Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

How to summarize the rape comment

So far, there seems to be only argument and no consensus about whether the rape joke should be quoted in full or summarized. The number of "votes" for each side are about the same. The "keep it as a summary" side seems to have more weight in policy, but only because the purpose of the article isn't to present his quotes in full, only to report on him validated by secondary sources.

However, the side wanting to include the full quote is also correct in their demand for neutrality. In its current form, the summary makes him look worse than what he really said.

A good compromise that allows for both concise-ness and neutrality is to improve the summary, from "he might rape her" to "he might be pressured into raping her".

Numerous sources show that that's what he said. The first source I use here is already being used as the source for the summary. The others I found just to support my argument.

The summary of what he said should be changed accordingly. Amaroq64 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in whitewashing, nor in yet more tedious discussion, nor in false "compromise". I doubt anyone else is, either. The only difference between these two options is that one is longer. It doesn't add any clarity, but does presume that Benjamin's bloated word choice somehow softens his rape joke. Being "pressured" into raping someone is not somehow an excuse, and makes no real difference.

This is not a contest between two equal "sides", this is about how to succinctly summarizing the topic in accordance with policy. Based on past discussions, I will preemptively mention that nobody here cares that you don't even like Sargon that much, nor that in your opinion the article is a hit-job. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is not based on votes. It's based on policy. There has been more than enough discussion on this topic over years and all discussions have resulted in consensus amongst experienced editors that the current text is appropriate. This is bludgeoning. We know what he said. No-one is disputing it. That's not the reason why your changes are hugely inappropriate. If you continue repeating the same comments over and over again then you may be reverted per WP:IDHT. I notice you have a history of bludgeoning people over far-right topics. Users here with an ideological mission are not welcome and may be blocked. Go improve an article about a TV show you recently watched if you're interested in actually contributing to our encyclopedia. Or review the academic literature and use high-quality sourcing to make additions to the real Sargon of Akkad. — Bilorv (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed the archives. The rape joke has been contentious since it was added, and no consensus was ever reached. You two having unlimited time and energy to gatekeep honest editors from doing anything until they gave up is not a consensus.

Grayfell is right about one thing. This isn't a compromise between equal sides. The people who demanded neutrality were right and you are wrong. You two and one or two other editors over the years have been blocking numerous attempts to improve it on the technicality that the full quote would be too long. My compromise of improving the summary (backed up by sources) and your responses to it shows that it was never about keeping the article succinct.

Grayfell's wording that a more accurate summary "softens his rape joke" and you (Bilorv) having "Feminist" on your profile suggests that you two have an ideological interest in keeping slanted wording in this article.

Calling me out on my bias doesn't mean my argument is false. It also doesn't mean I'm going to go away and let you get away with your bias. Amaroq64 (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My compromise of fixing the summary solved your sole policy reason (succinct-ness, wikipedia is not a quote farm) for resisting the improvement in neutrality. You have no further argument. Now you aren't even willing to respond in defense of your position anymore. Only attacking my bias and asserting a consensus that isn't there, and then disappearing and hoping I'll go away. Which is of course why I've had to post my argument more than once.

Review of this talk page and the archives shows people with your position behaving with bludgeoning behavior. Your side has gatekeeped many other neutral editors, with unyielding ruthlessness, until you won and they went away.

But we don't have to take my word for it. I can show you that this phrasing has been reported on by reliable sources and that I am not giving undue weight to a fringe position. Three of the five sources I used up there are regarded as reliable according to consensus (with the rest questionable, but not necessarily unreliable). Here is the reporting from just the reliable sources on this phrasing.

In a YouTube video uploaded to his channel last month he compounded his previous comment saying, “with enough pressure I might cave”, before adding “But, let's be honest, nobody's got that much beer.“

Carl Benjamin, Ukip’s candidate for South West England, sent a tweet to the MP for Birmingham Yardley in 2016 saying “I wouldn’t even rape you.” He added to the comments in a recent video saying: “With enough pressure, I might cave.”

Mr Benjamin, 39, has twice referred to the Birmingham Yardley MP. In a tweet in 2016 he said that he “wouldn’t even rape” her. In a YouTube video uploaded to his channel last month he said that “with enough pressure I might cave”. He has refused to apologise, arguing that “any subject can be the subject of a joke.”

References

Since you no longer have an argument from policy, can't demonstrate consensus, and are no longer able or willing to defend your position, I've edited the summaries of the rape joke and added these sources. This edit improves clarity and neutrality and doesn't contradict succinct-ness. The only reason left to you is that you don't believe Sargon's evil should be "whitewashed" or explained away. But that is your belief and not neutral reporting with due weight based on reliable sources. Amaroq64 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This has all been said before. I do not owe you a discussion, and neither does anyone else, and we certainly don't owe you one on your own favorable terms. The argument has already been made many times by many editors. Your unwillingness to accept previous discussions is not a license to disrupt Wikipedia.

As I've said many times on this talk page, Wikipedia editors are not expected to pretend to be emotionless robots. Benjamin's shtick is to say intentionally inflammatory things and then declaring his own conclusions to be rational. This produces Youtube content that some people seem to enjoy, presumably because they get to also pretend to be rational, but it's not how Wikipedia works.

Your proposed edit is a form of whitewashing, because it emphasizing details according to some personal preference, or based on some idea of what they imply. By a strictly "rational" assessment, the quote is no more or less informative with this filler added. It is no more or less offensive, and it is no more or less encyclopedically significant. Adding more of Benjamin's bloated, awkward rambling is is a form of public relations because it introduces false precision. By introducing a detail we imply to readers that the details is important. It is not important, so this is editorializing. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, and Wikipedia is not obligated to present all sides equally. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The article on neutrality says NPOV is non-negotiable; no other policy may come before neutrality, nor may consensus come before neutrality. So you guys never even had a valid justification for preventing those other editors from including the full quote.

The policy is that living and recently dead persons are especially entitled to neutral representation. This is even according to Wikipedia's stance on neutrality, where Wikipedia does take a side if most of the reporting takes a side. Much of the reporting uses the "pressured" language. "Would rape" absolutely is more offensive than "could be pressured into raping". It seems more like editorializing to not include the "pressured" language. Amaroq64 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Shall we just let you be the arbiter of what counts as "neutral", then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be me. But it shouldn't be you guys either. I believe this has been an ideological battle ever since the first editor was stopped from making it more neutral. It should be escalated to dispute resolution. Amaroq64 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"More neutral" doesn't mean "more flattering" and this isn't a compromise just because you insist that it's more neutral. Mercifully, Wikipedia has become less tolerant of WP:SEALIONs, so using dispute resolution over the inclusion of the filler-phrase "pressured into" would be correctly seen as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

Your personal opinions about how much less offensive it is to be "pressured into raping someone" is irrelevant. It is, at best, filler language used by Benjamin to obfuscate the offensiveness of his attempted jokes, but it doesn't change meaning of his words. He facetiously introduced the idea of raping this woman as some contorted and pedantic attempt at humor. Nobody, other than Benjamin's more pedantic fans, really cares about the precise wording of the "joke". Sources may or may not repeat specific words, but they don't ever indicate that it is important. In context, reliable sources mention it to explain that he stood-by or compounded his original message. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this section was recently changed from "How to summarize the rape joke" to "How to summarize the rape comment", with the reasoning "Who says it's a joke??"

It's obviously a joke when taken in context. It seems even the talk section is being editorialized to create a slanted view of the subject. But since the reporting didn't explicitly say it's a joke, I guess that's just another point of contention on this page.
Amaroq64 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, The Independent and The Times did characterize it in their headlines as a joke. Amaroq64 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The comments are not noteworthy because they were jokes. They are noteworthy because he was publicly using the idea of rape, of a real person, for his own purposes.

