Talk:Carl Benjamin

Alt-right in Lede

I proposed moving the mention of alt-right in the lede from the list of things he discusses to a list of the things he's critical of. His most recent media coverage is based on him attacking the alt-right or neo-nazis with racist and homophobic language, and there is wide coverage of him being both critical of the alt-right and one of their targets.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/17/jordan-b-petersons-free-speech-fight-author-plans-/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39400/famed-atheist-deletes-patreon-account-over-banning-hank-berrien

https://www.businessinsider.sg/patreon-crowdfunding-platform-defends-itself-amid-boycott-2018-12/?r=US&IR=T

I'm not sure why the edit was reverted. While it is accurate to say he discusses the alt-right, it is far more accurate to say he is a critic of it.LedRush (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not wide coverage, this is niche coverage in sympathetic outlets. The Washington Times is borderline at best as a reliable source, and it merely repeats what Dave Rubin says, which is too vague to be informative even if we did have some reason to include his opinion with attribution. The Daily Wire is unreliable, and doesn't mention anything at all about the substance of Benjamin's videos, other than quoting Jordan Peterson's line about him defending himself from neo-Nazis. The Business Insider source only obliquely refers to the alt-right as part of Benjamin's slur-filled rant, and the quote about Business Insider has verified the existence of the video is a form of distancing. This suggests that BI doesn't consider this intrinsically trustworthy.

We are interested in what reliable sources say about Benjamin. We are not particularly interested in what unreliable sources say, and we are also not obligated to take Benjamin's own take on this as fundamentally more accurate than reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in reliable sources and not unreliable ones. That is why I'm hoping that we will correct the BLP violations.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/jordan-b-peterson-dave-rubin-ditch-crowdfunding-site-patreon-to-stand-up-for-free-speech https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/technology/patreon-hate-speech-bans.html https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/alexander-hall/2018/12/17/shut-out-peterson-rubin-propose-free-speech-funding-site

Is there any RS out there that says that Benjamin used the slurs against someone other than a nazi, racist, or alt-right?LedRush (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin is free to argue that it's okay to use racist slurs against racists, and reliable sources, such as the NYT one you cite, are free to dismiss this as nitpicking. Newsbusters? L. Brent Bozell III's project? So the Parents Television Council guy who hated pro wrestling is now fighting against "censorship"? That's rich. Whatever, if that group wants to make the case that it's okay to use slurs as long as the people its directed at somehow deserve it because of their ideology, they are not credible to discuss how free speech works, which is unsurprising considering their history. They also do not appear to understand why slurs are offensive in the first place. Regardless, nowhere do I see any credible sources saying that Benjamin cannot be alt-right because he insults the alt-right. Trying to make that conclusion from unstated implications of sources is WP:OR. For what it's worth, I doubt a credible source is going to be oblivious to the far-rights long history of infighting, so I don't expect any sources to come along any time soon. Grayfell (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have conceded that he made his comments insulting the alt-right. Now, I'm not talking about changing an attribution from a reliable source to him that he's alt-right, I'm saying that because he is a critic of the alt-right and has been in the news in the last 3 months primarily for the way he criticized the alt-right that we be more accurate and informative in the lede.LedRush (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/patreon-carl-benjamin-and-the-new-puritanism/ (thanks Jeff, this is a RS according to WP, but obviously approaches UK politics in a partisan way)LedRush (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying I "conceded" something I never challenged is a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. It is possible for a member of a group to insult other members of that group. This is true even of Nazis (just ask Gregor Strasser). Judging by the short history of the alt-right/alt-lite/"new right"/etc., it's almost universal for them to engage in infighting, but this has very little to do with why he was removed from the platform, according to sources. The problem has never been the "target" of these insults, it's that he used, and legitimized, these slurs in the first place. Benjamin's attempts to reframe this point have been dismissed by Patreon as nitpicking. As I said, anyone who thinks this is a valid reason doesn't understand why these terms are offensive in the first place. James Delingpole's opinion would only belong with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that using slurs against people you don't like isn't meaningfully the same as "criticism". If reliable sources actually say he is noteworthy as a critic of the alt-right, I haven't seen them. Mentioning, as background, that the people he insulted were alt-right doesn't elevate this "critique" to be a defining trait, even by the lax standards of a youtube personality. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you should check your ownership of this article and your own battleground mentality. Your editorializing both of the alt-right and of Benjamin "legitimizing" the slurs (what a preposterous concept) is completely inappropriate. Benjamin hasn't reframed anything, but you choosing this language is again telling of a large bias. The fact that he used racist and homophobic slurs against racists and homophobes is an essential part of this incident, and one that has received much coverage (as the many links on this page point out). You haven't put forward a legitimate argument for your POV.LedRush (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article included my editorializing, you would be correct to remove it. The article doesn't, however. This editorializing is my attempt to explain why I believe sources do not support this perspective strongly enough to include it. I have not seen any reliable source explain that he was removed despite the target of the slurs he used. If anything, one concept hinted at from sympathetic sources is that Patreon was actively looking for an excuse to boot Benjamin. This was the ostensible reason for the boycott before the transcripts were published. After, reliable sources, as far as I can tell, don't specifically highlighting the target of those slurs as being vitally important to this story. Per the NYT 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. and Mr. Benjamin used the N-word and anti-gay language during an interview posted to YouTube on Feb. 7, Patreon found.[1] The source goes on to provide many other details, such as that Peterson and Rubin plan to start a competing service, and that Patreon's 5% charge may also be a factor for those quitting in solidarity, and that the ACLU sides with Patreon, not with Benjamin. It also includes a short paragraph mentioning that Benjamin claimed he was being "anti-Nazi", which is dismissed by Patreon and is not addressed again in the article. This doesn't suggest that this has received "much coverage", it suggests to me that it's a minor aspect which doesn't reach the level of WP:DUE for the lede.

The Business Insider source likewise says Seeking to further justify the ban of Benjamin, which users boycotting the platform claimed was based in "political bias," Patreon published the transcript of the video it said the company its decision on. Patreon said the segment fit its definition of hate speech, which the platform bans. Reading the transcript, it met Patreon's definition of hate speech, which it says "includes serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race [and] sexual orientation.”[2] It then says that Harris, Peterson, and Rubin's responses were before the transcript was published. Sources do not suggest that they knew this context before their reaction, which suggests that it couldn't have been a deciding factor.

The Fox News article does mention this perspective, but first in passing as the opinion of Peterson, and then as the opinion of the even-less-reliable Newsbusters. If you think these perspectives belong... Maybe, but we should include them in the article with context first, and then reassess the body. That seems like a lot of tangential content to cram into this article. If there were reliable, independent sources on this controversy, it would be a good addition to the Patreon article, but Talk:Patreon would be the place to figure that out.

