Talk:Carl Benjamin

Including the "nobody's got that much beer" comment in full

I don't see why including the "nobody's got that much beer" comment in full is not an improvement. It is included in full in the Huffington Post article, so snippetting it in the article is a Wikipedia editorial decision rather than one made by secondary sources. As horrific as his remark was, I think it's necessary to provide some context. Alex (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alex, thats a very good point.

I've mulled over why the failure to include the full quote is a problem when others are adamant that it's not. Seems pretty insignificant but what we must consider is that because viewers who follow through to the sources are such a small percentage, all information provided here is by default all that will guide a viewer's understanding. This is an excellent reason for championing WP:NPOVD

Anyway

Mr. Benjamin's second comment has been curtailed by 85%, to the point of removing all meaning. In its stead, it has been paraphrased into a biased indictment. Besides the obvious use of "negative" to define his comment. (This is subjective and not for us to decide either way.) Context is the problem and Context is important. For example, if we were to declare Bette Davis a controversial misogynist of their time because they said "When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch.” this would be wholly disingenuous to the point of malicious lying. With the proper context: “When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch.” we are able to better understand Davis's true intent. I will stop here as I don't believe I'm stating anything unknown. Despite this, I am sure I will have to break down the subjects of humour, rebuke, and rebuttal to explain how this: “I’ve been in a lot of trouble for my hardline stance of not even raping her. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave. But let’s be honest, nobody’s got that much beer.” Cannot possibly be summarised honestly as "saying that he might rape her but "nobody's got that much beer"". Which is why I want to add the full quote so the reader can sort it out themselves. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. EatingFudge (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The quote is not taken out of context. It's clear from the snippet presented that it's a rape joke. Unless you disagree that it's a joke and it's about rape then there we are. We don't indulge in gratituous quotes anywhere on Wikipedia, whether it's paraphrasing movie reviewers or summarising an interview quote down to its bare essentials. Per WP:QUOTEFARM, Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. This isn't a platform to list Benjamin's so-called humour. It's a platform to repeat what reliable secondary sources report and many of them lead with this "nobody's got that much beer" fragment, and certainly all of them report it as something negative. What you seem to be missing is that Davis' quote uses the word "bitch" as a referent to how other people describe her (and other women), whereas in Benjamin's full quote, he's still joking about the act of raping a targeted individual, just in more detail. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I personally was confused by the "context" provided and the lack of consistency between the quote and source provided. I support putting the quote in full in this particular instance. Kirkworld (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize. Any version of the quote is going to be cut short, because the article cannot include his entire speech. The Huffington Post article included slightly more of the quote because that was the main point of that article, and they have their own guidelines anyway. The Wikipedia article attempts to cover a lot more, and therefor must be more succinct. The point should be to summarize why his attempted joke was encyclopedically noteworthy, not to provide public relations for Benjamin. The full quote is not necessary for this. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv Actually, what is being disagreed on is whether its JUST a rape joke and can be summarized as such. I dissent from this opinion and maintain the comment has ideas of humour, rebuke, and rebuttal. Far more than the shock value currently ascribed. WP:QUOTEFARM Are guidelines not rules, see second paragraph for why an exception should be considered. By the same spirit, this isn't a platform to discredit individuals of a different persuasion. It's a platform to amalgamate knowledge from all sources and distill it into a neutral unbiased encyclopedia. (Or have I been mislead by my idealism?) The Davis quote is an over simplified example. You’re welcome to poke holes in it but it sure was handy to have the entire quote there too eh?

Grayfell Normally I would agree with you that a summary is proper. However, as indicated by fresh people continually bringing it up, this summary is unduly biased and misleading. I'd like to think that was one of my main points above. "Wholly disingenuous to the point of..." Since us Wikipedians cannot be trusted to arrive at a neutral summary. The logical action is to place it in its entirety. We are not talking about the works of Shakespeare here, this article can handle the additional 28 words and the peace it can bring.

Additionally, Benjamin's preceding comment was quoted in full including the hashtags. Anyone else find it amusing that hashtags are given more contextual value than the setup for a joke? EatingFudge (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv You haven't cited any policy since EatingFudge's last comment, which did itself cite policy. You can't use "consensus is about the strength of arguments and citation of policy, not a tally of votes" as an excuse. So both on strength of argument and in tally of votes, the quote should be added in full. Alex (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus also includes previous discussions of an issue, but the steady trickle of Benjamin's fans who attempt to make the article more flattering will still need to follow WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I cited WP:QUOTEFARM and EatingFudge's comment only mentions this policy in an explanation of why to disregard it, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't mention a different one. Tally of votes is irrelevant and consensus has not been established. — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the current version (excluding the added words some are trying to include) misrepresents Benjamin's statement, and I don't see a need to expand the passage by adding more of his statement. The message is essentially the same -- and so I think we should keep it concise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 16 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.