So in context, who cares? Which part of his comments was the joke part, and why would it matter? Was he joking when he said "I wouldn't even rape you"? Who's the target of that joke, and what's the punchline? I'm asking rhetorically, but if you don't have an answer, you should think about it harder. Was the "joke" part the bit about "nobody's got that much beer"? What does that say about him, rape, and his beliefs? If you want us to think that it's just a joke, you don't take these comments seriously. If so, why should we take you seriously on this talk page? Benjamin doesn't get to pick-and-choose when people take him seriously and when they don't, and neither do you.

These quibbles distract us from what sources are saying. Sources do not care about "the joke". Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Jokes are a matter of intent, intent can be infered throught many way, including the explicit words of the primary source. We could simply quote primary source and say "primary source claim he was joking, some secondary sources disagree". By trying to deny the obvious joke, we make wikipedia look very partisan, and do not adopt a neutral tone. 45.44.248.46 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is a distraction. Reliable sources do not seem to care if it's a joke or not, and certainly don't treat being a joke as a valid excuse. Sources do not care whether or not he was joking, and because they do not care, it would be non-neutral to imply that it is significant. Grayfell (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Presenting views of reliable source that would make the allegation less outragious than what is claimed would not be neutral? So we should only present one side of the story because Buzzfeed and other biased sources which can sometimes be reliable have made attack pieces on the men, and delieberately conceal that he said himself from the get go that it was a joke at the expense of the biased way some media organisation present the news? No original research doesn't mean mimicking unsubstantiated opinions from everything which have been considered a reliable source once, it means not making our own inferences! Plenty of reliable sources, including the primary source have exposed the humourous intent of the statements. Your use of the word "valid excuse" imply that your aim is to use wikipedia to condem the men or the words. If it is so, than your intent and the way you go about it infringe NPV. Reliable sources should be judged in general, news article should also be based on case by case basis. Opinions innews articles should not be shared in Wikipedia's voice unless they are authoritative. The source are not authoritative on Carl's humorous intent, and if we are frank, everyone know it was a joke. There are just a few people that deny it because they believe that the comments were unacceptable even as a joke. Be it as it may, the fact a joke is offensive, hurtfull or unfunny doesn't make it less of a joke. Francis1867 (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Francis1867 I read this thread and many others where you are involved, and I find it quite unfortunate that you spend so much effort derailing the neutrality of the website by quote mining sources. I googled "Carl Benjamin Joke" and here are the top reliable sources I found. Almost everyone opposed to carl acknowledge the joke. 1 2 3 4 5 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1867 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You might want to look at Help:Signatures

Either you do not understand what I am saying, or you are ignoring what I am saying. It doesn't matter if it's a "joke" because that's not why anyone's talking about it.

The first one refers to a "vile joke" in the headline and the lead-in. It discusses it as "offensive" and how he doubled-down on the comment. Nowhere else does this discuss or imply that this a joke, except to quote Benjamin. It also discusses some gossip about someone else, and mentioned that Benjamin has called the BBC "communists". The source is specifically about a beef Benjamin tried to start with PinkNews. In context, this is nothing.

Since you intentionally searched for sources which use the term "joke", this isn't even a make-believe version of a valid sample, so it's amusing that you accuse me of cherry-picking. I'm not inclined to waste time picking apart the rest of these. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal was not meant to say that we ought to eat irish babies, it meant to make light of some political comments at the time. Immagine trying to write a wikipedia in such a way that present this essai as if the author legimatly argued for canibalism. This would not only take a point of view, it would be a complete and utter lie by misrepresentation. The reason why joke is put in scare quotes is because people are trying to downplay that aspect because we know that in human society, there is a difference between what is acceptable to say as a joke and what you can say seriously. The sources which were the most biased wrote more about the topic, which increases the amount of sources that try to downplay the joke aspect of the story. You use the fact that there are more dishonnest source to be dishonnest. We shouldn't do that, we should critically evaluate sources in light of their apparent bias, and only share authoritative opinions in the voice of wikipedia, other opionions, if mentioned should be paraphrased or quoted. I find the way you are wearing down editors to make sure that the article present your personal views quite despicable. The circular reasoning, the fallacies, the willing blindness to obvious truth. Other editors have talked about it. At least the French version of the article is getting a neutral voice in translation. Hopefully english readers will eventually get the same quality as french do. Francis1867 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal was not... no. Stop digging. A Modest Proposal is accepted as satire, and has a clear target and message, and that target wasn't poor people's children. If "I wouldn't even rape you" was satire, the target is still a woman getting raped, or worse, the punchline is that Benjamin would rape her. "Nobody's got that much beer" was not satire, and it's not up to you to decide who the target of the "joke" is, and more importantly, it still doesn't actually matter. Your opinion about which sources are and are not "biased" is also a dead end. You are not qualified to determine which opinions are authoritative. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This comparison to Swift might be the least effective argument I have seen on this site, and that is saying something. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Carl Benjamin has another youtube channel with the name 'The Symposium' at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7xJftLtg3YJGgClZRr7hbg/feed add link 2A02:C7F:DE8C:9800:5172:5BBA:FD12:C0F6 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article assert that Carl is far-right?

Just because some sources claim that he is far-right doesn't mean he is far-right. He is a classical liberal. Watch his videos directly and see his political positions for yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsath3 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The relevance of the label that the media ascribes a person is certainly debatable but likely reasonable. However the length of this section just to say 'He's far-right' is certainly excessive and I support a move for a more concise summary. EatingFudge (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Putting scare quotes around "reliable" remains unpersuasive. Most encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Therefore, Wikipedia specifically favors WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDY sources. We are not interested in original research, so this isn't the place to publish our own opinions of his videos. For convenience, I will add that much has been written about why "classical liberal" doesn't mean what Benjamin's group seems to think it means, which is only one of many reasons we favor outside sources for these things.

Regardless, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If you have some specific reason to think these sources are not reliable, discuss it, either here, or at WP:RSN. Vague kvetching isn't productive. Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

As Grayfell says, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If sources are unduly biased then they are not reliable, but in this case the sources have been well-established by the Wikipedia community as reliable, and the fact that they say some things you don't like about your favourite YouTuber doesn't discredit that. — Bilorv (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic and insulting O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gayfall: The quotes were not meant to scare but to accentuate. There is a difference between a news journalist reporting on facts and a tabloid journalist reporting on their own activist opinions. It is a flaw to think individual articles are reliable because its publisher is reliable WP:RSPUSE. To learn why this is important click on AmericanPressInstitute or PewResearch. If you need a refresher on how to distinguish facts from opinion please review this helpful chart. Thanks for the reads, I don’t normally read drivel. But for those interested I went down the rabbit hole for you. Rightwingwatch: "joining the right-wing populist and anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP), demolishing their claims that they are merely “classical liberals.”" Thebaffler: "“classical liberalism” is more and more filled with the dregs of the alt-right." Dailydot: "a classical liberal is a conservative that doesn’t want to explicitly identify themselves with the less acceptable aspects of right-wing thought, such as misogyny, racism, homophobia, and fascism." MerionWest: Actually this was an interesting read, however it does not support what you think it does. Since you have evidently slurped up these options as gospel it is completely understandable how you would find representing Benjamin in a neutral light unpalatable. That said, if you would like to understand what a classical liberal actually is and its broader context please review this summary https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ Bilorv: As Wikipedia says “Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity.” –WP:NOTNP “Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source.” and “Consider also the weight of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest.- WP:RSPUSE Favourite YouTuber? Hardly however I will admit I don’t find him insufferable which may lend to my sticking up for him. Wait, Is that an attempt to dismiss my opinion? I see you list yourself as a Male and Feminist, this is an article about an Anti-Feminist who has made some jokes at the expense of Male Feminist. Conflict of interest? Perhaps you should recluse yourself before you discredit yourself. The biltov of last month would have agreed that Wiki is not a platform. If you need help understanding how the sources could be platforming an opinion, please refer to the ‘helpful chart’ above. Boy did we get off-topic, I shall take the failure to address the other subject of my comment as an act of conceding. Will condense per WP:DUE and WP:QUOTEFARM when I have time.EatingFudge (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC) I see you've descended into ad hominem and I suggest you stop before we reach the territory of personal attacks. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources and you've not presented one that mentions Benjamin. On Wikipedia, the level of conflict of interest at which we recuse is personal connection to the subject, of which I have none. Every person has beliefs and biases and I am open about mine because I have nothing to hide. — Bilorv (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange, according to Wikipedia the term ‘’ad hominem signifies a straight attack at the character and ethos of a person, in an attempt to refute its argument.’’ Reading whats now hidden above I see none of this. The closest might be the feminism question but that is only to address the ad hominem dismissal I feel I received. Ironically it seems I have been characterized as an ad hominem agent without any of my refutations or counterarguments being addressed.EatingFudge (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Revised (gentler and replied to none)

