewing into an edit war I would like to propose a wording for the lead and would appreciate any feedback/concerns so a consensus can be reached. In 2018, Benjamin joined UKIP and was a UKIP MEP candidate in the 2019 EU elections. During his candidacy, he was criticised for a 2016 comment that he "wouldn't even rape" Labour MP Jess Phillips and subsequent related comments. Benjamin said that the comments had been jokes. Benjamin was not elected an MEP. It is important that we do not use the current wording that coverage was dominated because a claim like that would also require a RS (otherwise it is clearly OR). Furthermore, the lead should not go into as much depth as the body of the article and cannot include all the context without undue weight being given. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the article, not to put what we think is most important about the subject of that article. We have to be especially careful here that we don't paint a skewed picture because this is a BLP. Responses would be helpful even if they are just to say that this wording seems fine/appropriate/etc. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not mind Alduin2000's wording. Consider reincorporating Nomoskedasticity's contribution that a police investigation has been triggered. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that wording as well. The text needs to do more than simply indicate that a comment was made -- and this proposed wording does that. I don't see a need to insist on the police investigation point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The only thing at this point which I would like gone is whether he would rape Labor MP Jess Phillips. Previous unsourced claims about animal rights, etc. and overly detailed election results are not currently in the Lead. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with this wording because it makes no mention of the second "joke" (where he said he might rape her because of all the pressure), and uses synthesis to imply the second joke was the same as the first, when it was in fact far more offensive, insofar as it contemplated raping her. It bears repeating that our opinion as to whether this matter is frivolous or notable is irrelevant; notability is defined by mention in reliable sources. The second "joke" deserves mention in the lede because it has received more press coverage than anything related to Benjamin other than the first joke. The current version is fine and should remain. GergisBaki (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

See, this is why we can't agree. Because you are dropping the "but there's not enough beer in the world" part, which clearly makes it a joke, however vile and disgusting and make it sound like there was a credible rape threat. That's misleading. And to correct it we'd have add context and before we know it, the lead paragraph about the rape comments is as long as the section in the body. You are 100% correct this is what has gotten Benjamin more press coverage than ever, but it is undue to dedicate 90% of the lead to six month's press coverage. See: MOS:BIOLEAD What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. A lead should stand the test of time and not need to be changed in a few months when the media frenzy has died down. This is a short article and should have a short lead. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede is short and less than half of it is devoted to the central issue for which he is notable, which emerged via his political campaign for European parliament.