Incidentally, at a glance, the section of that article dealing with this incident needs attention and better-quality sources.

consensus means you will have to work with me, or seek input from a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

So we have a bunch of sources noting that Benjamin made the remarks attacking the alt-right or neo-nazis and we have a source using that information as a way to mitigate the fact that Benjamin used the slurs. The only argument against usage seems to be your personal feeling that using the words in the way that Benjamin did "legitimizes" them. While an extraordinarily bad argument on its own, it is irrelevant to this article. We should be educating people on what happened. It's amazing to me that motive is so important in the vidcon section that we throw out WP's editing standards just to attribute motive to him, but when we have a bunch of RSs talking about Benjamin's motives here, you are fighting tooth and nail not to include it. For most people, learning of Benjamin's motives would likely make them view what he did in a less-negative light. Perhaps slightly so, perhaps a lot. Certainly this is the case for Peterson and others who have defended Benjamin on these grounds. By refusing to put in this information, you are deliberately giving the impression that Benjamin used ethnic slurs against minorities. Thus, it is violation of BLP.LedRush (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, I propose that we say that he used the homophobic and racist slurs against neo-nazis on youtube. That is supported by many sources, provides essential context, and dispels the common implications of the use of slurs (which is the source of the BLP violation). With that change, we don't need to move the alt-right mention from "topic" to "criticism" as we are more accurately and in more detail painting a picture of Benjamin.LedRush (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the sources that support the assertion that Benjamin was banned for using bigoted slurs to insult neonazis. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The ones above and the NYT article in the lede. Also, it is important to note that this happened on YouTube.LedRush (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Something's importance is determined by reliable sources. As already explained, the NYT source doesn't support that this was the specific reason, nor that it's important. It supports that he used the terms "during an interview", which doesn't seem particularly informative when taken in isolation. If I thought that it would improve this article, I would further explain why it is considered offensive and inappropriate to call straight people "faggots" and white people "niggers", even if those people are themselves bigots. Instead, you can accept that reliable sources treat it as offensive regardless of who the targets of those insults are. This is all that Wikipedia cares about anyway. If you think that the article should explain the IDW crowd's shared opinion that this somehow obligates Patreon to continue working with him, you can propose adding that to the body of the article. Right now, you are proposing we use these high-profile non-expert opinions to alter the wording of the lede to imply something which is not supported by reliable sources as factual. This isn't going to work. We could, possibly, present their opinions as attributed opinions, but based on these sources, this would be a brief summary in the body, not the lede. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that anything obligates Patreon to do anything, and I don't know that anyone else is either. I'm arguing that we should state the facts of what happened clearly so that we don't allow a false and obviously negative implication to exist in a BLP. When you state that someone was punished for using a racist slur at someone, the immediate implication is that the someone used it against a person of that race. Basically, the implication is that you are a racist. That is an exceptionally negative implication. Reliable sources state that Benjamin used the term against racists. You believe that this argument isn't persuasive and that such usage is still offensive. That's fine. I agree that it's still offensive too. But I also believe that many people will find it less offensive than the false implication. Furthermore, I believe that providing more neutral, information better informs our readers. We are avoiding facts reported in RSs just to keep an implication that Benjamin is racist against minorities despite the fact that we know he used the slurs against racists. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could argue that this isn't a BLP issue.LedRush (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We do provide this information in the body of the article, but reliable sources do not treat this as a defining aspect of the controversy, much less a defining aspect of "Carl Benjamin" as a topic. Your common-sense opinion that this makes his comments slightly less offensive, at least to some people who think that matters, is fair, but it's not supported by sources at all, as far as I can see. This isn't what BLP is about. We're not trying to make content more or less offensive in isolation, or based on WP:OR, we are trying to explain it in proportion to due weight. Even the sources you have proposed do not treat the target of his slurs as centrally important to this. As I said, Peterson, Harris, and Rubin all issued their defense before the transcript was even cited by Patreon. They chose to defend him regardless of who the supposed targets of his slurs were, so to say that this retroactively made it important after the fact is not supportable. From the sources I have seen, these are the only prominent perspectives which arguably treat this detail as significant, but they didn't even know this at the time. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. It is most helpful. I don't think this is a central point, but Peterson specifically pointed to the fact that Benjamin used the slurs against racists. I think you might have an issue that my change makes it seem that Patreon was motivated to ban Benjamin because of who he targeted, which is obviously not true and wasn't my intent.

The current language is this: "In December 2018, Benjamin was banned from Patreon for using racial and homophobic slurs." I think this is a BLP issue because it implies something very negative that would be countered if we just stated more facts that we acknowledge in the article itself. My previous language could be interpreted to mean that Patreon banned Benjamin "for" attacking racists. That is highly prejudicial against Patreon and not supported by fact. Let me see if I can get the facts in without becoming overly wordy.LedRush (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: Specifically, which 'ones above'? We can't be using a blog for this, for example. Do you get charged per word used by your ISP? There's no need to be so stingy with your words- please assist me in understanding your point or we won't get anywhere. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Side note: is this in dispute? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Benjamin&type=revision&diff=883718366&oldid=883638818. If not, I'll change back, but I don't want 3RR allegations because I didn't think this was what Grayfell really wanted reverted.LedRush (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: Well, if you've reverted three seperate editors who apparently preferred that wording, perhaps your insistence on your wording is contentious. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was that I thought the issue got folded into a different one accidentally. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to revert and discuss.LedRush (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: What, do I need to report you for you to go ahead and revert it? You offered to self revert, and here you are, not self reverting. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time you asked me to revert. I actually wasn't soliciting your opinion as I didn't make a change to something you reverted. However, are you asking me to revert because you think the edit is contentious? I'm a little taken aback by your aggressive attitude on a minor point about how much of the audience was filled...especially as it is supported by RSs and video evidence.

@@Grayfell: Is this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Benjamin&type=revision&diff=883718366&oldid=883638818 against your wishes? If so, I'll revert. If you don't reply in about 90 minutes, I'll revert.LedRush (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell:No one had changed this language (which has been in the article for a few days without issue) for any reason other than for "clarity", but I'll revert to make sure and check in with you tomorrow.LedRush (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: I was the one who made that edit - I don't particularly mind what the wording is there though. I don't see how it could be that contentious. Just to explain why I thought my wording was clearer; I think it was a comment that you made (maybe not) that questioned what the first three rows of "half the audience" meant so I changed it instead to read "three of the first rows". Note that this isn't the same as "the first three rows" and that's why I changed it as such. I don't have a problem with it being changed back though if people think it removed a little context/information. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. You are right that “three of the first rows” doesn’t mean the same as the obviously incorrect “first three rows”. But RSs say that they took up the first three rows on one side of the venue, and this is confirmed by video sources in those RSs. I admit my language is a little clunky, but I think given the extraordinary contention that Benjamin was engaging in a harassment campaign, an accurate description of the size of the people there is important.LedRush (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(copied from above) The current language is this: "In December 2018, Benjamin was banned from Patreon for using racial and homophobic slurs." I think this is a BLP issue because it implies something very negative that would be countered if we just stated more facts that we acknowledge in the article itself. My previous language could be interpreted to mean that Patreon banned Benjamin "for" attacking racists. That is highly prejudicial against Patreon and not supported by fact. Let me see if I can get the facts in without becoming overly wordy.LedRush (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

how about "In December 2018, Benjamin was banned from Patreon for using racial and homophobic slurs, though he argues that he was using the language to attack the alt-right."