The quotes are not meant to scare but to accentuate. There is a difference between a news journalist reporting on facts and a tabloid journalist reporting on their own activist opinions. It is a flaw to think individual articles are reliable because its publisher is reliable. Per WP:RSPUSE To learn why this is important click on AmericanPressInstitute or PewResearch.

The links provided to refute Benjamin's claim of "classical liberal" is grossly opinionated. Review of these sentences with this helpful chart demonstrates the departure from facts to opinion.

Rightwingwatch: "joining the right-wing populist and anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP), demolishing their claims that they are merely “classical liberals.”"

Thebaffler: "“classical liberalism” is more and more filled with the dregs of the alt-right."

Dailydot: "a classical liberal is a conservative that doesn’t want to explicitly identify themselves with the less acceptable aspects of right-wing thought, such as misogyny, racism, homophobia, and fascism."

MerionWest: Actually this was an interesting read, however it does not refute Benjamin's claim.

To anyone who favors outside sources for these things I recommend this summary by Stanford on classical liberalism and its broader context. This knowledge may help one refute ideological journalists such as seen above.

Regarding reliable sources: “Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity.” –WP:NOTNP “Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source.” and “Consider also the weight of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest.- WP:RSPUSE

This seems to support the idea that all the opinions repeated from the same opinion is not in the spirit of Wikipedia especially since it appears the majority of sources are of a partisan nature. Per WP:BLPSTYLE Additionally 37 refs for those few sentences is certainly flirting with WP:OVERKILL - EatingFudge (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thebaffler: "“classical liberalism” is more and more filled with the dregs of the alt-right." Dailydot: "a classical liberal is a conservative that doesn’t want to explicitly identify themselves with the less acceptable aspects of right-wing thought, such as misogyny, racism, homophobia, and fascism." Are you kidding me? Sarsath3 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do we only present sources' opinions of him that say that he is far right? Plenty of sources believe he is a classical liberal, as does he. Its good that we don'T write those is wikipedia's voice, but since we are relaying third party opinions, perhapse it would make sense to relay other equaly valid opinion on this political figure? Francis1867 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please present these plenty of sources. — Bilorv (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems you are correct afterall. Reliable and unreliable sources share how he lables himself, but less reliable sources also lable him far right. Bottom line, the fact that he describes himself accurately would prevent secondary sources from applying their own lable on him, since anywhere else but wikipedia, primary sources have more weight than secondary ones. Perhapse we should simply say what relibale sources say while mentioning what less rialble sources accuse him of: "Carl Benjamin is a right of center (...) sometime called far right by his opponents. Francis1867 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we will NOT say that "reliable sources say such and such" because it would be redundant. Everything in wikipedia is sourced from reliable sources and anything that isn't gets removed. That being said, you're doing nothing but splitting hairs here. Benjamin's far right position is plainly obvious to anyone with a brain. Obfuscation of facts will not be tolerated here. You claim plenty of sources confirm that he's "classical liberal"? Then either present these "plenty of sources" or ahut up. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Climate denial and Covid 19 conspiracy theories

Carl has made multiple videos in which he denies the scientific consensus on climate change, attacks and defames climate activists such as Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, and more recently, hes been spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about Covid-19. Any reason why this isn't mentioned? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can present quality secondary sources that cover these things, then it would be appropriate to include them in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Why specifically secondary sources? Why not also include primary sources? Sarsath3 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As DanielRigal says below, we're about the reliable sources. Primary sources are okay, to some degree, per WP:SELFPUB, but we must also keep in mind WP:DUE. The question essentially boils down to, "does anyone care?" With all due respect to Mr. Benjamin, he might say many things, good or bad, which are not newsworthy and not important to include in this article. We use representation in secondary sources as a proxy for the importance and notability of a subject and the weight that should be accorded to it. I hope that's some sort of explanation! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit clash with Dumuzid) We would need reliable sources to have covered his involvement in these topics to a degree that justifies us mentioning it, i.e. not just a passing mention. He is nowhere near as newsworthy now as he was at the peak of his fame/infamy so it is quite possible that they just don't care what he thinks about Covid-19 etc. Other, more zeitgeisty, conspiracy theorists are available and is it possible that they have taken the media coverage that Benjamin might have garnered were he still in his heyday. That said, as Dumuzid says, if you do know of any reliable sources that have covered this then you can drop the links here and maybe they can be used. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the thing. This is not about how he presents himself, this is about something he demonstrably said. Him attacking Greta Thunberg, claiming that "climate alarmists were wrong in the past", and making a video where he talks about covid-19 coming from a chinese lab, aren't a matter of his opinion. These are facts that are reliably verifiable from his own videos. I can understand that him describing himself as a liberal is bullshit, because it's something we would need to take his word for, but when the question is whether or not he said that "climate alarmists were wrong in the past", I'm under the impression that him actually saying those words in a video on his own channel, it an indisputable smoking gun. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

But the issue isn't verifiability, it is due inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that and i believe it IS something that should be included. Let me explain my rationale: Climate denial and misleading conspiracy theories about an ongoing global pandemic are a pretty big deal. When people come across Carl Benjamin at any point in time, they would want to know who exactly he is. While it is true that Benjamin's far right views, his rape comments and his disastrous candidacy are the things that make him notable, his notaility means he is someone people would look up to learn more about him. If they come to wikipedia, and wikipedia is not covering his most recent egregious claims, would it not be a form of whitewashing of his character? Benjamin is already infamous enough. There's no reason to keep his conspiracy theories about climate change and COVID-19 a secred. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you or I think should be included is a bit beside the point. We rely on coverage in secondary sources to tell us what is important from Wikipedia's point of view. That's what keeps articles from becoming self-promotion or opinion pieces. If you can present some sources regarding said views, please do. They may exist! But if they don't, or they are vanishingly small, then they don't belong in the article per Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Biased

Right off the bat, I personally dislike Benjamin. However, I still think this entry reads more like a negative editorial than an encyclopedic entry.

'During the Gamergate controversy, Benjamin promoted a conspiracy theory that feminists were infiltrating video game research groups to influence game development according to a feminist agenda.'

Suggesting there may be collusion between journalists and activists is not a conspiracy theory.

' group of YouTubers who had frequently criticised Sarkeesian in the past, including Benjamin, filled one half of the first three rows of the audience and filmed Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her.[11][12][13][14] Sarkeesian singled out Benjamin as a serial harasser of hers, calling him a "garbage human."[14][15][16]'

Filming someone at a public event is not harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheobaldShlegel (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally dislike Benjamin - We don't care, and even bringing this up is a distraction.