It is not up to us whether the comment (which again is being investigated by British police) is a joke or a threat. We should present the comments and Benjamin's interpretation of them. Reliable sources disagree over the comment being a disgusting joke or a threat. I'm in the disgusting joke camp but we go off of reliable sources, not our own opinions on Wikipedia. GergisBaki (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The second joke was labeled as a joke and is very clear that he would not rape her regardless of pressure. The first tweet said he wouldn't rape her. The lead is a both a misrepresentation of facts and a very clear BLP violation.LedRush (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gergis, you are right, it is not up to us, but your current wording is misleading because it implies it is a threat which was brushed off as a joke. LedRush seems to agree. To fix that, we can do one of two things: A) shorten it (my preference) and refer to the section; or B) explain how it was received by different people which would mean lengthening the Lead until it is indistinguishable from the section. Also, you have yet to identify which sources say it was a serious threat. The main source which I am familiar with (and possibly a super-reliable source) was a television interview on either SkyNews or BBC and they did not bring it up as a actual threat. I hope your source is not the Daily Mail because that tabloid also argued that Benjamin said it was OK to rape children. They are not a reliable source. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether it was a joke is not up to us -- it's up to reliable sources. These might or might not take account of what Benjamin himself said about it afterwards. We should determine point on the basis of what is in the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources (and apparently law enforcement) disagree as to whether the statements were threatening or not. The lede is therefore neutral; it summarizes the comments and notes the BLP's interpretation of them. Again, Wikipedia is dictated by what RS say, not our interpretation of what is reasonable. As it stands, therefore, the lede is quite neutral. GergisBaki (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gergis, you have yet to name those reliable sources. As far as law enforcement, he's being investigated for "malicious communication" according to our source in the section (HuffPost). I am not a lawyer, but that sounds more like harassment than a criminal threat of bodily harm. Either way, you have failed to explain why this needs to be in the Lead. Also, why are you refusing to name your sources, you just insist they exist. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And, no, the lede is not neutral as written now. I don't think anyone here agrees with that. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You, too, are right, Nomoskedasticity, but read LedRush's comment. #1 was an anti-threat and #2 was clearly a joke. But as there was different responses, we need not explain all that in the lead. It is for the section dedicated to this, namely this section. I think the Lead should defer to that section as per MOS:BIOLEAD. If you have a suggested concise wording which can cover all the nuance in the Lead, I am all ears, but the current version should not stand. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@GergisBaki: I'm not entirely sure why you oppose my suggested wording. You say I don't agree with this wording because it makes no mention of the second "joke" but my wording does include this under "subsequent comments". If you are saying that my wording does not contain explicit reference to the second joke then I really am confused - neither does the version which you are currently favouring. I haven't seen any RS which says this was a credible threat but frankly that is irrelevant because the article says nowhere that it was a threat. The current wording, however, does seem to give a skewed picture by going halfway with context. I agree with SVTCobra that it is preferable if the lead is shortened - lengthening the lead for controversial figures like Benjamin is bound to create problems of POV, edit warring, bias etc. My wording does not use synthesis at all - WP:SYNTH requires that no conclusions can be pulled from multiple separate sources unless an RS does so. My version does not imply that the second joke is the same otherwise it would say "and subsequent repetition of the comment" or something to that effect, it is worded as it is because these comments are linked. You say that the second comment is more offensive and I agree but this has nothing to do with what should be in the lead. It seems to me that you are trying to use mention of RS to get around the consensus that seems to have formed that the current wording is flawed. It would be helpful if you would suggest changes to my wording or even to suggest completely new wording but it is clear that the current wording is controversial and opposed by many editors for substantive WP policy reasons. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose action be taken now: After reading all the comments in this thread, I propose some form of change be made to the lead/lede. I prefer to not make this change myself, as it has already been suggested I could be at or near violation of WP:3RR. However, under exemption number 7 of WP:NOT3RR, I would be justified in: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. I do not want to feel like I am acting unilaterally, but we must do something quickly per my understanding of WP:BLP. I think the short version must suffice until a consensus is reached on keeping it or wording a proper longer version. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In support of my above statement, I quote from WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. I think these things are important and we can't wait. Am I off-base here? --SVTCobra (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith here but I'm just at a loss as to what is libelous or false in the lede. He made multiple public comments about whether he would rape this woman (randomly bringing up the subject of him raping her), and says it was a joke. We are not false or misleading about any of this. GergisBaki (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As am I, as am I, Gergis. Do you not know what the word "whether" means? If so, that is our problem. (Or at least it was, current version as of this minute is fine). You focused on the wrong words in my quote above. I will highlight from within the above quote: unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Do you see now? Maybe? I hope so, and I hope you don't flare this up again. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

Could someone please put the double square brackets (for a link to another Wikipedia page) around the word 'polemic' in the first sentence. I believe that it may help some users. Much Love!

 Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Right now this article is fully protected from any editing. Is there any ETA when this block will lifted, or is it expected to remain this way indefinitely? Wefa (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you hover your mouse over the padlock (top right) of the article, you will see it expires 6 June, 2019. --SVTCobra (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

fascinating. Thanks. I had looked into source and only saw the protection template without any date. Where does this date come from? Wefa (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It is set by the Admin who protected the page. They likely have guidelines for how long to set it for, given the situation, but they have the power to choose any duration they like. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Brexit