This makes the lede more accurately reflect the facts and the article without implying that Patreon defended the alt-right or neo-nazi's. I've used alt-right in my summary because the article quotes the YouTube transcript that Patreon published as using that term. If someone wants to use "neo-nazi" as others have in RSs, I'm fine with that too.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Attributing motives to Benjamin at VidCon

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

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

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

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

Here are a few of the other discussions of this phrasing which have resulted in the content being kept in the article: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. It's a fairly mooted point, so you may want to start an RfC or something if you insist on dragging it up again so we can have some semblance of permanency to the consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Sentence Paragraphs

We have a lot of one sentence paragraphs that don't really help this article feel like an article. Here are three:

In early 2017 Benjamin created a YouTube video and a Thunderclap with 13,165 supporters in defence of YouTube personality PewDiePie following a controversy about allegations of antisemitism against PewDiePie.[10][11]

Benjamin described some of Harvey Weinstein's sexual abuse accusers as "gold-digging whores".[19]

His videos have been credited with popularising Kekistan, a fictional country and political meme that originated on 4chan.[24]

None of these seems to be that notable to me. If we're going to keep these they should be incorporated into a wider narrative so the article doesn't sound like a bullet list of things he's said or done.LedRush (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability is determined by reliable, independent sources. These short paragraphs are more significant than Benjamin's hot takes on any particular random issue, such as Brexit. Do you see the problem with this approach? Expanding info on his opinions while also removing outside coverage is is shifting the article away from what reliable sources say and towards what one particular editor thinks is important. Perhaps you have watched a lot of his videos to know that he's commented a lot on Brexit, but that's starting to look like WP:OR. He has lots of opinions, after all, and not all of them belong just because they are WP:V. Benjamin still has many platforms for sharing his opinions, but Wikipedia cannot and should not become an extension of that. This is not the first time this issue has faced this article. As before, we need to rely on independent sources.

That said, are these sections due? It's especially hard to make the case that Heat Street, which was a political gossip site that's now defunct, has any weight at all. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I think at one point Kekistan redirected here, before it was deleted and recreated, and I think this is leftover from that oddness. Benjamin is a professional pot-stirrer, so these kinds of things are going to accumulate. The article should reflect why Benjamin is notable enough for an article. He is not a recognized expert (as mentioned in WP:SPS, for example) on anything in particular, nor is he a journalist or other commentator with an established organization with editorial oversight or similar. If these WP:FARTs are why he's notable, the article is unfortunately going to have to reflect that, at least to some degree. Grayfell (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin has focused a lot on Brexit, as reflected in RSs mentioning that position and commenting on his speeches (both taped and live) to UKIP Brexiteers. I don’t have a particular issue with any of the one-sentence paragraphs other than the one regarding the Weinstein accusers, as that one is said without context and seems like a BLP issue. Even that could be built out in a paragraph about anti-feminism or anti-too. In short, all the topics could be fair game if presented more completely and didn’t turn the article into a bullet list.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article has the following notice:

Notice about sources

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

I notice that there are many controversial statements about Benjamin that are sourced by non-traditional media that is known more their political perspectives than their actual reporting. I am comparing those sources to this WP page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources) as guidance regarding how to deal with these controversial statements.LedRush (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure there's been some here who've been editing this article for a while, so I don't want to move to hastily. However, I do see a lot of contentious characterizations of Benjamin and his ideas, and there are a lot of dodgy sources, so with BLP of utmost concern, I don't want to move too slowly either.LedRush (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we be using Vice? WP:RSP says there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice but that it is generally not as reliable for politics as for subjects such as arts and entertainment. Seen as though this is a BLP and the majority of the content of the article, including where Vice is used as a source, is political, isn't it best that we stick to the most reliable sources, sources which haven't been called into question as to their political coverage? Alduin2000 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For those who may not already know, all sources are judged in context. Vice is not inherently unreliable as an outlet (unlike Breitbart or the Daily Mail as examples which have also covered Benjamin) so each use of Vice needs to be evaluated based on the claims being made and the significance to the topic.

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is, first, to provide basic biographical details, and second to explain why a person is noteworthy. Benjamin is primarily noteworthy for his controversial opinions, so we need to provide that context. Actually, from what I've seen, he is exclusively noteworthy for his controversial opinions, so that's an understatement, but regardless, our duty is to the readers who don't already know who this person is. If those readers have a warped or selective understanding of why he's noteworthy, the article is flawed. If we mention that he has opinions, but fail to explain what those opinions are in a neutral way, and also fail to explain why anyone is paying attention to those opinions, we've misrepresented Benjamin. Vice's assessment, with attribution, seems like a useful way to provide that context. Vice may not be neutral, but it doesn't have to be, because we can still explain Vice's assessment from a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For some reason I must have misremembered seeing Vice used as a source without attribution. Anyway, given what you said my previous comment is wrong - using Vice doesn't violate the standards for a BLP. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, everything you said in that first remark is correct. Vice shouldn't be used to describe someone's political views at all, nonetheless 4(!) separate times. Why is this non-reliable source for politics used to opine about the politics of a BLP 4 times?LedRush (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As was just explained, it is reliable in context, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Grayfell (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As was just explained, no it isn't. Vice's assessment of Benjamin's politics are completely unnecessary to the article. Not only is this a BLP violation, it is one of the clearest cases of UNDUE I've seen.LedRush (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Alduin2000, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice. That also means there is no consensus that it is unreliable. This means that we have to evaluate every use in context. Saying it's "unnecessary" isn't helpful, since I have already explained one way I think it's useful to readers. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Vice is not reliable for politics, especially for contentious statements in a BLP. Using it once isn't warranted. Using it 4 times is bias. There still has been no argument for why it is necessary.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Except for the one I made:Vice's assessment, with attribution, seems like a useful way to provide that context. Vice may not be neutral, but it doesn't have to be, because we can still explain Vice's assessment from a neutral point of view. I disagree that "Vice is not reliable for politics". It is not always reliable for politics, but that's not relevant. Vice.com is frequently cited by other reliable news outlets for political coverage. It is not universally reliable, but few outlets are, so we have to evaluate every usage in context. "Reliable" is not the same as "biased", per WP:BIASED. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Vice isn't needed for context, and they aren't reliable to provide anything but their own non-notable opinion of Benjamin. So that means zero usage would be best, but that it would be nearly impossible not to violate BLP by using it more than once.LedRush (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: You keep talking about what's 'needed'. If we want to use content from a source, it's needed. Otherwise, it's not. Your continuous assertion that the amount of BLP we violate is tied to how many times a particular cite is included is ridiculous. Could you please talk specifically about what & where the BLP violation allegedly is, rather than continuing with the vague, heavy assertions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The article uses a non-reliable source to contextualize Benjamin in a negative light on 4 separate occasions. The BLP issue is self-evident.LedRush (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's so self evident, please explain it to me. Surely, it'll be easy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I just did...again.LedRush (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying 'the BLP issue is self-evident' is not an explanation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I'm glad that's not all I said.LedRush (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: @PeterTheFourth: @Grayfell: Is it perhaps a solution to have a separate section for Benjamin's self-claimed political beliefs. I can see some concerns that people may have with this but I think that comments about Benjamin from other sources can be easily put under a "Reception" section. I'm going to be bold but if anyone thinks this isn't a good compromise then leaving an explanation here would be useful. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that broadly makes sense. We have a political views section which is almost exclusively what non-reliable sources say about him with attribution, not about what he says his political beliefs are or examples of him taking actions or making speeches in RSs.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the two political actions, 'taking actions' and 'making speeches'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, we need to summarize mainly from reliable sources. If sources explain why his non-expert opinions are encyclopedically significant, use them and then perhaps use primary sources to fill in a few details, per WP:PRIMARY. Benjamin is reliable for what his own opinions are, but not for the significance or due weight of those opinions. Again, Benjamin's self-published youtube videos are not reliable sources. If reliable sources don't indicate why his opinions belong, they don't, no matter what section they are under. If they do, start from there. Don't add WP:OR from first-hand viewings and then try and backfill with whatever happens to be searchable. That's creating a warped impression and inflating this one youtuber's significance far beyond what is supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not personal attack me. Benjamin has been in the news as a proponent of Brexit, and he has made his own views clear on that.LedRush (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You added a paragraph supported entirely by primary sources, and I am now trying to explain the problem with this approach. Like everyone, he has countless views. Why does this view matter? Explain why Wikipedia should care, and use reliable sources. If it's been in the news, cite the news. It's not that complicated. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the cited link was to this article, while the cite template indicated a different source. This would be an easy fix, except it perfectly demonstrates my problem with this underlying approach. It's adding first-hand knowledge and then going back and adding sources after the fact. If sources do not say he is a "vocal advocate for Brexit" and then elaborate on his unqualified opinion about millions of pounds etc. finding primary source to amplify this perspective is totally inappropriate. Use reliable, independent sources to establish that this opinion is significant, and also to explain how this opinion is significant. Start over from reliable sources, please. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin has been in the news for his Brexit positions, his twitter bans, his Patreon ban, and his UKIP support. And I'd appreciate it if you stop with your personal attacks against me. I am not good at citations so I generally copy one and then fill in the details. For my recent I copied over all the information on the correct article except the link. I've fixed it.LedRush (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not intentionally making any personal attacks against you, but I am attempting to explain the problems with your recent edits. I am trying, and apparently failing, to explain exactly what I think needs to be changed to improve the article. You say that he's "in the news" for such and such, so please cite that news without editorializing. Summarize what that news says. The current edit doesn't do that in an appropriate way.