This has all been discussed many times before, both here at at various other project pages. To summarize, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, specifically independent sources. Therefore, your personal interpretation of his actions is irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a completely biased article. I am astonished that it exists in this form on wikipedia. It is more like a Guardian hit-piece, cherry-picking the very worst possible things about the subkect from "reliable sources" in a very selective way. Sadly, standards on wikipedia have fallen. Some of the references are utterly dishonest, disingenuous and inconsistent. For example, the claim that the Benjamin filmed someone "as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her is supposedly supported buy four references. This is what the organisers of the event actually said: " Sargon's content and conduct do not violate our policies" He has not been convicted, arrested or even charged with harassment in any jurisdiction. There is no evidence at all in the citations of some people sitting in the audience at an event being "part of a targeted harassment campaign against" anyone at all. This is only one of multiple problems with this very one-sided and biased article. This is no way at all to combat people who are taking the high ground as so-called martyrs of free speech clampdowns. You are making them the victims and giving them that high ground by warping the truth. Kont Dracula (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is one of the most trusted and reputable papers in the UK and is widely considered mainstream; if you consider it low-quality, the issue might be that you primarily trust non-mainstream sources, which means that a balanced encyclopedia article written using mainstream reliable sourcing is always going to look biased to you. Beyond that, we have to rely on the analysis and interpretation of secondary sources - as you noted, we use four of them there. Your personal (fairly idiosyncratic) feeling that a lack of a criminal conviction means that his actions cannot be harassment is irrelevant; even if that characterization offends or incenses you, it is clearly what the sources say. If you want to refute the sources cited there, you must either convince them to issue retractions, or find comparable or better sources disagreeing with them. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was not questioning that Guardian is a reputable enough news source for reporting facts but this entry looks like it has been written by someone on the Guardian (or some similarly left-leaning publication) as a hatchet job. I hope you would not try to claim that the Guardian is known for its politically objective opinion pieces or profiles. Surely the onus to substantiate the claim of harassment is on whoever has made such a claim. It is not on me to disprove that he has never harassed anyone. None of the four sources there in relation to his attendance at an event substantiate that claim. It is ridiculous that evidence of harassment (one only of multiple issues here) here is that he attended an event which he was entitled to attend and sat down in the front row with like-minded individuals. The very organisers of the event stated that he did not violate any of their policies, much less commit harass anyone, which is a crime in law. The alleged harassment here is sitting down in the audience at an event where one of the speakers is someone you have had disagreements with? You might as well claim that some Manchester United supporters harass Liverpool players by sitting in the front row at a football stadium. Notable as well is the exclusion of the widely-reported attack on Benjamin in the run-up to the last general election. Almost all of the section on 'Political Views' colour his beliefs in negative ways and describe him multiple times as representing positions which he has repeatedly disavowed (alt-right, far-right etc.). The article does not even include those disavowals. So sad to see Wikipedia being hijacked by clear ideologues with very transparent vested interests in this way. This is a laughably biased propaganda piece which shames wikipedia. Kont Dracula (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If WP:reliable sources exist (Which are also WP:DUE) that present this case differently, then they can certainly be added (including by you!). In general, wikipedia users do not second-guess determinations of sources deemed reliable. Jlevi (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources but these sources can be distorted. I will give you another example of the rampant insincerity of this article. Please note that I am only taking one as an example. I simply do not have the time to flag every single one. But the 43rd reference is used to support the claim that he was "banned" from two venues, suggesting his culpability. In reality, the headline of the story in question was "Carl Benjamin: Milkshake thrown at UKIP candidate for fourth time this week", detailing how he was a victim of four assaults, with the fact that the two venues in question changed their arrangements because of security fears mentioned much further down the article. This is clearly, utterly insincere cherry-picking and misrepresentation. To any of of the ideologues doing this on Wikipedia, please stop it. If you want to defeat the people you disagree with, do it by embracing freedom of speech and freedom of information. Don't do your politics here. Kont Dracula (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It is early in the morning, but your freedom of speech speech (that looks awkward) is cringe as fuck. You need to provide sources. Wow. What a surprise. SVTCobra 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the time of day, perhaps you should take issue with the points I raised rather than saying they were "as cringe as fuck". Personally, I find the use the word 'cringe' as an adjective embarrassingly cringeworthy when it is used by anyone over the age of 13 but then I guess we all have our language preferences. Yours are not relevant here. You have added nothing of any value, interest or relevance to anyone or anything. Kont Dracula (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wasting energy. These people pick and choose which standard they apply. Obviously we should ignore hitpiece and evaluate each article on a case by cas basis, but we don'T do that because we couldn't attack this political figure in the same way. Likewise, we should only quote reliable and authoritative sources and refrain frfom mimicking bias from sources, but we don't do that here. Hundreds of people have had issues with that, but the admin just talk in circles forever and ever, and people get tired of arguing against these bad faith actors. I have won countless argument, but they simply move the goal post, use distractions, and if you don't bite, stop engaging all together. Its all about making sure we waste our energy an time for nothing, so we can't fix the article. The long march through the institutions have allowed comunists, marxists and other types of totalitarians to have a huge influance on media, academia and education. Same is true with wikipedia. Maybe one day there will be a movement to restore quality academia in the social sciences, until then, we are stuck with this obvious propaganda.70.53.232.225 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"I have won countless argument" Well, gotta say I am convinced. I'll vote for you as Dear Leader of Wikipedia. Just tell me where! Until then, have a wonderful day. Dumuzid (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The people doing the mental gymnastics here to defend an obvious hit piece sound exactly like trump supporters trying to defend one of his lies. You know deep down that you are being dishonest and grab on to any possible source of credibility or rationalization. Painful to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kucer (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

All this kvetching is a complete waste of time because it isn't even on-topic. Our job on Wikipedia is to write a summary of what reliable sources say about each subject. People who wish to propose alternative reliable sources or alternative wordings can do so and they can be considered. People who simply wish to object to the article on the grounds that it is insufficiently impressed by the subject's own high opinion of himself (e.g. using primary sources, other unreliable sources or no sources at all) are not going to get anywhere. To quote the very first thing it says on this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carl Benjamin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Please try to keep to specific proposals for improving the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Carl of Swindon name

I've seen Carl Benjamin regularly referred to as 'Carl of Swindon', if you just Google the name you can see many instances of people using this name in reference to him, in fact it's so frequently used that it's the second suggestion for 'Carl of' on Google. FAISSALOO_(talk) 10:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this as well, but it would still need a reliable source in order to be mentioned in the article.

Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

His detractors call him that to undercut the grandiosity of his preferred title. If RSes have noted that then we can too, otherwise we should leave it out. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinions to be included or not to be included?

Wallyfromdilbert has now twice 1st time, 2nd time restored edits which I think to be untenable, especially since they are contradictory:

• In the intro section he insists on including the term "conspiracy theory" in reference to Gamergate as a fact ("promoted a conspiracy theory that accused" vs. "accused"). Worded like this, "conspiracy theory" becomes are fact when the section "Youtube carreer" further down treats this as a judgment by other sources (and actually names the sources). IMO the second approach is more correct. If the word needs to be included in the intro, then it should be equally attributed as it is further down. A judgement in the main body of the article cannot become a fact in the intro as the intro section is supposed to summarize the article below, not add to it or skew the information. (NB, is there some new WP policy that requires editors to use the term "conspiracy theory" as often as possible?) Wally objects to that the removal of the word in this one instance as "removing sourced content".
• OTOH, he is bent on removing the line "One Los Angeles Times opinion columnist called the incident "alarming to see copyright law used to stifle debate in the public square" - not only is it strange that this very same LAT article is used to reference the entire paragraph but that the actual point of the article should be left out. More importantly, Wally here completely removes a reliably sourced judgement from a notable and reliable source. Somehow "removing sourced content" is not a problem here.

So in one instance, reliably sourced judgements need to be presented as fact even in the intro while in another instance, they should be removed entirely?

Sorry, but no. There is no justification for this. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

138.51.117.17 (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Update the personal life section to say:

He and his wife live in Swindon with their daughter and two sons, the youngest of which was born in December 2020.

I don't see how the second child's birthday is relevant to this article. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Why only "anti-feminist" in the lede?