The last sentence in his "political views" section is very odd and feels out of place. I think the only reason that this sentence was added is that someone did a control-f and found that the word "Brexit" wasn't anywhere in the entire article, and hastily stuck it on the end of the most appropriate section. For a candidate of a party that was defined by Brexit, it is strange that this is just mentioned on its own in an orphaned sentence instead of being grouped with his other core beliefs. I think that this sentence should be deleted, and him being pro-brexit should be mentioned earlier in the article. I think the most appropriate places to do this would be inserted into the first paragraph of the "political views" as it is already mostly just a list of various positions he holds, and brexit should probably be mentioned in the "political career" section as part of the UKIP description, even if just in passing. Jelephant (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. It does look like an afterthought. If I recall correctly, Benjamin has spoken out against what he has seen as a betrayal of the referendum during Brexit negotiations and rejected calls for a second referendum. Nevertheless, such a section or paragraph needs to be developed fully with sources and not just from your or my respective recollections. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's try this again (the lede)

I want to reach consensus on this issue about which we have edit warred, i.e. how we present the rape comments . Let's try to see if we can do so without personal attacks.

I preferred a more concise version but in the interest of responding to the concerns of others about providing fuller context, I propose the following (somewhat longer) version:

In 2016, in response to Labor MP Jess Phillips claim that she was frequently threatened with sexual assault online, Benjamin tweeted to her "I wouldn't even rape you." Criticism of this tweet, and a subsequent comment in which Benjamin jokingly speculated about the circumstances in which he might rape Phillips, dominated press coverage of Benjmamin's 2019 candidacy for the European Parliament. UKIP did not win any seats in the European Parliament in the election.

This version is a little longer than I would've hoped for (though still just two sentences, the third sentence is about the election results) but I think it addresses all the concerns editors has raised here about 1) being fair to Benjamin/presenting the full context and 2) not whitewashing or obscuring what he said. I don't think the police investigation needs to be mentioned in the lede, nor the trans-partisan condemnation of Benjamin. What say you guys? GergisBaki (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I may be biased here but I don't see any issue with the current version - is it that it does not explicitly mention the second quote? Once again, the second statement is covered under "remarks about rape". The second statement is notable and should be covered in the lede but, as I said, it is alreay covered. The point of the lede is to summarise; given the choice between full context and a shorter version (such as the current one), I would prefer a shorter version of the lede. If consensus is against me, though, I don't think going halfway with context is really an option - as such the use of "jokingly" is an important addition if this version is to be used. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have only one issue with the current version of the lede: widespread and bipartisan condemnation "bipartisan" is a mischaracterization. Britain is not a two-party system, even if the Tories and Labour dominate both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Six different parties won seats in this EP election with Brexit Party getting the most. Perhaps just the words "and bipartisan" needs to be dropped. --SVTCobra (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Gergis' proposal, it's not terrible. As I have previously stated, I don't like direct quotes in the summary but "I wouldn't even rape you" has become a thing unto itself at this point, in the vein of a meme as Gergis said, so it could get a pass. As far as handling the second comment, however, I do not like the inclusion of "speculated" even if accompanied by "jokingly". I'd rather say "he joked about being pressured into raping Phillips". But again, I don't know if we need these details in the lede. Perhaps, Gergis is worried readers will only read the lede, I don't know. Now that the election is over, I don't know if the controversy will have legs to continue, but if it does (with the pending police investigation) the section about this may continue to be updated. I'd rather not get into a situation where we need to update the lede every time something is added to the sub-section. These are my thoughts for now. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have one fundamental problem with all the versions of the lede in discussion: They misrepresent the facts by omnission to such a degree that they amount to false claims. Benjamin did not react to Phillips tweet - he reacted to Phillips' public push to curtail the citizen's free speech which she justified by "getting rape comments". This is a person of power (Phillips is an entrenched national politician) trying to deny basic human rights to simple powerless citizens. That certainly warrants a robust, satirical answer. Benjamin's clearly satirical "I wouldn't even rape you" has since been tirelessly misrepresented for very obvious political reasons as a "rape comment", i.e. as a crude attempt of intimidation. It was neither. The lede should acknolwledge that, and the full context should be provided later on. Wefa (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is why I believe the lede should be as short as possible and really just mention there was a controversy. All this nuance and different perspectives should only be in the body of the article. It is simply too difficult to write a summary of this particular situation without someone complaining of POV, either through cherry-picking, omission or ending up looking misleading. What is and isn't obvious is so subjective. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Concur that the lead should be as short as possible, as a general principle. As for the proposed text, I don't see sourcing for the "In response too..." clause, nor do I see a single BuzzFeed News source (mentioned previously) as sufficient weight for the "dominated press coverage..." clause. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The edits to the lede sadly started even before a bot had time to remove the {{pp-protected}} tag. It's as if that person had a timer set for when protection would be lifted. Well, I have explained my views on this talk page regarding WP:BIOLEAD and how complicated matters should be left for the body of the article, so I am trying not to get involved with direct edits. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