This article currently cites five of Benjamin's own youtube videos to provide details of his personal opinions about the topic, but we do not have any reliable sources explaining why this is encyclopedically significant. He attended a rally, but since lots of people attend lots of events, we need to explain why this incident matters. We cannot ignore the substance of a source and only use it to support a tangential point, and the raw quantity of primary sources he's published on this is a distraction.

We have a source which says he attended a Brexit rally with other UKIP personalities. This article says nothing specific about his stance on Brexit. It doesn't even directly say he supports Brexit. We can, of course, reasonably infer that he supports Brexit from that source, but it's clearly not that important, because it's treated as an aside. The context the source provides is about how controversial Benjamin is, and what this means for UKIP, but Brexit is not factually discussed at all. Using this source to say he is a vocal supporter of Brexit is technically accurate, but is unduly focusing on a minor aspect while ignoring the substance of the source.

It might help to think of it this way: For a youtuber like Benjamin, opinions are like products to be sold. By his own admission, he is "politically incorrect" and "offensive", so his audience is built through his controversial political commentary. His opinions about Brexit have not, from what I have seen, been cited by any reliable sources at all as informative for the topic of Brexit. When we present his opinions as encyclopedically significant, we are telling readers that this is important. We are, in a sense, sharing samples of his commentary without any outside context. This is likely helping him advertise his channel, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising.

Does that make this any clearer? Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I find your opinion clearer, but I still fundamentally disagree with your characterization. We have a significant number of RSs saying that Benjamin supports Brexit, that he joined UKIP (often described as a one-issue Brexit party), that he gave speeches to UKIP both privately and publicly. In a section about his own political beliefs, when we know that so many RSs talk about his position on the matter, it seems entirely appropriate that we add two short sentences on that. This is even more important as we use a large number of partisan and non-reliable sources to characterize Benjamin's views...with Vice getting 4 cracks at it!LedRush (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are a significant number of sources, you should've started with those sources. I don't know how else to say this.

If sources say he joined UKIP, so should this article (and it does). If sources say that UKIP is a single-issue Brexit party, that could be discussed at Talk:UKIP. If sources say that "Benjamin joined UKIP, a single-issue party focused on Brexit" only then should this article include that connection. We cannot bypass B to link A to C ourselves. We need sources to do this for us. To daisy-chain sources to make a connection not made by any source in isolation is WP:SYNTH. I can find many sources, includes ones we've already discussed, which characterize UKIP as being a far-right party, or an anti-Muslim party, or many other unflattering adjectives... does that mean all of Benjamin's opinions on these things belong? No, not without reliable sources directly explaining why Benjamin's opinions are being mentioned.

Any summary of Benjamin's position must start with reliable sources first. How many dozens or hundreds (or thousands?) of hours of videos has Benjamin produced or participated in? Instead of relying on editors to arbitrarily decide which define his position on Brexit, we need to use sources to explain this. Everyone who has produced as much content as Benjamin has will make trivial statements which don't have a lasting impact, and also eventually make contradictory statements, and statements which can be taken out of context. Wikipedia as a rule doesn't trust individual editors to keep track of all of this, because it's impossible. We need to use independent sources as a safeguard against editorializing, not matter how pure our intentions. Does this make sense?

As I've said, James Delingpole's opinion should not be presented as factual, but can be presented with attribution. This is the same standard we're holding Vice to. Sources might mention Brexit and Benjamin together still need to explain the connection. Otherwise this is non-neutral, since it is still not explaining why his opinion is significant. Again, he is not an expert on Brexit, and has not been cited for factual matters on Brexit. Therefore, we still need to contextualize this based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to synth anything. RSs say he backs Brexit, he speaks at Brexit rallies, he gives speeches to UKIP containing support for Brexit. I'm not looking to add some contentious or potentially defamatory claim about him or his Brexit views.LedRush (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but which sources, and what, exactly, do those source say? Is this a fair summary of facts, or is this his non-expert opinion presented without context? The article is now providing a specific perspective of someone who isn't an expert, without providing any context at all. Your intentions are not in doubt, but this is still contentious. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

While I would agree he's not an expert on the EU and Brexit, UKIP appears to disagree: "Ukip said Batten had invited Benjamin to speak at a panel on the EU as a “subject matter expert” and that he was not an official party representative."https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/racist-troll-who-sent-rape-tweet-addresses-ukip-members-8tdvlp6qj. LedRush (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, so anything from UKIP would reasonably also need attribution, correct? Since the sources you've added have all explained that UKIP, and Benjamin's new-found role in UKIP, are intensely controversial. I don't think the UKIP is considered credible for factual information about political topics without this attribution. So instead of presenting Benjamin's opinions at face-value and then hunting for sources after the fact, we should summarize what reliable sources say. I don't have a subscription, but does this article, which is headlined "‘Racist’ troll who sent rape tweet addresses Ukip members" really emphasize Benjamin's "expertise" in Brexit, or as the snippet suggests, does it explain why it's controversial for the UKIP to be inviting him to speak on Brexit in the first place? Can you provide a fair summary of that source? Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for us to say that he's an SME on the EU and Brexit. I'm just noting RSs which say that he is has vocal opinions on it.

To summarize the article: Benjamin is a racist, sexist troll made popular by criticizing islam, feminism, and pc. Ukip is trying to attract younger members, and they welcome Benjamin to speak at their conference to do this. His talk focused on British liberty and he will give another address to a Ukip youth conference. Benjamin's role raises questions for how Batten is leading the party. Benjamin is a racist homophobe. Benjamin and Batten seem close, as they've appeared together in the EU parliament and Benjamin has interviewed Batten on YouTube. Jones left Ukip because she says it has moved far right, and she opposes Benjamin's inclusion in the party. Ukip said that Benjamin was invited to EU parliament as an SME. Ukip said that Benjamin has said some distasteful things, but the vast majority of what he says is sensible.

When a political party calls you an SME on something and invites you to talk at the EU Parliament, rallies, and internal meetings about it, it seems uncontroversial to note that you have a vocal opinion on it.LedRush (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should remove any mention of Brexit from the article. Instead of compiling primary sources to explain this opinion from Benjamin's own perspective, we should summarize these reliable sources, and only use primary sources to answer vital questions raised by those independent sources.