Based on the more recent videos that he has published, anti-feminism seems to be only a fairly small part of what he covers. Why is "anti-feminist" the only term used to describe him in the first sentence? I think something more broad like "anti-progressive" would more accurately describe his standpoint, since he seems to more broadly oppose progressive ideology of which feminism is a component. Is it in the current state simply because most secondary sources focus on his anti-feminism without discussing his general opposition to social progressivism? I realize that this guy is highly controversial, but I'm just trying to make the article more accurate; so hopefully nobody gets upset. DiscoStu42 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. At some point in the past, consensus determined that anti-feminism was a good descriptor for Benjamin. If you want to suggest a different perspective, then finding that the sources that say otherwise would be the best path forward. It is 100% possible that Benjamin is better described in some other way, but we can't make those claims before the sources exist to support them. This is probably an issue related to Wikipedia:Recentism, since Benjamin was in the public eye more a few years ago, so the article probably reflects positions from that time period more than it should now.

To summarize, my suggestion: 1) find the sources. 2) Make a change. Jlevi (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll start gathering sources! DiscoStu42 (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the existing sources (61) caller him an anti-feminist, but also says "has also expressed controversial opinions on immigration, race and other issues". Additionally 29 regards him as "Eurosceptic", though that's probably less important since the lede already describes his involvement in the UKIP and identifies it as a Eurosceptic party. DiscoStu42 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This new source calls him "anti-progressive" (the term that I find most accurate): https://www.rt.com/uk/456435-sargon-akkad-mep-ukip/ - though the source is RT, would that be considered a reliable source in this situation? DiscoStu42 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You want to use a Russian state owned disinformation channel as a source? No. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest checking out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources if you want a sense of broad community consensus on sources. You don't have to take it as gospel, since there are always exceptions, and the community may be wrong, but it is usually easier to work with consensus than against it unless you want to do a ton of defence. Jlevi (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I checked WP:PUS and the only appropriate usage of RT would be to relay decisions made by the Russian government. I'll find another source. DiscoStu42 (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This source also describes him as an "anti-progressive" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/violence-breaks-self-proclaimed-antifascists-shut-alt-right/ DiscoStu42 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

These sources describe him as "anti-immigration": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/09/gamergate-carl-benjamin-ukip-mep, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597wpq/gamergate-politician-sargon-of-akkad-loses-election-bid, https://thehill.com/policy/technology/440869-twitter-suspends-eu-election-campaign-accounts-for-two-candidates-who-were DiscoStu42 (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is ironic that you say Wikipedia is "based on reliable sources" when in the lede, no source has been provided to support the claim that he is best known as an 'anti-feminist'. So then you say that 'consensus determined that anti-feminism was a good descriptor'. So which is it, sources are required or just 'consensus' is enough? And where is this consensus? It seems that there is in fact not consensus because people here are openly disagreeing that it is in fact an accurate description.I would suggest that the 'consensus' that you refer to actually took place between people who a) are not actually familiar with the subject and/or b) have an ideological axe to grind against his views. This article disgraces wikipedia. Kont Dracula (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Easily fixed, there were several sources to choose from further down in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Right now I'm thinking of replacing "anti-feminist" with "anti-progressive", or adding "anti-immigration" so that it reads "anti-feminist and anti-immigration". What are people's thoughts on this? DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So does anybody have an objection to changing "anti-feminist" to "anti-progressive" in the lede? DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that 'commentisfree' on Guardian posts indicates that an article is just a blog post with no oversight. I don't recommend adding it unless it is from a very reputable/reliable author.

As far as inclusion, here's my recommendation: add details supporting an 'anti-immigrant' or 'anti-progressive' stance first. The way that a WP:LEAD is written, it should summarize the contents of an article (with some exceptions). I suggest integrating the material you found, and then we can evaluate further. Jlevi (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Details in the body are a good idea. The lead should summarize the body, after all. My understanding is that Commentisfree is now the URL used for the Guardian's opinion section, and this is merely a holdover from a previous model. Regardless, opinion articles should be handled carefully in BLPs. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Didn't realize that. I think I assumed there was no editorial oversight. I'll need to be slightly more charitable to that source in the future, I suppose. Any idea when the change took place? Jlevi (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

TheGuardian.com#"Comment is free" says it was 2014-2015, but no source. Regardless, it's still streets ahead of Forbes' "contributor" content which is basically spam. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use the Guardian article in the edit and I don't think its use will be necessary in any further edits, so that should be a non-issue. DiscoStu42 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, just clarifying. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The telegraph source that has just been added to the article first identifies him as an anti-feminist. This would seem to be an exceptionally weak source to use to try to change the wording away from anti-feminist to anti-progressive. - MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What about adding "anti-immigration" as well as "anti-feminist"? There are plenty of sources for that, and it gives a more complete idea of what his views are. DiscoStu42 (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on what's in the article body, it seems like it would be better to add 'far right', which is inclusive of both. - MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That term is not used in the article though. At this point I'm willing to just leave it as "anti-feminist" since there was already an established consensus on that. DiscoStu42 (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Describing a political commentator as being 'anti' anything in the lede very patently denotes bias against the subject. Benjamin's commentary, whether you like it or not, encompasses a wide range of political spheres. To introduce him as an 'anti-feminist' is a clear mischaracterisation . Most of of his commentary centres on issues surrounding freedom of speech and he champions libertarianism. If is true that opposing feminism is one of his concerns but to introduce him in this way is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the truth. It seems that this little corner of wikipedia has been turned into a latter day Pravda by some contributors. Kont Dracula (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It is how the sources describe him, so we need to reflect that. Also, have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. - MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but very clearly the source here has been cherry-picked in order to put the subject in the worst possible light. Carl Benjamin is not primarily known as an 'anti-feminist', he is known as a political commentator on a wide range of topics on youtube. Just because there are sources which describe Woody Allen as a child abuser, that is not what he is best known for. Bad faith actors are very clearly editing this article in order to paint as negative a picture of the subject as possible. Kont Dracula (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What someone is "known as" in general and what they are "known as" in the Reliable Sources can be, and often are, different things. A quick google search would seem to indicate that this sort of thing is, in fact, what makes Mr. Benjamin most notable in a Wikipedia sense. But reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If you truly think that 'Bad faith actors are very clearly editing this article' WP:ANI is available for you to lay out your evidence, but have a read of WP:BOOMERANG first. If you don't want to make a case out of it and show evidence, though, see WP:ASPERSIONS as making such unsubstantiated accusations can be grounds for blocking on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest I've seen videos here and there in the past and I was quite surprised to see "anti-feminist" in the first line! He's not known for that in exclusivity. I've always seen him as a right wing political commentator. Surely that lead is counter intuitive even if it is sourced. Yes he's anti feminist undeniably but in the lead? Alexandre8 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This court ruling says Benjamin is a YouTuber but with a decidedly conservative/libertarian bent.[1][[2]. I believe we should follow this court ruling in describing Benjamin; court rulings are the most reliable sources there are, and that would be the most neutral thing to do. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. This would feel like an argument from singular authority over dozens of others. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, I would be careful with sources like this. And unless the judge in question can be shown to have some sort of expertise in the political categorization of YouTubers, I am not sure that a court's aura of infallibility should extend to such statements. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The verdict is quoted by Reason.com, so we avoid WP:PRIMARY. Courts are impartial arbiters. They should be taken seriously. More serious than not-that-impartial pieces in the media.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Courts are impartial arbiters of law. Not of YouTube political taxonomy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. THat begs the question: do you know of any good schooled, professional YouTube political taxonomers?