So far I am not editing the article, but I am sending messages to WP:PC reviewers who accept revisions from IPs without any investigation at all. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Secret link of the day. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparantly I have made a very big mistake by accepting the removal of UKIP did not win any seats in the European Parliament in the ←election. I was approached about this by SVTCobra.

I don’t get it. This sentence has nothing to do with the person Benjamin, so it is absolutely irrelevant (my POV) in the lead of the article (nor needs it to be mentioned in the rest of this article).

Please explain why this part should be kept in the lead of the article. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin was a UKIP candidate - I think that him not being elected is pertinent information at least (even if the broader statement that UKIP did not win any seats isn't). Alduin2000 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my (actually deliberate) failure to come back and address this. When I protested the removal of the election result, it was actually in defense of my detractors. There was an unfortunate edit war in which one of the issues was the insistence of listing UKIP's draw down to 1/100 of one percent. Yes, it was insisted the lede said UKIP only got 3.22% of the vote. The details are all in the history on this talk page. It was to be stated without context about how much UKIP was expected to draw per polls or how much it was compared to competing parties. Anyway, before we got shut down for edit warring over other things, we had a compromise we would include UKIP didn't win any seats in the lede.

However, the real problem is people changing the lede. I see now there's another inappropriate change from an IP. I hope it doesn't get accepted by a reviewer. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, my hopes were dashed. Another IP was allowed to add things to the lede. It's just going to grow and grow because each side want to "add their context". This is why I said we should just say in the lede there was a controversy and everything else belongs in the section dedicated to the rape comments. Let's not forget all of these IP additions to the lede are unsourced and potentially in gross violation of WP:BLP. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My secret link of the day [7]. No it is not secret, and I don't mind admitting that I am challenging some reviewers. And there will never be one every day. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the next entry is someone completely absolving Benjamin of anything and everything. Let's see if this gets approved. Could be spicy. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 June 2019

Please copy what I suggest above at #Phillips's response. It has gained "silent consensus" to include. wumbolo ^^^ 12:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think you have consensus. In fact, there was a strong objection from Grayfell, noting this is an article about Benjamin, not Phillips. And GergisBaki only endorsed a change to the body, not the lede. --SVTCobra (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell didn't object. They referred to the sources, which I've demonstrated to largely cover that reaction. wumbolo ^^^ 12:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've objected. Also, I don't see any discussion of sources in that section, above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, Wumbolo, I think Grayfell's comment rejected both your and Wefa's suggestions. However, I am not a mind-reader. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about that. What, exactly, is being proposed? Can I get a change X to Y, please? Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Phillips's response

Does anyone object to any of:

• Right after controlled by jokes". adding Phillips said she felt "sick" after seeing Benjamin's jokes, and tweeted: "When talking about raping you becomes a meme (imagine for a second how this might make you feel) surely the person who initiated and then continues to join in with that bears some responsibility?" This is verified by the references that are present immediately after. It is in the very headline of one of them, though I don't like headlines.
• Right after Benjamin characterises these statements as jokes in the lead adding , while the MP felt "sick" about them as per MOS:LEAD#LEADBIO and MOS:LEADREL.

? I believe a WP:NPOV summary of a WP:BLP requires presenting all of the sides. wumbolo ^^^ 13:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems reasonable for the body of the text, since she's a BLP. We should also note that she was harassed because of the meme. GergisBaki (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As noted above - we should also note that this all started because she pressed for denying citizens a basic human right. Wefa (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Benjamin, not Phillips, so this would depend on sources. This is how we determine which "sides" belong, otherwise it's false balance. Adding the inflammatory claim that she was denying citizens a basic human right to the article without a reliable source would be a WP:BLP violation. It would have to be a very, very good source, also. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that this needs sourcing. I disagree that this is unduly inflaming - the scourge of politicians screaming for internet censorship the very second they encounter opposition of any kind from places like Youtube is alarming and does not require nor deserve euphemistic sweet-talking.