As one example, instead of presenting his claims about the billions of pounds he thinks it's going to save (which he is not an expert on) we should mention that he's attended pro-Brexit rallies with Robinson, etc. This is what the reliable source directly supports. From what I've seen, sources only start mentioning Brexit and Benjamin together after he joined UKIP, and only in that context. Are there sources which contradict this? If not, the article should also reflect that chronology and present his opinions on Brexit as a subset of his UKIP activity. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP

There are comments above that make claims about Benjamin in the emphatic, which are not corroborated and sourced in the article - there are statements by *third parties* characterizing what he has said, but not sourced material that overtly verifies the claims as being 'who Benjamin is'. The rules are quite clear - both the article AND the talk page must conform to BLP rules. I'm not one to remove or edit others comments. I would strongly urge those who have made claims above about Benjamin - specific derogatory claims - remove them from this page. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some things in the article are or were given in-line citations (out of an abundance of caution), but are cited to WP:RSes that can be used for statements of fact. Generally speaking we should avoid such unnecessary attribution anyway, since it implicitly casts doubt in cases where none exists - ie. if we do have a high-quality, mainstream reliable source describing him in a certain way, we'd need some indication from another source that that descriptor is controversial before we could present it that way in the article. In particular, I don't think there's any controversy over him being an anti-feminist. --Aquillion (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking of specifically worded characterizations that are not sourced, and are inappropriate to a BLP, which is why they are not in the BLP - but editors appear to feel unconstrained from adding their personal opinions about Benjamin here in talk space. read up several comments. I'm not going to repeat the statement, as we'll then just have a feedback-loop of BLP-inappropriate commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

anti-feminist

There seems to be a long standing desire to characterize Benjamin beyond the simple and accurate 'political commentator and polemicist' in the first sentence of the article. These changes invariably are 'negative' characterizations. Does not 'anti-feminist' fall within the characterizations that already exist? Anastrophe (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Political commentator and polemicist" is extremely vague by itself. Choosing less accurate language specifically because it may have subjective connotations to some people is a form of political correctness. If "anti-feminist" has negative connotations to some people, this still doesn't make it less accurate, does it? Likewise, there is a significant number of people, including many of Benjamin's fans and colleagues, who would see the term "anti-feminist" as a badge of pride. Which of these groups gets priority? Neither, and doesn't really matter, because that's not how this works. If reliable sources help us describe an encyclopedic topic, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Before I talk about anything else, I think it is necessary to state that antifeminism, in large, means opposition to feminism, but the issue is the fact that so many different brands of feminism exist. If we define antifeminism as simply being opposed to one form of feminism, then trans-exclusionary radical feminism or other branches of feminism that are critical of other branches would be considered antifeminist. I am not by means attempting to suggest that Carl Benjamin is a feminist; I am merely pointing out here that defining antifeminism as opposition to a certain branch of feminism can run into some problems when trying to talk about feminism itself.

I definitely understand Aquillion's reasoning behind his edits, but with the way he has justified describing Carl Benjamin as an antifeminist, "He is an anti-feminist, being critical of feminism and identity politics", opens up some problems. Putting aside what we have on Carl Benjamin for the moment, being critical of feminism does not mean that one stands in complete opposition to the movement. One can have issues with the means that the movement aims to use to achieve its goals, or could believe that feminism needs critical reforms but does not stand opposed to the movement as a whole.

Defining Mr. Benjamin as an antifeminist in the first sentence of his page entails that he is in hardcore opposition to the movement of feminism in itself. While he certainly has been very vocal in opposition to a lot of feminist movements, the general idea is the concept that the feminist movements he is opposing have become too ideological and extreme.

Simply put here, I think describing someone as an antifeminist in the first sentence of his/her article entails that this individual is completely/near completely opposed to anything feminism stands for, up to its principles. Things that are genuinely antifeminist, like the MGTOW movement, or a number of Islamist movements should thus be described as antifeminist enough to be described as such in the first sentence; for example, the MGTOW movement is very vocal in believing that the social enfranchisement of women brought forth in the modern era are leading to societal decline and are very open to actions like eliminating female suffrage that an individual like Carl Benjamin does not support. Since feminism, as a whole, is a very diverse movement, labeling someone primarily as an antifeminist should be done when this person has disagreements with feminist worldviews comparable to the way a MGTOW or most radical Islamists do. Hence, I believe that Aquillion's edits trying to emphasize Carl Benjamin as an antifeminist should be undone. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Which of these groups gets priority?" For me, the question is, is this undue weight for just one of the many, many, many topics that he bloviates on? Shall we now move to listing every possible iteration? 'polemicist, anti-brexit, anti-nazi," etc etc.

To be clear - I don't know if this is undue weight. I haven't dived into the RS's to see if this is how he is primarily characterized. I know he has been characterized as anti-feminist, by the NYT no less; does that constitute weight appropriate for the single opening sentence descriptor? Anastrophe (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, I added 'anti-feminist' based on the NYT source (since you expressed your objection to parsing the other parts to anti-feminist already.) If you feel more sources are needed: [9][10][11]. I could find more if necessary, but honestly it's not at all controversial - it's not an exaggeration to say that being a popular anti-feminist is one of his main claims to fame, perhaps his most prominent one. Beyond that, given the reasonably extensive WP:RS sourcing, if people want to argue that there's anything controversial about calling him an anti-feminist, I'd want to see other equally-prominent sources that disagree with these. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't argue or suggest that there are sources that disagree with the characterization. There's precisely one short paragraph in the article that discusses Benjamin being anti-feminist. Oh, but wait - now the three-sentence lede mentions him in relation to anti-feminism not once, not twice, but three times. I'm arguing undue weight. The second sentence of the lede more than adequately characterizes it. It's front-loading.

I would propose remove anti-feminist from the opening sentence. Leave the existing "Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy and early antifeminist videos.". Remove "is a critic of [...]feminism[...]" as well from the third sentence. The second sentence completely covers the both of those instances. As it reads now, there's a sense of 'doth protest too much'. We get it.Anastrophe (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources which say that this is no longer part of his notability, and apparently you agree. Do you know of any reliable sources which suggest this is inaccurate, or that his position has shifted? If not, why would the article imply that? Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. What, in what I suggested, would imply that he is no longer notable for it? I'm proposing leaving the second sentence in, which clearly establishes his notoriety as an anti-feminist. The other two are just front-loading it. Can you explain why it needs to be stated three times in the first graf of the lede that he is anti-feminist, gained notoriety for his videos critical of feminism, and that he is critical of feminism? It doesn't make sense. Or, if you prefer, leave the new 'anti-feminist' in the first sentence, and move the remaining two into the body. Again - it's noted in each of the three sentences of the lede. It's over the top. Anastrophe (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. The lede isn't great, we can agree on that. So what would be included if we were writing this from scratch?

• A link to antifeminism in the lede would help prevent redundancy.
• He rose to prominence through gamergate, which is an antifeminist movement.
• He is, per sources, still known for antifeminist content.

How can we succinctly indicate this in the lede without undue weight? Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

One option -

"Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber, political commentator and polemicist better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy. Since Gamergate he has covered topics such as identity politics, the alt-right, and Brexit, and is a critic of political correctness, feminism, and socialism."

- The anti-feminist videos previously mentioned are explicit to the gamergate controversy. Since this is expanded in the body, just noting gamergate is adequate.

Another option -

"Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber, political commentator, anti-feminist, and polemicist better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy. Since Gamergate he has discoursed on identity politics, the alt-right, Brexit, political correctness, and many other topics."