Jeff5102 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I would personally look to either press sources which seem more familiar with YouTube in general, or, academically, towards political scientists versed in the modern landscape. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source describing him as a leftist libertarian. It's from The Spectator. You're welcome. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/patreon-carl-benjamin-and-the-new-puritanism

To be more precise, it's from the Spectator's Coffee House--a blog-like opinion section. No need to thank me for the clarification. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Per what another user said, "I believe we should follow this court ruling in describing Benjamin; court rulings are the most reliable sources there are, and that would be the most neutral thing to do." In addition, we aren't trying to add our own personal spin to a person's article on here. Are we or are we not wanting the articles here on Wikipedia to be 100% neutral and without spin???? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about or isn't it? Calling him "anti-feminist" in the lead is 100% disingenuous, and anyone that believes other than that, is going against Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (despite what any of the biased articles they can find will say), and should be ashamed of themselves. Carl Benjamin is a YOUTUBER. It already goes on and on talking about anti-feminist things he's done elsewhere in the article. Skcin7 (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mean only saying nice things, but rather including (mostly proportionally) viewpoints from all reliable sources that discuss an issue. And sources themselves need not be neutral. Rather, the article as a whole needs to be neutral. By this, even if we decided that courts were perfectly neutral parties, other perspectives would be weighed and included as well based on their strength.

If you want to contest this descriptor, you'll need to argue based on sources, rather than a vague idea of NPOV. Jlevi (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing a clear consensus in this section, though most comments here seem to agree that Sargon is at least against feminism. Let me start an RfC. feminist (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Antifeminism

Which of the following options is best for the first sentence(s) of this article's lead section?

• Option 1: Carl Benjamin (born 1979) is a British YouTuber who is also known by his online pseudonym Sargon of Akkad. He is known for his opposition to feminism.
• Option 2 (status quo): Carl Benjamin (born 1979) is a British anti-feminist YouTuber who is also known by his online pseudonym Sargon of Akkad.

— feminist (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Antifeminism)

• Option 1. Antifeminism literally means opposition to feminism. Saying directly that Benjamin is known for opposing feminism is clearer (i.e. easier for readers to understand) and more neutral than characterising him as an "anti-feminist" in Wikipedia voice. feminist (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 This topic has been discussed repeatedly and there are discussions in almost every archive file that editors may want to review. I do not understand at all the statement by the OP that replacing a one word description with a longer phrase (and including redundant "is known" phrasing) is "clearer" or "easier to understand", especially when the "known for his opposition to feminism" phrasing suggested by the OP is wikilinked to the term "antifeminism". I also do not understand the OP's previous argument that "anti-feminist" is a "meaningless label" anymore than "feminist" or any other label would be. Finally, I don't know how "neutrality" is a relevant issue when there are multiple high quality sources that use the description "anti-feminist" as the primary descriptor for Benjamin, including the currently cited New York Times, NBC, and Business Insider—and I am not aware of the article subject even objecting to that term himself (although if there is evidence of that it may be relevant). I also am not aware of the sourcing for the phrasing that he is "known for his opposition to feminism". Given that his anti-feminist stances still seem to be by far the most significant aspect of his notability, I do not see any reason to ignore the sources and rephrase a concise adjective with more convoluted phrasing later in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Saying that someone is "known for opposition to feminism" is a less loaded description than "defined as an opponent of feminism". Yet it achieves the same effect of highlighting his opposition to feminism. I'd add that "antifeminism" is a more obscure word than either "feminism" or "opposition", and as encyclopedia writers, we should generally aim for a high level of readability as long as the content is not affected. Conciseness is not the be-all and end-all when it makes the text harder to follow. "Known by a pseudonym" and "known for an opinion" are not redundant phrasing, though I would appreciate any alternative suggestions to "known for" which preserves the sentence structure. feminist (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it's inappropriate to take what reliable sources say and edit it to make it suit our own personal preferences for language that is not supported by reliable sources. I also do not believe that a single non-nationality based adjective makes "text harder to follow". It's how almost every film is described in its lead, and many if not most politically-involved individuals I've come across have both their nationality and a one-word description of their political views as the beginning of the lead. I'm not aware of any policy or guidelines (or even non-wiki style guides) that recommend against two adjectives for a noun, but if that is a central part of your argument, it would be helpful to link to those. I also don't think that anyone who understands the term "feminism" is going to be at all confused by the prefix "anti-", and it seems disingenuous to argue that "anti" is more obscure or somehow more confusing than the word "opposition" at modifying a term. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Better writing, and in line with how the sources describe him. To cite one source (among plenty of others), this from the NY times. - MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Concise, to the point. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 If "anti-feminist" and "opposed to feminism" are synonymous then how can anti-feminist possibly be a more biased wording? Both simply describe Benjamin's views whereas one is more used in reliable sources than the other. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• A slight preference for Option 2 but there is little to choose between them. I see no strong reason to change the status quo here. There is nothing wrong with it as it is, at least as far as I can see. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: not seeing anything that's changed since we last rejigged this. I can't think of anyone who would believe that calling Carl of Benjamin"anti-feminist" is incorrect—not the man, not his fans, not his opponents, and not those with passing familiarity. So the argument then might be that "anti-feminist" doesn't characterise all the important aspects of Sargon of UKIP's work. I understand that Swindon of Akkad's content may have changed recently to encompass other forms of hatred but if reliable sources don't care about this then neither do we. Feminist (the user) also raises some issues of typography/readability but I honestly can't see a significant difference. — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Both options get into ad-hominem pretty quickly and are fine examples of the leftist bias that is omnipresent on Wikipedia. A quick glance at [3] shows that free speech is a major theme for him, for example. In a sane world, we would focus on that. Of the two options presented, Option 1 is slightly less awful because it at least gives the article a whole first sentence that is actually neutral. Just as an interesting point of comparison, the article on Adolph Hitler manages to get through two longish sentences before starting to get into his many crimes. So going by the WikiLead, apparently Sargon is the worse of the two! Adoring nanny (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Little confused on why option 1 would be "clearer". Seems to state the same thing using more words, which is fundamentally a less clear way to communicate. Regarding "neutrality"; it might be appropriate to make it more neutral by avoiding using WP voice, but only if there was some significant doubt that the subject was indeed an "anti-feminist". I have no background info on this guy and am unfamiliar, but glancing at this article at least, it seems like the "anti-feminist" label is pretty apt. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. "Carl Benjamin (born 1979), also known by his online pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is a British YouTuber known for his opposition to feminism." Standard style guidelines per WP:BEGIN. If you're known primarily for one thing, it should be the emphasis of the first sentence. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Feminist has a good rationale for option 1, but Ahrtoodeetoo, above me, has the laurels here—standard style guidelines should hold sway, and Option 3 is excellent in that regard. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Other than keeping his views towards feminism in the first sentence, how is Option 3 any different from Option 2 regarding the style guidelines? The page cited by the other editor already includes examples of introductory sentences using two adjectives. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 seems more concise and straight to the point. Idealigic (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely Option 1. Reducing him to that one position or presenting that position his one defining feature doesn't seem to sit well the facts. And yes, Option 1 is clearer in that it makes his "anti-feminism" a position he holds and not the central fact of his existence. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC) And PS. Explaining a thing in a sentence is always clearer than using a single word as a single word might be easier misunderstood or misconstrued. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. It is more concise and reads better; additionally, the sources do support the use of the term "anti-feminism" in reference to the broad movement that that term represents. The second one gives the impression that it's just one opinion he holds, whereas the sources make it clear that he is a major figure in the anti-feminist movement. --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I agree with Str1977 that "anti-feminism" should not be mentioned as the central fact about him. Championmin (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: per Aquillion I'd say that the two versions are essentially the same in terms of neutrality, but option 2 seems crisper and more concise. Ahiroy (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I think the first option is a cleaner read, and the second option is close to a run on sentence. It's more easier on the eyes to have a general description first and go into specifics with the second short sentence. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 that was suggested above. The article says his occupation is being a YouTuber, so it makes sense to have his online pseudonym stated earlier on in the sentence. Some1 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Antifeminism)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how WP works with some editors.