And the whole thing is in dire need of this context. Benjamin did not start mentioning rape and Philips out of the blue - he did so prompted by her public call for internet censorship because of her getting rape threats. Omitting that "detail" makes this whole chapter a pointless smear. Wefa (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, this accusation of "screaming for internet censorship" would require a reliable source, and as this perspective is not supported by existing sources, it would also have to explain the issue in a new way or with new information. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am kind of puzzled. Is this a technical debate about sourcing, or are you actually unaware of Philips' "Reclaim the internet" campaign, where she suggested to work with police and prosecutors to "do something" about internet harassment (which in her view included public utterance of criticism of her positions) and actually demanded that she be able to advance her opinions on the internet "without backlash"? It was quite a matter of outrage and ridicule back then, and there were numerous articles about it. Wefa (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone object ...? Yes. This level of detail is unbalanced, per WP:BALASP, and off-topic. We're well in the weeds if we're documenting every tweet & interview comment of the article subject, let alone those of other persons. As above, this article is about Benjamin, not Phillips. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to"

"It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to; Phillips had not mocked male suicide and believes it to be a serious issue." This point can only have been made through ignorance. Regardless of what your opinion on Phillips' attitude is, it is very clear what Benjamin's comment refers to. It refers to her laughing with glee at the assertion that men's issues don't receive enough attention. (i.e. issues pertaining to men, not men's ability to raise issues). One could potentially see this as a misinterpretation on her part, however Phillips continued to defend her response even after clarification.

Of course you're right. Benjamin has gone on records many times regarding what he was referring to. But we have one source which wanted to misrepresent the story, so certain editors of WP can push their POV further than usual.LedRush (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There is video evidence of her laughing at the idea of a men's day and issues, but sure she didn't laugh at male suicide.92.20.186.1 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention of alt-right in lede

SVTCobra has attempted to insert language in the lede to indicate that the subject "criticises" the alt-right, which is by no means a reasonable summary of the language of the body of the article (since it singles out one of the many competing descriptions of this relationship).

It is my belief that all sources, including the body of our article, agree that he raises the profile of the alt-right; there is even scholarly literature on this which I will dredge up if absolutely necessary. I have left all mention of the alt-right out of the lede until we have consensus on this, and am attempting to AGF, but I don't really see SVTCobra as having a valid reason for objecting to my last rephrase. Inserting "criticising...the alt-right" is certainly tendentious and biased, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me, Newimpartial, but I think you attempted to insert first that he "promotes the alt-right", second "he raises the profile of the alt right" without sources and without consulting the extensive debate on the lede. The body of the article has this Benjamin stated that members of the alt-right were "acting like white niggers" because "[e]xactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt-Right." as well as They [Daily Dot] cited a video by Benjamin titled "An Honest Look at the Alt Right" to observe that "[a]lthough [Benjamin] criticizes the alt-right for collectivist and authoritarian thinking, he argues that they’re reacting to a comparable amount of racism from the left." This sounds like criticism to me and not promotion. You might as well put in the article about Vice that they "raise the profile of the alt-right". --SVTCobra (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Cobra, his criticism of alt-right is notable. Hope Newimpartial made honest mistake if he tried to insert "promotion of alt right" because that is massive BLP violation.Sourcerery (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

We should not be saying that he is a critic of the Alt-Right in the lede when he is widely viewed as being associated with it, even despite him having made some statements critical of the behaviour of some of its members. If we have sufficient good sources for him being associated with or promoting the Alt-Right then we could put that in the lede, but only if the references are sufficient and only if we note that he claims otherwise. His critical statements should be covered in the body but not in the lede for two reasons:

1. There is insufficient scope to explain them sufficiently in the lede in a way that is unlikely to be misleading. Describing him as a "critic of the Alt-Right" would definitely be misleading as it is just as plausible to interpret this as a spat within the Alt-Right and we should not endorse either interpretation unless the preponderance of sources clearly support it. (I'm sure that we all have opinions about what it is but it is just not our call to make.)
2. They are also far less important than the other content in the lede, which reflects the things he is actually known for outside of niche online bickering circles.

