The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
IIRC Mr. Benjamin describes himself as a "classic liberal". The descriptor "polemic anti-feminist" should be corrected. 5JVL9 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use self descriptions. If we did, most terrorists would be labeled freedom fighters. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question is who, then, has the authority to describe Mr. Benjamin as a "polemic anti-feminist"? Certainly you would not want your political beliefs not accurately described. 5JVL9 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cites for "polemic anti-feminist" are NBC News, the New York Times, and (further down the article) Business Insider. All of them support the idea that this is what he is primarily notable for, which is why it's in the lead:
That stopped this month. On Dec. 6, Patreon kicked the anti-feminist polemic Carl Benjamin, who works under the name Sargon of Akkad, off its site for using racist language on YouTube. (NYT)
Carl Benjamin, a British anti-feminist better known on the far-right as Sargon of Akkad, (NBC News)
...following the ban of popular anti-feminist YouTuber Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad. (Business Insider) --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what the sources say. Honestly, I'm a bit baffled that people sometimes complain about that on talk - the fact that he's an anti-feminist (or even that he's primarily notable as an anti-feminist) isn't at all controversial. Calling him "classical liberal" just because he's used that term for himself occasionally would be like referring to a commentator by their political party - even if it's true and noteworthy (and the sourcing for that self-description are slight enough that I'm not sure it's noteworthy), it's still not what they're notable for. You don't put eg. "so-and-so is a commentator and a conservatism" in the lead of an article unless they're notable for commentary on conservativism or from a conservative viewpoint; you focus on the parts that the sources say are actually important instead. In Benjamin's case, the sources say that the notable part of his politics is his strident anti-feminism, so that's what goes in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "polemic anti-feminist" may be one aspect of his views, however, it is not an accurate nor a comprehensive descriptor of his politics. What better source for determining his own political opinions than Mr. Benjamin? You may quote the New York Times, NBC News and Business Insider all you wish - these sources all have interpreted Mr. Benjamin's viewpoints through their own respective lenses, and may have gotten the information from the same source (reporters, press agencies, etc). I remain convinced that "classic liberal" should be used in place of "polemic anti-feminist", and that "polemic anti-feminist" be used, if necessary, later in the article noting his beliefs concerning specific issues. 5JVL9 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content is based on independent reliable sources. Please review WP:RS. The current information in the article is supported according to policy. If you still feel your content should be added, then please provide links or citations to the sources that support your position. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the specific rape joke
I am trying to add to the lede the specific comment where Benjamin said he might rape Phillips but for the fact that "nobody's got that much beer." This should be in the lede (whether we think it is relevant or not) because of the extreme volume of coverage the comment received in reliable sources, rivaling even the original rape joke. It is not up to us as editors, but to reliable sources, whether something is notable enough for the lede. This particular comment clearly is.
The previous version, where we simply describe the "nobody's got that beer comment" as "similar" to his previous rape joke, is also synthesis. GergisBaki (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is synthesis to describe the comments as "similar", given the related coverage on the comments. Note that per WP:MINREF, direct quotations need to be sourced inline whenever they are mentioned, even if there is a source for them in another section. In this case, the comment wasn't even quoted in the body either. However, I am inclined to agree that the most accurate way to convey what Benjamin said is to quote it, so I've added the incite in the lead and quote to the body. — Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is becoming completely unbalanced again, I see. The amount of coverage does not mean the lede should be out of whack. See: WP:BIOLEAD. Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. Please stop this campaign, GergisBaki. We have had this conversation many times before. --SVTCobra 23:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the text in the lead has hardly increased and still takes up one of three paragraphs. The amount of coverage in reliable sources is precisely how we determine due weight; "not necessarily" doesn't mean "never". — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I wish to edit the youtube information section, so that it will include his new channel Akkad Daily. 138.51.117.53 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done We already have a link to his official youtube channel. Per WP:ELMIN: we generally include one link to an "official" website, but no more than that. We aren't a directory. Nblundtalk 22:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any news of the police investigation?
Can't find anything in the papers. T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done We already have a link to his official youtube channel. Per WP:ELMIN: we generally include one link to an "official" website, but no more than that. We aren't a directory. Nblund talk 22:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)