Exhibit 1: "I think it's inappropriate to take what reliable sources say and edit it to make it suit our own personal preferences for language that is not supported by reliable sources." Exhibit 2: "in line with how the sources describe him.2

Not only is there no WP policy that requires articles to parrot wordings from sources, such claims also tend to overlook the problem that reliable sources are not bound by WP:NPOV, while WP articles are. Hence, not every wording from a reliable source or even a series of reliable sources is appropriate for WP articles.

And personal preferences for language are each editors own. If there is more than one editor, these preferences might of course clash and consensus is the only way out. "the sources use this wording" (assuming that they all use the same wording, which in itself makes it seem a bit suspect) does not dictate the wordings used in the article, though that is of course the easiest route. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There is also no policy that says we can't stick close to the sources, and it is a perfectly valid thing to consider in subjective cases such as this one. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I never said that we couldn't. But that's what discussions and consensus are for. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

change "anti-feminist" to "far-right wing activist", because it is the main focus of him, not any perceived "anti-feminism". Benjamin is a vocal supporter of TERF and right-wing/islamophobic feminism (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali). 82.113.99.11 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not done - Benjamin's antifeminist activism assured his "rise" to prominence during GamerGate, and is still (as of 2020) his most frequently noted attribute. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Be objective about the "might rape" thing

"Criticism of this comment—and a later remark in which Benjamin said he might rape Phillips but for the fact that "nobody's got that much beer""

This is very, probably intentionally, misleading. I had watched that video before it got deleted by mass-flaggings from the same kind of people who would write the sentence above. In the video, he was in a remote resort nearby a sea, and he was making obvious jokes and sarcasms. In those jokes, he said something like "My tweet was about NOT raping her, and the left are attacking me for that. I think they have problems with my position of NOT raping her. Well, if they keep attacking me for NOT raping her, I might cave in, but let's be honest, nobody is that drunk." (not exact quote, just from my memory)

If you cannot figure out that the above was a sarcasm towards the left, I think you are idiots. What he meant was that "he might cave in to the left's demanding an apology for not raping her"; and I think a neutral person would see it basically as "Hey, I said I would NOT rape her; why are you criticising me for that tweet, you want me to NOT NOT rape her?"

But you may say "that is just your opinion, and my interpretation was different." Then, why not write the full and exact quote of him surrounding that passage, and let the readers judge themselves? Don't quote-mine and add your arbitrary interpretation like a fact without the actual quote (not just one sentence, but at least a paragraph). Sin Jeong-hun (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

Personal life

Benjamin is married and has two children. He lives with his family in Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. He has stated that he is an atheist.

change the above to the bellow:

Personal life

Benjamin is married and has three children. He lives with his family in Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. He has stated that he is an atheist. 2001:569:FA67:EE00:581C:B88B:98E6:E95D (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, remove the information entirely because this isn't exactly the most well-known person so details about private life are best avoided. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

List of YouTube channels

In the "Channels" section of the summary-box in the top-right of the article it lists:

• Akkad Daily
• Sargon of Akkad
• The Thinkery

The following three are missing:

• Ancient Recitations (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSMG40p6XHFTeXv5noF6Wdw)
• Sargon of Akkad Live (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6cMYsKMx6XicFcFm7mTsmA)
• The Symposium (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7xJftLtg3YJGgClZRr7hbg)

82.38.255.130 (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Lotus Eaters

Given Carl's current main outlet is the Lotus Eaters podcast and website (https://www.lotuseaters.com), which has now been running for 90 episodes, it seems odd there isn't even a passing-mention in the article itself... 82.38.255.130 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"X has described him as ..."

Is a biographical article like this one supposed to consist of a man's enemies defining him? While every citation may be legitimate, so what? No doubt an article accurately representing Confederate opinion would have produced a less than useful view of Abraham Lincoln.

The article should at least be clear that those who criticize and label the man are exactly those whom he speaks out against.

MarkinBoston (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't consist of Benjamin's "enemies" defining him, it consists of a summary of reliable sources and where appropriate opinions are attributed instead of being stated as fact. The political analysis of other sources is clearly relevant to Wikipedia readers who deserve access to such information; Wikipedia is not censored, no matter how objectionable you find the content. Furthermore, Benjamin's definition of himself is even given the last word in the paragraph you mention. If you wish to add content, make sure to find a reliable secondary source to support it. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of "Political Views" section

This seems less like what the description says, and MUCH more like here's what a lot of other people, nearly if not all left-leaning, say about his political views - which is irrelevant. The last 3 sentences are the only ones that fit the title of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlp-mx6 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Political orientation

I've listened to many hours of Benjamin. I find it hilarious that wikipedia describes Benjamin as far-right while the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, a sitting political party in South Africa who split from the ANC because they objected to multiculturalism, is described as center-left. Benjamin has stated his unconditional support for multi-culturalism countless times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.222.181.174 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't refer to him as far-right, it simply describes other sources as referring to him as such. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"...as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."

Below is the quote to which I am referring:

A group of YouTubers who had frequently criticised Sarkeesian in the past, including Benjamin, filled one half of the first three rows of the audience and filmed Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her.[14][15][16][17]

None of the linked articles support the claim that Benjamin and his company "filmed Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her." In fact, I'd argue the first three sources make it painfully obvious the exact opposite is true: Benjamin attended a panel on which Sarkeesian sat, and the only thing preventing Sarkeesian from harassing Benjamin was the fact he was filming. Ergo, Benjamin's filming was for the express purpose of preventing the harassment that Sarkeesian herself wound up leveling against Benjamin. At the absolute and very best, the articles discuss wildly unsubstantiated claims of "harassment" in the most vague and ambiguous sense, and then the content of the article describing the event makes it painfully obvious that's not what happened. Imagine an article in which one person claimed a plane crashed at the event, then went on to describe the event in terms that make it explicitly obvious a plane did not crash. I would say it should be self-evident that citing this source appropriately requires the citation be ascribed to a claim that the plane did not crash, and that Wikipedia itself should not be making assertions that go directly against the grain of the entirety of the sources it itself cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.103.37 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"Benjamin, who regularly makes videos criticizing Sarkeesian and her views, organized a targeted harassment campaign in which he and his friends occupied the first three rows at the panel under the guise of attempting to 'engage' with her, though it's clear their presence was simply meant to intimidate Sarkeesian and disrupt the panel." [4]

"But at VidCon earlier this summer, the harassment campaign targeting female gamers moved offline when YouTube activist Anita Sarkeesian, a high-profile victim of the attacks, faced one of her abusers." [5]

"VidCon on Tuesday issued a statement about the event, acknowledging the mistake and saying that founder Hank Green had issued a personal apology to Sarkeesian for 'not having been more aware of and active in understanding the situation before the event, which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.'" [6]

To the IP editor, I do not know why you chose to purposely misrepresent the sources, but they are clear in the language they used. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Recitations

Should Ancient Recitations be added to the infobox as one of his YouTube channels? It has over 100K subscribers so it seems notable enough to include.JMM12345 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

This has been discussed before. Notability on Wikipedia is established through reliable, independent sources. Youtubers often work on multiple projects over time, such as side-channels, collabs, podcasts, etc. The encyclopedic significance of any one of these projects should be demonstrated through non-primary sources to avoid inadvertent promotion, editorializing, or trivia. In this case it's also worth noting that the Ancient Recitations channel has been dormant for several years, so any change in subscriber count is obviously unrelated to the channel itself. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

There is no white supremacism promoted on Lotus Eaters

In the Lotus Eaters section of this page it mentions that he uses the platform to spread white supremacy. There is zero evidence for this provided and it is unfounded. Benjamin also won a US court case against Akilah Hughes in which she used this slander and the judge found there to be no backing. She had to pay all his legal fees. 86.14.147.13 (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the section, if others want to re-add please add citations to reliable secondary sources. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Carl Benjamin Far Right?

the page from the outset describes Benjamin as far right, it then goes on to say (once the damage has been done) that many media outlets describe him as "far right", something he denis and he describes himself as classical liberal and a skeptic.