My main concern with the lede is that the third paragraph reads like it was written by his lawyer, assuming he has one, in order to softpedal the controversial nature of his "remarks". It might be worth rewording that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Until recently, the lede was much shorter and until very recently, I think, said "discussing" these topics instead of trying to break down his position on each in the lede. There have been an astonishing amount of changes to the lede without corresponding changes to the body. Attempts to reach a consensus on the lede have been partial at best, but always ignored a few days later, anyway. What is this "widely seen to be associated" exactly? Does that mean speaking to them? Benjamin has always rejected the alt-right's core tenets. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"We should not be saying that he is a critic of the Alt-Right in the lede when he is widely viewed as being associated with it" nope. He is classical liberal, alt-right is pretty authoritarian. "Describing him as a "critic of the Alt-Right" would definitely be misleading as it is just as plausible to interpret this as a spat within the Alt-Right" who would interpret it like that and for what reason, more importantly are there sources claiming that?Sourcerery (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to link his "classical liberal" views to opposition to the alt-right via authoritarianism is clearly WP:OR. As DanielRigal points out, it is entirely possible to criticize a movement from within that movement. His arguments with (other) people in the alt-right do not prove anything by themselves, even if we ignored WP:OR and accepted this approach. It is trivially easy to find reliable sources which link Benjamin to the alt-right in simple terms. It's now common for news sources to call him "an alt-right Youtuber" or similar. If he has disputed this directly, so be it. This doesn't invalidate these sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

He describes himself as classical liberal and as far as I know, per BLP, you are RS for your own views and. He contrast this with authoritarian alt-right. That's not me saying it, to make it clear.Sourcerery (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A reliable source would need to directly say that because Benjamin is a classical liberal, Benjamin cannot also be alt-right. Benjamin is not a reliable source for the definition of classical liberalism or the alt-right in general, so even if he makes this connection, that's not good enough. We cannot use his comments as a back-door to introduce his unreliable claims to the article. We could, maybe, explain that his opinion is that he cannot be X because of Y, but a better approach is just to say that he denies being alt-right, since that's the underlying point. We are not interested in his opinions on general political theory in isolation. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

We can say he is self described classical liberal and critic of alt-right?Sourcerery (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if we also say what reliable sources say about him and do not give his claims precedence over that. Politicians routinely misrepresent and/or misunderstand their own positions and fringe/extremist politicians do this to an even greater extent. We should, and we do, report his claimed political positions but we must rely on independent sources when speaking in Wikipedia's own voice. Besides, it is 2019 and we all know how to decode far-right euphemisms like "centerist" and "classical liberal" now. We should say that he is a far-right figure and widely considered to be linked to the Alt-Right (maybe in the lede maybe not) and then note his claims to the contrary. We are required to write the article fairly but we are not required to write the article as he and his supporters would wish it, using euphemisms and leaving out key facts. This brings me back to the weasel wording of the third paragraph. Can we do something about that? Also, in the body, while we can note that he claims that the N word is "not offensive in Britain", we probably should note that this is not actually the case at all. Surely we can find an RS reference disputing such an obviously bizarre claim. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I see and acknowledge your passion but what is proposed looks like a potential BLP issue. Even current lead is contentious and we can't make our own conclusions regarding "centerist" and "classical liberal" as some sort of crypto-fascism. Not counting "wouldn't even rape her" which I don't support in lead, for example "Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy, during which he promoted a conspiracy theory that feminists and leaders in the video game industry were plotting to use video games to promote a feminist agenda." this sentence is a bit dodgy. On Gamergate controversy article they mention that some see it as conspiracy theory but more broadly it's seen as just another battleground in Culture war. We need to make effort to be as objective as possible and acknowledge our biases.Sourcerery (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Classical liberal" is a trendy self-description, but it's not an informative one. As I mentioned recently at another talk page it has become increasingly regarded as a euphemism for the alt-right.([8][9][10][11] etc.) We can, and already do, mention Benjamin's use of the term, with attribution, but it's not really that helpful, so unduly emphasizing it would weaken the lede for little benefit.