- I've only seen a small fraction of his videos, but they cover far more than just the few that can be crammed into the lede. Is he specifically notable as a critic of socialism for example? No, it's one of dozens of things he expounds his opinions on. For a short article, with a short lede, it's not necessary to go into great detail on the many things he bloviates upon. It could even stop at 'Brexit' for that matter.Anastrophe (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the second. This ties into the overly-long above section. He talks about many things, but he's not a recognized expert in any of them, so we shouldn't be citing random things as examples without support from independent sources. These sources do mention antifeminism, and probably political correctness (I dislike including that one, because I think it means radically different things to different people, but perhaps that point can wait). Independent sources which discuss his position on Brexit are very thin, from what I've seen, and they mostly relate to UKIP, which isn't yet mentioned in the lede at all. If we mention Brexit in the lede, we should use those sources to briefly contextualize why this is significant. The NYT source for the identity politics line doesn't say he "covers" the topic, it says he is critical of the topic. I think this is a significant distinction, but perhaps it's not going to fit here, either.

Here's a question: how is he "political commentator" in a way which is different from "Youtuber" and "polemicist"? Has he been a commentator for any established outlets, or is this just a way to indicate he talks about politics? The term commentator usually implies he is paid to give his opinions. This is technically true, but crowdfunded youtube videos really seems like a different animal from the term's conventional meaning. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A person can be a polemicist and never mention politics. It's a one-size-fits-all sort of term. Youtuber likewise. What he does primarily for a living - since I don't think he's an active game developer any more - is comment on politics, society, whatever, and he aims for the provocative, no matter what the topic. So, he's a 'professional' commentator - there seems to be a whole genre of same on youtube, to fit whatever variety of inflammatory content one is interested in. His is minorly notable in the bigger scheme of things, but the controversy he attracts I think tends to draw a lot more interest in his bio than it would otherwise elicit. I think the article is too long as it stands already, but that's immaterial.

I'm not really opposed to _any_ version of the lede, so long as it doesn't redundantly evoke one particular aspect of the person that isn't inherently the most notable. He's been described as an anti-feminist by some sources, good enough.

"Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber, political commentator, and polemicist, better known by the online alias Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin grew to prominence through the Gamergate controversy, and associated anti-feminist critiques. On his YouTube channel, he comments on a variety of societal and political topics, typically associated with current or recent news or events". Yet another version. I'm not in love with any of them, if someone has a better blend they can come up with, I'm all ears. Anastrophe (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that version may be a bit too open-ended.

As for length, an obnoxiously large percentage of this talk page's archives are me arguing that the article is too long and too reliant on primary sources. His fans do not seem to agree, or don't care. He isn't particularly notable strictly as a youtuber. Reliable sources only mention him in relation to controversies, which he typically seeks-out. The article should reflect sources first and foremost, but this is more difficult than it might seem, so the article is still bloated.

I also agree with what you are saying about "polemicist", but something about it still seems off. Do sources commonly define him as a commentator? Would this meet WP:CATDEF? I dunno. I'm not going to remove the category, but it still seems like we're failing to properly explain why this person has an article in the first place. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think we should work to trim some of the things cited solely to his youtube videos first. In context, I would argue that they're actually too self-serving for WP:ABOUTSELF, since they're effectively being used to try and make his views sound better (especially compared to how they're covered in secondary sources.) We should be able to find secondary sources covering key aspects of his views, if they're WP:DUE, and rely on those. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He is primarily known for his Youtube videos, so I think eliding refs to his videos works strongly against neutrality. He's characterized in a lot of extremely egregious ways (see above) which are not necessarily borne out in the hundreds? thousands? of hours of commentary he's produced on his channel. The egregious characterizations are extrapolated or inferred from what he's actually said; that makes them considerably less reliable than his own words -- and again, BLP, BLP, BLP -- just because some sources characterize him as a monster doesn't mean it goes into the article here. Most secondary sources that cover his commentary tend to be from media unsympathetic to his non-left-wing views. As it stands, the article is largely composed of negative characterizations, with the occasional half-hearted nod to his protestations that he is not the monster others claim him to be. I think the BLP as it stands barely toes the line on acceptability under the guidelines. If he is primarily notable for the things he says, then _removing_ what he says - or relying only on the cherry-picked, out of context snippets that are used by others to characterize him - would leave it as just a string of commentaries that he's a 'garbage human'. That's not how BLP's work. His detractors have the bulk of the content sewed up here. What needs to be trimmed is ...everything. An appropriate article on him should fit on a single page. He became noticed due to gamergate. he runs a youtube channel where he expresses his views. the Sarkesian panel section could be dropped down to three sentences. The Patreon ban could be dropped down to three sentences. Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He is not primarily known for his youtube videos in a vacuum. He is primarily known for whatever it is that reliable sources say about him. That's the standard all articles are held to. goal is to use primary sources to provide context for reliable sources. We don't use those sources to pad-out the article, or do intentionally downplay unflattering comments from reliable sources. That would be whitewashing, and is the opposite of neutrality. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course Anastrophe is right. The insistence to use non-reliable sources to make extraordinary claims regarding Benjamin's own opinions is obviously a BLP issue. We attribute Vice 4 separate times, but people try to delete Benjamin's views in his own words.LedRush (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [Sorry for the edit conflict change...if you want to move this above, feel free.]LedRush (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

As both Anastrophe and I have pointed out, he has produced hundreds of hours of content on a wide variety of random topics. Why do you, LedRush, get to decide which videos to include and which to omit? Grayfell (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of him producing hundreds of hours of content on how he classifies his own beliefs.LedRush (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. He's produced hundred of hours of videos expressing his beliefs. Beliefs on many topics, including, but not limited to, Brexit. As far as I know, most or all of these are topics he has no professional qualifications to speak on, and for which no reliable outlet has sought his input. So how is one topic objectively any different from any other, and why do you get to decide which belong and which don't? Grayfell (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

RSs have mentioned his Brexit stance and mentioned that he was invited to speak on these stances on behalf of UKIP. I mention his own beliefs because you reverted an edit which properly placed his views of himself first, so I thought you were talking about that.LedRush (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has views of themselves... so what?

As for Brexit, your summary of the issue completely failed to explain why sources were mentioning Brexit. Sources do not indicate anyone cares about his opinions on Brexit, not even UKIP. They specifically say he was invited to attract younger voters. The few people who still think UKIP has legitimacy were scandalized by all the racist and sexist things Benjamin's said. Does the article with the headline "‘Racist’ troll who sent rape tweet addresses Ukip members" focus on his Brexit policies, or does it mention them in passing? Use what your own sources are saying. If you add a source and then ignore most of what that source says, but still use it as justification to include more of his irrelevant opinions, you making the article more promotional. Do you understand the problem, here? Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I do see the problem now. You are extremely biased against Benjamin and should probably refrain from editing this article as you seem bent on ignoring WP policy and violating BLP so that your own biases can be reflected in the article. Also, you might want to delete your last post here.LedRush (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If you object to other sources in the article, go ahead and bring them up (or even remove them if you think they're serious WP:BLP issues), but BLP requires that we keep poorly-sourced statements out of the article until consensus is required, not that we leave it in. Citing his YouTube videos to attribute views to him - especially views that are controversial - is clearly a WP:BLP violation when those views are written in a potentially self-serving manner or include claims about other people (eg. "trying to use their own language against them", claims about the effects of Brexit, and so on); we need reputable secondary sources for things like that. Citing YouTube videos for statements like these fails WP:BLPREMOVE. If you feel those aspects need to be covered, your time would be better spent trying to find reputable secondary sources covering them. Note that I did not remove the parts about his Brexit stance that are cited to secondary sources, just the things whose sole cites were Youtube videos; nor did I remove his basic description of his political stance, though a secondary source would still be preferable given the self-serving way it differs from how others have described him. If you can find, in those secondary sources, coverage of the things I removed that would support it, by all means restore it using those cites. But we should not lean on YouTube videos to attribute controversial views to someone, nor is it appropriate for editors to use such primary sources to string together a justification for his views - not even well-meaning editors who feel they are doing the article's subject a favor. BLP does not require that the article make him look as good as possible, or that it reflects everything he's said that an editor found cool or interesting - it requires that we use the highest-quality sources to describe him. While we can rely on self-published things to a limited extent, citing so much of our description of his politics to random assortments of quotes and videos editors decided to toss onto the page itself violates both WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You are using low quality sources to portray Benjamin's views in extraordinary (and negative) terms, and not allowing his own expressions of his views to be used. You are committing flagrant BLP violations. We have secondary sources that say Benjamin use the language on youtube to attack neo-nazi's...and we have primary ones. You delete it not because of BLP concerns, you delete it because it fixes BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin and his fans seem to think the target of these slurs matters, but from what I can see, reliable sources don't think it matters. Is the assumption that it's less offensive because they also use those terms? Why would that be any better? Is it less offensive because they are bad people? "They deserved it" isn't a defense, and it completely misses the point. This seems like a bunch of flimsy schoolyard nonsense. The body already explains these details, but the sources certainly don't emphasize this detail, nor do they indicate this made a difference either way. They didn't ban him despite the target of his slurs, they banned him for using slurs.