Since the page does not provide proof of the far right nature and Carl Benjamin himself has denied it, can it be removed until evidence is found? 84.67.13.0 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The 'proof' is the cited sources. Click on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If you think this guy is "far-right" that word has no meaning anymore. Lol.

This website is borderline a joke. The source for a political label isn't even a decent enumeration of his actual positions, just articles calling him far-right. It is, in fact, borderline a slur most of the time in practice. Globe Holder (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not expect sources to provide "a decent enumeration of his actual positions" because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a platform for public relations. Specifically, Benjamin is not recognized as an expert on politics, so he is not reliable for the definition of far-right politics or "classical liberalism" or whatever. Therefor, we instead use reliable sources for these terms, and if Benjamin chooses to instead apply a boutique definition for PR purposes, so be it. Wikipedia has no obligation to humor him on this, however.

Calling this a "slur" misrepresents what the word slur means, and also why using a slur would be a problem. A slur isn't just any word that some people dislike. "Far-right" is not a slur in this context, since it accurately describes a political position and anything less precise would be euphemistic. (Which, ironically, the far-right might deride as 'political correctness'). Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem. A source that he is "far right" is just some newspaper calling him that. If he's "far-right" then what is a Nazi by comparison? It shifts the political compass into unrealistic extremes. It's mostly based on reading tone and rhetoric and not the actual positions held—the "vibes" of the political figure. You're proving the point that wikipedia's criteria is not reliable to begin with. Globe Holder (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe go start your own encyclopedia, to implement your own sense of "reliability"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Nah, it just recognises mainstream sources over others. Of course the right hates that. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's comically predictable how often discussions on this talk page can be reduced to "I don't like what sources are saying, therefor they aren't reliable and my own opinion is better". For all its many problems, Wikipedia at least attempts to summarize actual sources by reading them in good faith. By contrast, Benjamin has an unfortunate habit of skimming sources while ignoring those which they are inconvenient to his starting assumptions. This is why reliable sources do not typically accept his political grandstanding at face value. Or at least, one of the reasons, since there are several. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I know the comment the source is talking about, he said he wouldn't even rape her. As a reply to Jess Philips claiming without evidence about getting rape threats. Literally claiming "I wouldn't" to show that she would take that as a threat. This was to show that to him that people with her ideological views will see a phrase and take the opposite from it. In the same way as if I said to you "I wouldn't even give you a present for your birth day." and you would then take that as me saying I would give you a present for your birthday. SecretLars (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion in this section, much less the comment it is formatted as a reply to. MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Carl Is Conservative not Far Right

Carl Benjamin is not far right, he is Conservative (right of centre) With many left/liberal views and beliefs.

He is frequently INCORRECTLY slurred with a "far right" branding when he is not. 2A02:C7F:5D48:1600:805:EB82:FF2A:1E59 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

As already mentioned directly above, and many times previously on this talk page, Wikipedia goes by reliable, independent sources. And again, this isn't a "slur" just because you don't like it. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone "far-left" or "far-right" could certainly be seen as derogatory by most reasonable people, and the claim in the intro paragraph is not cited at all and is simply stated as fact. While it's unfortunately common for articles to be fashioned into hit pieces or puff pieces this way, it's a practice that calls into question WP:NPOV. While calling someone "far-right" is a matter of opinion (meaning it can't really be defamation despite concerns about WP:BLP), it would probably be better to report that he's been described as "far-right" by something in the very highest ranks of WP:RSP with direct citations.

Basically, we probably shouldn't be using derogatory and disputed labels (or labels with unclear definitions) to describe living persons unless we exercise extreme caution in doing so. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section clearly calls out the use of "peacock terms", and the Manual of Style adds that contentious labels should be avoided. dma (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources for"far right" are in the body of the article, are they not? Also, do any WP:RS dispute the application of this term to Benjamin? If not, it scarcely qualifies as a contentious claim. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not need to cite information in the lead so long as it is adequately referenced in the body of the article. It's right there in the policy. DanielRigal (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE is a bit more nuanced:

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Regarding WP:RS and WP:RSP, a distinction is generally made between statements of opinions and statements of facts. Whether someone is alt-right, far-right, or far-left might be completely undisputed in some cases, but in most cases, it's a matter of opinion. And given the very negative connotations to these labels, MOS:TERRORIST probably should apply. Simply stating as fact that someone is "far-right" is probably inappropriate, given that it's an opinion (even if it's one shared by much of WP:RS journalists). Instead, the language at the bottom of the article should be used, as it's actually stating a fact with inline citations.

News outlets and journalists have described Benjamin as right-wing and far-right.

This preserves at least some fact-opinion separation. dma (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The view of MOS:TERRORIST that you are advocating here has also been proposed at various community fora representing a higher level of consensus. However, to date, your view has not yet achieved consensus in any such community discussion of which I am aware. Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Balancing out the political views section?

I came to this page on a whim, while reading about Sargon of Akkad. Just skimming through the page, and subsequently this chat...it's pretty clear that there's a lot of of his controversial points and positions that are represented. What about his other positions? Hell, he has a whole media company so he can voice his political opinions openly (conveniently also not mentioned in this article). [7]

For example: - What of his opinions on cultural preservation?[8] -He certainly has a lot of ideas about parenting. (Couldn't find a single source, but he mentions it here and there on his podcast and other media he produces) -Public transportation.[9][10] Just a few examples I've thought from the top of my head.

On top of that, he has, in the past year and change, been posting a lot on his position (as I already mentioned) including a lot of the points already mentioned on this page. For example, his view on Brexit has been explained to death[11]. Zesto Presto (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DUE - the article emphasizes what the independent secondary sources emphasize, that's the way Wikipedia is designed to be. We can't deviate from that to try to find some kind of false balance by digging up less controversial stuff ourselves. MrOllie (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article attempts to explain why he is noteworthy according to reliable, independent sources. In addition to sources being independent, Wikipedia strongly favors sources which are WP:SECONDARY. Benjamin's own videos are neither, at least for this article.

There is also a weight issue. As you mention, he is prolific in sharing his opinions, as this is his job. As a youtuber/podcaster type, he is basically a professional opinion-sharer. To put it another way, his opinions are his product, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping him sell his wares. Reliable sources do not recognize Benjamin has having expertise in parenting, "cultural preservation" or any other topic, so reliable sources generally don't talk about these more anodyne opinions very much. Since reliable sources don't talk about this much, it would be disproportionate and promotional for this to be included in the article based on primary sources.

Instead, we summarize his opinions based on how reliable, independent sources summarize them, not based on our own original research. Since there is an endless supply of opinions Benjamin has posted to social media, any particular examples chosen from the top of your head would be considered original research. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Lotuseaters

This topic is outdated. It contains nothing about his current main project the Lotuseaters. --Kajdron (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I have seen no reliable coverage of this project, therefore it cannot be included. If you have some good sources, please feel free to list them on this talk page. SVTCobra 19:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What constitutes "reliable coverage." We have the primary source . Here he is on a political youtube channel being titled "of lotus-eaters" . Same here in a apple podcast . Is that sufficient evidence? Or must we wait until more people acknowledge this website's existence? Piffner (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources are needed. This is just as much about making sure that it is important encyclopedic content as it is to verify the information. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14071878/ 81.109.139.123 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.rebelnews.com/carl_benjamin_on_uk_politics_the_great_reset_and_disneys_lgbtq_agenda

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/07/sargon-vs-hitchens-this-years-first-epic-twitter-debate/ 81.109.139.123 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

So what about reference 11? It doesn't seem like Wikipedia's policies are being enforced with an even hand here. --Cs01ab (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently that citation number is for Benjamin's own video promoting his projects. This is barely reliable as a WP:BLPPRIMARY source for a minor detail. It is not sufficient for anything beyond that. As has already been explained on this talk page many times, the article should mainly summarize independent sources, since Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References