Talk:Carl Benjamin

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)

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)