If anything, the point could be made (by sources) that these companies were looking for an excuse to ban someone they saw as a liability, but the target of his slurs still wouldn't make this any different. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion: "He is not primarily known for his youtube videos in a vacuum". Of course not. Is the article full of references to his videos where they are not included as rebuttal/clarification/explanation to what the secondary sources say? Not that I can see. The majority of the article uses reliable left-leaning sources that tend to take glee in calling anything to the right of Joan Baez as nazis, racists, homophobes, etc.. Do their conflations exist in a vacuum? Of course not. If Benjamin's actual words are not to be allowed, then 'Alas poor Neutrality; I knew him'. It is not "self promotion" for someone who has been slurred to say 'no, I am not how you characterize me'. In a BLP, if third parties say negative things about the subject of the BLP, it is absolutely not "self-promotion" to provide a direct link to what he may or may not have actually said. Suggesting that it's self-serving is a non-neutral view of self-serving, so to speak.

Similarly, Grayfell: "Citing his YouTube videos to attribute views to him - especially views that are controversial - is clearly a WP:BLP violation when those views are written in a potentially self-serving manner[...]". I think this completely misses the spirit of the rule. Define "self-serving", please. Let's say Betsy Batmiss says in a moment of frustration, "I hate cats, I wish they were all dead!". A 'reliable' source with an axe to grind (like Vox, for pity sake) states That Betsy Batmiss is in favor of exterminating all cats, everywhere, by any means necessary. Is it a BLP violation as self-serving to link to exactly what Ms. Batmiss actually said, to provide context that a reasonable person could judge for themselves what Betsy Batmiss meant? Not at all. That's how the article can remain neutral. When an article is filled with negative characterizations that 'reliable' sources gleefully publish, it is most certainly not neutral to elide the person's actual words, while just leaving the characterizations. This is one of the main reasons that self-published sources do get a qualified pass in BLPs! Benjamin has stated, in depth, that he strongly believes in equal opportunity for women, for minorities, for whomever, and the reasons why he believes that. This however, will never be mentioned by Vox for example, even though they are an acceptable RS.

I believe that the 'self serving manner' discussed in the BLP rules is more intended to prevent BLP's being filling with pompous declarations from the self-important about how important they are, e.g. would BLP give a pass to Kanye West's statement "I am the number one human being in music. That means any person that's living or breathing is number two." as justification for characterizing him as the greatest musician of all time? Of course not. That would be an example of self-serving primary sourcing.

All that said, most of this can be solved by slash-and-burning (for the most part) both the negative characterizations and his responses. What do we end up with? A very short article, which would be appropriate to the actual notability of the subject, which is minor.Anastrophe (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone can, in good faith, argue that Benjamin doesn't come [edit atLedRush (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)]off better if he is using racist language to attack nazi's rather than using racist language to attack minorities.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. So if he doesn't come off any better, and he doesn't come off any worse, and reliable sources don't seem to think it's particularly important, it doesn't belong in the lede.

Anastrophe, I think you are confused about who said what, but regardless, The article tries to summarize the events for which he is notable. This meme that every single left-wing sources likes to call everyone Nazis at the drop of a hat is silly, simplistic, and has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works, much less this article.

Trimming the article doesn't mean trimming reliable sources just because they have some hypothetical ideology. There are reliable, right-wing outlets. For some reason, it seems like they don't like to talk about Benjamin as much (I wonder why... ) If those sources don't exist, this isn't really a problem we can fix. We work with what we have. Due weight doesn't mean false balance.

Independent sources will assess his words and actions by an independent standard, which is not, by definition, the standard Benjamin chooses. Him talking about equal opportunity is not in a vacuum, either. How does equal opportunity square with his views of Islam? How about all the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory stuff? We need sources to do that work for us, otherwise it's WP:OR. How about the multiple "debates" with literal white supremacists? The ones which always seem to provide them with the larger platform, and never provide a competent response?[12][13][14] "Equal opportunity" indeed.

We have to summarize sources, including unflattering ones. BLP is vitally important, but it isn't a license to whitewash. Grayfell (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• You'll have to be specific about what sources and lines in the article you object to and why. I should point out that Vox, the only source anyone has complained about directly, is only cited briefly and only in the reception section, in language that makes it clear that it's characterizing how he's described rather than as a statement of fact. While Vox is a reliable source, it's not cited in the Political Views section (which is the one you seem to object to) - that section is cited to top-quality mainstream sources like the New York Times, NBC News, and Business Insider. --Aquillion (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk about Vice, in that it is not a reliable source on this subject and yet it is used 4 separate times to characterize Benjamin. There couldn't be a clearer BLP violation. And I have edited my mistake above...I don't believe anyone in the world could be stupid enough not to know that it is better to attack nazis than minorities.LedRush (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Greyfell, those were some great jokes in your cites. I'm not sure you could be more biased than you are seeming here.LedRush (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You may disagree with him, but please don't assign bias or motive. You are free of course to believe there is bias or motive, but on talk pages, it's uncivil to express those beliefs. Yes, personal beliefs leak out here - Aquillon's have, Grayfell's have, mine have, and yours. But you need to make an effort to discourse civilly, no matter what you believe the other person believes. Otherwise, as happens here, and practically everywhere on the internet, it just becomes camps of competing ideologies, digging their heels in harder and harder. That works against the 'prime directive' of wikipedia: making a high quality, unbiased, encyclopedia. When factions fight over controversial figures, you wind up with an article that only demonstrated the polarization of the editors. The goal is to present the relevant notable information about the subject, and try to leave out our own biases. Which is primarily why I argue that the article needs to be slash-and-burn edited. In the overall scheme of influence and notability, Benjamin is a very well spoken provocateur, which attracts interest, because he is able to express what some people feel about identity politics and its associated ideologies. That makes him notable to a small - in relative terms - audience. A lot of people felt outraged at Patreon's actions WRT the incident that got him banned - the founder of Patreon had explicitly stated in a long-ranging interview that Patreon does not review material that is not posted on Patreon's platform in determining violations, and the Terms of Service were NOT clear on that specific. Then they did exactly that to justify banning Benjamin. He's a clever idiot for calling White Supremacists <the two epithets he used>, as it fulfilled the provocation part of what he does, but he "crossed a line" that the identity-politics-driven Patreon 'trust' or whatever division couldn't let go of.