Seems WP:NPOV needs an asterisk because I have been grossly mislead. EatingFudge (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Here'a a compromise that should work for everyone. I've changed part of the summary, from "might rape her" into "might be pressured into raping her". This is a more honest and neutral summary of the quote. It only adds three words.

Although the most honest summary of the joke would be that he "might be pressured into retracting his comment about not raping her, but nobody has that much beer." Would anyone object if it were increased further to that?
Amaroq64 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no source that I'm aware of that uses "pressured into raping her". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't object any more strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The source already attributed for the summary is the source that uses this.

“I’ve been in a lot of trouble for my hardline stance of not even raping her. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave. But let’s be honest, nobody’s got that much beer.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/police-ukip-carl-benjamin-jess-phillips-rape_uk_5cd14f1ce4b04e275d4fb741

My summary is more honest and neutral, but it was reverted. It should be restored.

Amaroq64 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 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)

Improvement undone, proof of double standard?

Undone edit summary: "Your perspective on quotation has not garnered consensus on the talk page, and it's not neutral to whitewash the most egregious part of a comment when it is discussed in detail by the given source" — Bilorv

I thought I had consensus. Previously on the 'nobody's got that much beer' talk someone opposed stated "We don't indulge in gratituous quotes anywhere on Wikipedia, whether it's paraphrasing movie reviewers or summarising an interview quote down to its bare essentials." — Bilorv This is under POLITICAL VIEWS. Accordingly Benjamin's view is that Jewish people should not engage with identity politics. That he is sorry about the Holocaust or doesn't give a shit or that he's again sorry is not relevant. Please remember that this isn't a platform to list Benjamin's so-called provocateur speech.

Add missing context of quote that could be positive to his image? No that is excessive! Remove excessive part of of quote that could be negative to his image? No that is important context! Certainly seems like a double standard to me.- EatingFudge (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You removed the half of the quotation that has been most commonly reported e.g. in the article's JC source, in Times of Israel, BuzzFeed News, i, PinkNews etc. This was clearly done with a motivation to whitewash Benjamin's article based on your edits to this article.

I actually agree that the sentence as written isn't ideal, the lengthy quote being part of the problem, and the other problem being that we don't comment on what news sources said about the quote. I'd suggest that the event is better reflect with some of these extra sources and the prose: Benjamin received criticism for saying at a 2018 panel in New York City, when discussing Jewish people, "I'm sorry about the Holocaust but I don't give a shit." The comments were widely described as anti-semitic [Times of Israel, i, PinkNews] or racist [BuzzFeed News]. — Bilorv (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And what of his not enough beer comment? Is removing the context/reason for his statement thats quoted in the source not also whitewashing? We need to enforce the rules equally and if whitewashing things that paint him in a positive light is acceptable then I shell endeavour to apply an equal standard to things the paint him in a negative light. However in this instance I wish to remove it because it is not relevant to his view on Jewish identity politics. The suggested revision is worse because it removes his political view on the matter. Not caring about something is not a political view and suggesting the hijacking of the category with this as a compromise is ridiculous. If you feel all his problematic statements must be said then perhaps a ‘’’Controversial Statements’’’ category should be added. EatingFudge (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Relevance is decided by sources and consensus. WP:CSECTIONs should be avoided, and they should especially not be expanded as a way to prove a WP:POINT. We're not interested in playing those kinds of games. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Anti-feminist links

Reference 20,3 and 4 are supposed to be proof of anti-feminism - however they say nothing of the sort....? They literally link to an article that says anti-feminist and then have no evidence or further links to other articles that prove it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.114.156 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't access reference 4, but reference 3 and 20 say what they are cited for. We rely not on "proofs", but on what reliable sources say, as they have their own fact-checking procedures behind the scenes. — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar to the other two sources, reference 4 (The New York Times) says "the anti-feminist polemic Carl Benjamin". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not editorializing. It's simply better phrasing.

Sources use of Cast doubt changed to Critiqued. Critiqued: Evaluate in a detailed and analytical way. Cast doubt: Cause something or someone to be questioned. These two words are substantially different so as to potentialy mislead a reader and exchanging them for simply ‘better phrasing’ is ignorance at best. But thats ok, Watching the interaction I have come up with an even better phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingFudge (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As has already been explained countless times on this talk page, we are not interested in an editor's personal interpretation of a primary source. We are interested in reliable, independent sources. That this primary source is a youtube clip from the Daily Mail only further undermines the significance of this interpretation, per WP:DAILYMAIL. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me. Fixed the wording to matched the reliable source.EatingFudge (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, see WP:POINT. You clearly already know you have been challenged on this. Discuss first, and stop playing pedantic games. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I do realise I have been challenged on using the words of a reputable source. The reason given was better phrasing. So I picked a better word to use for best phrasing based on my reading of secondary sources and knowledge of the English language. Linking to the video hosted by the Daily Mail was only so people can have an unbiased understanding of what happened and was not used for interpretation.