Gamergate was a harassment campaign, and Benjamin was a participant in that campaign. I think in this context "conspiracy theory" is also accurate. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but those sources are joke, they think Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro (religious Jewish man that wears yarmulke) and intellectual dark web are alt-right, which can only be seen as smear when you know what they are about, don't think they can pass BLP. Viewing Gamergate as conspiracy theory is fringe view.Sourcerery (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am not even going to open the can of worms that is Gamergate, but no it wasn't. It became that, but that's another story for another time. As easy as it is to find a source that is listed on WP:RSP as reliable which says Benjamin is alt-right, it is equally easy to find those who do not describe him as such. Some call him a 'darling' of the Alt-Right, others say he's 'linked'. There are even reliable sources that claim a vast conspiracy, that Benjamin existed as a deliberate gateway to the alt-right. Now, I know we can't do original research but it is difficult to sit here a listen to people say we must label the man Alt-Right because three articles from The Guardian and one from Buzzfeed called Benjamin an "Alt-Right YouTuber" when one knows he is clearly not. We are at that intersection where a lot of reliable sources are not telling the objective truth. It could be out of plain ignorance because understanding everything that has transpired on YouTube where this has mostly gone down is complex. It could be deliberate. It's no secret the British press did not like UKIP or the Brexit Party which is why they kept harping on a stupid tweet from 2016, so it could be willful misrepresentation out of malice.

I am in the unfortunate position of being aware of must of the goings on because I've paid attention to it over the last three-four years. I don't have the time now, but I might write up something in my userspace. Suffice it to say, the Alt-Right have some defining characteristics per the Wikipedia page. First, it is overwhelmingly a US movement or affiliation with some Canadians thrown in (I am thinking Molyneux and the like). The UK never needed the Alt-Right because they have long had the EDL, National Front and the BNP. So, that's strike one. Next is white nationalism and a separate ethno-state for white people; positions Benjamin never held or endorsed. Strike two. The Alt-Right do not like Benjamin. For about a full year, actual Alt-Right YouTubers have mocked him mercilessly. They call him Soygon and and Sargon of Applebee's (the latter because of a photo of him in a shortsleeve shirt with a tie). I don't know if it is because they gave up their hopes he'd flip to their side. I think that's three strikes.

All I can say is the man is not alt-right and never was. This "classical libertarian" is bullshit as well as the term he tried to coin for himself of "liberalist" before he joined UKIP. Perhaps we should describe him with his positions instead of with emotionally charged labels, because I'm sure there are people who'd just as soon call him a Nazi, too. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that we have a number of TP participants whose OR (along with the subject's own statements) insist that he is critical of the alt-right, and we have multiple sources cited in the article stating that he is part of, or associated with, the alt-right. In this situation, per WP policy, the reliable sources win. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm unsure who you are addressing with you opening, but I think you are talking about me. What I was saying with me previous post is I shall not endorse a version which says he is part of the alt-right or actively promotes them. Just as I objected to the word "bipartisan" nearly a week ago even though it was the word a "reliable" source used, I don't like when truth is misrepresented, sourced or not. I am not, and never will, argue that my "research" or personal knowledge should be cited or used, but it is disconcerting when two (possibly politically biased but otherwise reliable) sources are used and ignoring that other reliable sources do not consider such an important thing worthy of mentioning. Why would the BBC and The Times omit that Benjamin is Alt-Right in their election coverage? It makes no sense. Also, I have seen frequent mentions "multiple" and "trivially easy to find" sources establish Benjamin as Alt-Right. I have yet to see any besides The Guardian and Buzzfeed. Lastly, I would never find joy in "policy wins" over truth. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)-

DiGRA conspiracy theory in lead.