As for WP:POINT I followed the example of others. If you feel that others have made a poor example for me, I may agree with you. Anyway, please enlighten me as to why we cannot use the words of the referenced reputable source, instead of the not editorialising but simply better phrasing word of current use. EatingFudge (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The original change to dismissed is not verifiable from any presented reliable source. The next change was to cast doubt, which the source actually did say, but the sentence structure was already a bit close paraphrasing and only differed by a couple of words. Source said: Phillips has cast doubt on the idea of a “men’s day” but has not laughed about male suicide, which she has said is a serious issue. We said: Phillips has critiqued the idea of a "men's day" but has not mocked male suicide, which she believes to be a serious issue. To avoid any possible clopping, I've changed it to Phillips had critiqued the idea of a "men's day" but said that male suicide is a serious issue. Note also that we said that Phillips "believes [male suicide] to be a serious issue", which is rather different to what the source said (she said that ...); we can't possibly discern a figure's true thoughts, only what they say and what their actions indicate. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah so its an issue of whether its editorializing or paraphrasing. Well since the introduced word “Critiqued” infers an impartial or maybe positive action while reputable sources say she laughed or mocked. And as you may know, these are negative uses therefore I would say the switch from negative to positive is more than a superficial modification, its editorializing.

And actually if we remove the non-reliable source politicshome and use the reputable telegraph (mentioned above) we can have a good idea about what he thought she was laughing at. Voiding the entire sentence. EatingFudge (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Both sources you cite say Phillips laughed at Davies, not the idea of a "men's day", if you want to get this specific. I don't understand why you believe PoliticsHome to be unreliable, and the Telegraph source you've given is an opinion column, a bit less reliable. I don't believe I've actually said anything to indicate that I think critiqued is the best word here, because I don't—I think criticised would be best, but we've not yet got consensus for anything but the status quo, and I'm not particularly convinced that writing hundreds of words to argue over the choice of one word is the best use of any of our times. — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carl Benjamin's rape joke

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Carl Benjamin's rape joke. — Bilorv (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Include brouhaha about "I find racist jokes funny"?

So, it looks like Mr. Benjamin caused another minor stir last year with what some have deemed offensive language. Here are some examples of what I mean: [1] [2] [3] It gets a brief mention here: [4] It seems to me lesser than the rape joke controversy, but I think it merits a mention. What do other editors think? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Those articles (discounting the BBC) all mention the rape comments, which seem to be the bulk of the coverage. I wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention of David Lammy condemning Benjamin for using the word "nigger", as that seems to be a significant story, but I don't think we should list everything Benjamin has said that he has been criticised for. — Bilorv (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor change to the lead

I came to this page after seeing the thread on BLP. I made this change [5] to the lead of the article. I believe the current lead is generally good, but this part —and a later remark in which Benjamin said he might rape Phillips but for the fact that "nobody's got that much beer"— is inappropriate. This kind of editorial aside is not encyclopedic in tone, and combination of paraphrase and direct quote is awkward. Also, it's just unnecessary. The lead is supposed to introduce and summarize the person's notability, and I think the quote "I wouldn't even rape you" is enough of an introduction for people to understand why these comments became such a big deal. The rest of the incident can be covered in more detail in the body of the article. User:Bilorv reverted me on the grounds that no changes should be made. Does anyone object to the content of my proposal? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

See also #How to summarize the rape comment, above.

What, exactly, is an editorial aside, here? It is what he said per multiple sources. What Benjamin said is certainly not in an encyclopedic tone, but is that want you meant? We have to use an encyclopedic tone to summarize very crude comments, and it's tricky to do that in an appropriate way.

That said, how necessary it is should be decided by source, but you're right, it's not entirely necessary. If the purpose of removing it is to make the lead more encyclopedic, I think this would functionally be downplaying significant comments because of their content. If the purpose is to make a tighter summary that summarizes source in fewer words, we should talk about that, instead. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean his comments were unencyclopedic. What he said is a major part of his notability and needs to be covered in this article. I mean that the way this sentence is structured is unencyclopedic. The emdash parenthetical is conversational in tone. It reads like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia and should be removed. That's really my only problem with the lead, and my edit is one suggestion for fixing it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As for the comments themselves, I guess my preference is that we quote exactly what he said and then explain the impact. Readers will come away from the article better informed if we quote the comments in full than if we try to paraphrase them. But I think that kind of detail belongs in the body, and I can see there's been a long and angry discussion on that topic which I don't really want to get involved in. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I see there are proposals for a more substantial rewrite of the lead at BLP, so maybe this discussion is pointless. I think Bilorv's proposal there, to just replace the whole thing with Benjamin's widely-condemned comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 European Parliament candidacy. is probably a better solution for the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, that makes sense. I think that, per Bilorv's revert, this depends on the consensus at BLP/N. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)