Inside Higher Ed is unequivocal in describing what Benjamin advanced at that time as a conspiracy theory, as are two other academic sources covering the topic. If we're going to mention it in the lead at all, it must be with that qualifier. We could potentially leave it out of the lead entirely, but we cannot clip out that context and present it as if it was just a "theory" or a "view", since that could mislead readers into believing that it was not debunked or that it has some sort of supporting evidence, mainstream acceptance, and so on. Per WP:FRINGE, we must characterize such fringe views and conspiracy theories as such when they are mentioned - we can choose to omit it entirely, but not to present it as just another potentially-valid opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

And that's only source that does, rest mention that conspiracy theory is associated but they mention it with laundry list of other terms and make no definitive claim. Rest of them don't, view that it's conspiracy theory is a fringe view. Mainstream view is another battleground in culture war.Sourcerery (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sourcerery: No sources contest that it's a conspiracy theory. We have a reliable source that does call it a conspiracy theory. Seems pretty clear. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, you haven't actually read the sources. Only one does and it's a fringe view.Sourcerery (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading over RS related to Benjamin, fringe clearly applies to him. Obvious conspiratorial nature. O3000 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you and other editors on this topic read WP:CIR since you seem to struggle with grasping what RS say.Sourcerery (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:CIV. O3000 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You should stick to topic WP:FORUM and if you have some concerns you can always report them to administrators.Sourcerery (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede (as currently written) does not represent the DiGRA conspiracy theory accurately. While it was definitely WP:FRINGE to think there was a global conspiracy for feminists to infiltrate DiGRA gradually over the course of nearly a decade just to influence the gaming journalists, with the feared outcome of then influencing game development bordering on lunacy, that's not what the lede says. feminists and leaders in the video game industry were plotting to use video games to promote a feminist agenda is how the lede describes it. No, this is false, leaders of the industry were never part of it. The body of the article does a fine job of describing it. My problem is the lede. We now have three parts (rape comments, alt-right, and DiGRA conspiracy) which the body of the article does a reasonably fair job of covering. My problem has been and remains all the edits to the lede without regard to the body of the article. So many people seem to drop in and change the lede to suit themselves, which is why I have consistently advocated for a super-short lede which could just be a brief introduction. The sourced and well-written parts are in the body of the article. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I waited 72 hours and no one disagreed or even responded to my comment, so I have corrected the lede so it conforms to what the body of the article has and what Aquillion said about Inside Higher Ed's report. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Jess Phillips Laughing at male suicide

the video that Carl is referencing is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI . Im not suggesting that she actually was, as editors are supposed to remain unbiased, like myself. However the page as of now says that no one knows what he is referencing . And that is untrue, he is referencing that video.

A Daily Mail YT video? I suggest you self delete. O3000 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that is indeed not her in the clip? What an excellent stunt double that they hired, looks just like her. Hopscootchica (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't watch it. It is a YT video by a deprecated source. Even if it was verified as accurate and in context, we do not investigate. We use reliable secondary sources. WP:RS It's not relevant in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thats a nice rational you have came up with to support your intellectual dishonesty

That is the video he is referencing, I'm not saying that she was laughing at that. but that is a 100% fact that he was referencing that video with those comments. so whys cant that be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopscootchica (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The source you provided doesn't even mention him, so this is speculation and WP:OR on your part. --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

While I personally agree that this is undoubtedly the footage which prompted the infamous "I wouldn't even rape you" tweet, Wikipedia needs a reliable source to connect the dots, so to speak. We cannot do that ourselves because that is original research. O3000's dismissal of the video wasn't exactly fair in that it is clearly a public service video which was only rebroadcast by the Daily Mail, though they correctly pointed out it does not mention Benjamin. We do have to be aware of POV from so-called reliable sources when it comes to politics. In this instance, Phillips' interaction was seen as anywhere from so cruel people cried to a great put-down of a men's day. It does become a delicate balancing act of parsing sources, when they clearly have POV, without at the same time being accused of WP:OR. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't trust a video via the DM. O3000 (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't blame you, but have you still not watched it? It's under 3 minutes long. DM obviously didn't produce it as it is typical of stuff on https://www.youtube.com/user/UKParliament ... but in the end, none of that matters. If you question its authenticity you can view a longer version at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q which was uploaded two years before the DM version. --SVTCobra 17:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)