...aaaaaand now I'm digressing far afield of what I started out with. Please avoid impugning motive or assuming malice with other editors. We differ in personal opinions, thats reasonably inferred, but we already have heels digging in, and that sort of thing does nothing to advance the quality of the encyclopedia. <stowing soapbox now as I have a raging headache - no wonder!). Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Although I think Vice passes WP:RS, I've edited the page to reduce reliance on it; it's now only cited a few times, all for just brief mentions of its opinion (with in-line citations unambiguously making it clear it's just Vice's opinions), alongside other source with comparable opinions. I don't think that a sentence or two from them is particularly WP:UNDUE - they're a reasonably high-profile magazine. --Aquillion (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

First, Grayfell, "Anastrophe, I think you are confused about who said what, but regardless" - yup, I got them exactly backwards attributing to you what Aquillon said, and vice versa. Sorry about that.

I want to respond to your statement though: "How about the multiple "debates" with literal white supremacists? The ones which always seem to provide them with the larger platform, and never provide a competent response?[4][5][6] "Equal opportunity" indeed." So, I skimmed through the links, which essentially say that if Benjamin participates in a debate with White Supremacists, he is therefore giving them a platform and assisting them, so he's culpable as a co-conspirator, so to speak.

That doesn't jibe with what I've heard from other videos he's done, so I looked up the specific video they are referring to - an unbelievable four and a half hour-plus slog between Benjamin, Richard Spencer, some French white nationalist, some other youtuber who made the bulk of the arguments against Spencer's bizarre, Pie-in-the-sky notions of a white ethnostate, some guy who appeared to be the 'moderator' who did nothing of the sort, and another douchebag who came in later.

I did not watch the whole goddamned four hours, I can only take so much vitriol. I think I watched 30? 45? minutes of it starting maybe 15 minutes in (lots of kruft at the beginning in sorting out the livestream). It's illuminating. Benjamin did do poorly in the debate, because his utter loathing for Spencer's bigoted ideology largely overwhelmed him. Nevertheless, he was clear and consistent in his utter rejection of any idea of racial superiority of whites. He passionately disagreed with Spencer, and was frequently quite angry in his rebuttals of the stupidity of Spencer's ideas.

However, I can easily quote this small portion: Spencer asks Benjamin (regarding Spencer's claim that the racial immigration laws from the 1920's directly resulted in "white people" putting a man on the moon) - "Why didn't Ghana reach the stars? Why didn't Liberia reach the stars?" Benjamin replies "I guess it was because they were black, Richard." Taken in a vacuum? There you have it! Benjamin's a racist, white supremacist, he said that! And that's how people - when provided only with the characterizations reliable sources employ, will take it. Problem: he was mocking Spencer with a response dripping with sarcasm. If editors would like to verify that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiUH-tWHbr8 at 1:02:30 (it's only a few seconds long). Reliable sources can easily take a person's words in a vacuum and use them to characterize someone as exactly the opposite of how they are. If this weren't a BLP, the reliable sources would explicitly trump Benjamin's own words. As a BLP, the subjects own words can be employed to 'even the playing field'. Benjamin's as far away from being a white supremacist as you and I are, and he did nothing to promote, enhance, advance or support the white supremacist's horseshit. I happen to think it's important to debate these people. Yes, there's lots of stupid, easily influenced people on the 'net. There's also lots of smart people who can see through the weak ideas white supremacists cling to. Hiding white supremacy - pushing it further underground - only makes it fester. Sunlight's the best disinfectant, etc etc.

But - once more, as I tire of this (as I'm sure you guys do as well), stuffing the article with Benjamin's responses to inflated claims intended to portray him in a negative light is not the path to take. The 'incident' at the Sarkesian discussion deserves two sentences. He showed up, Sarkesian called him a garbage human. Benjamin was accused of being insensitive by showing up. Done. Patreon banned him after he used racial and homophobic epithets to describe alt-right white nationalists, on someone else's youtube channel. Patreon's founder had previously said they are only concerned about such activity _on the Patreon platform_, and their Terms and Conditions were not explicit on such a distinction. Others left Patreon in solidarity. Done. Damn this headache, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is a common, reasonable position to take... but Benjamin is, at best, a flashlight on a smartphone. He's not disinfecting anything, he's just sort of... providing a warm spot for gross things to multiply. This is what I think those sources were indicating. The people who see through the white supremacists are probably not the people we have to worry about, right?

"Bleach, in an aerobic environment, is a great disinfectant for most situation" doesn't have the same ring to it. That's obvious. As Benjamin doesn't seem to realize, the things which have the best 'ring' to them aren't always accurate. Benjamin isn't as pithy as these chuckleheads he debates, and being angry at people, even for legitimate reasons, isn't good enough. For at least some people in his audience, being pithy works better. Benjamin's style is a celebration of snark, (pseudo)skepticism, and "political incorrectness". His audience obviously likes his style, but he's debating people who are better at those tactics than he is. If he didn't know this at first, he damn well should've learned it by now.

This is directly similar to why he was banned. He was banned for using offensive slurs because, like a kindergarten teacher, Patreon didn't care "who started it", and neither, apparently, does his audience. If he's not aware of, and interested in, how his audience interprets his "debates", he's not a good communicator.

I don't personally think Benjamin is a Spencer-level white supremacist, but that's not the only option. Instead of treating white supremacy as pass/fail, almost all of the "SJW" social scientists Benjamin so despises treat it as a continuum. It is possible two conflicting ideologies to both be racist, and opposing a specific racist ideology doesn't always oppose the underlying racism. Since, like it or not, Wikipedia tries to use academic definitions, we should consider this as well. We do not have to pretend that the only options are "literal neo-Nazi" or "classically liberal free speech crusader". This is false balance. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a sudden urge to go wash my phone. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Aaaaaah! Remember, WP:NOTFORUM - this discussion is nearly at the point where it ought to be hatted. What we think about him doesn't matter. The purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't for us to do research or evaluate claims or anything like that - the purpose is to provide a readable summary of what reliable sources say about him. The article emphasizes the things it does (even if it casts him in an unflattering light) because most of what reliable sources have said about him is unflattering. That's all. We can cite his self-description a little bit, in limited ways, to illustrate absolutely central points, but citing massive paragraphs to him alone in order to "balance out" reliable secondary sources is WP:FALSEBALANCE - as long as he's portrayed unflatteringly in the media, that will ultimately be reflected in his article here. If people think the coverage is wrong or biased or unfair or whatever, they should take it up with the sources that have covered him (or try to find better coverage, if they think it exists and passes WP:RS.) But arguing over him here ourselves is a waste of time; this isn't the place for that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing The University Times is probably better than relying entirely on Benjamin's own youtube videos, but it's ultimately just a student newspaper - giving it equal weight to Business Insider, the New York Times, and NBC News is WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

DiGRA

Regarding this source:

• Straumsheim, Carl (11 November 2014). "#Gamergate supporters attack Digital Games Research Association". InsideHigherEd.

Benjamin's vague allegations are repeatedly refuted. Per WP:FRINGE, and as an encyclopedia, we have an obligation not to validate these non-expert, unsupported allegations. What, precisely, is the BLP concern here? Does it not also apply to the journalists and academics named by Sargon when he says that "DiGRA is the poisoned spring from whence all of this evil flows"? However we present this, we cannot imply that Benjamin is qualified to make the allegations, nor can we allow them to be left unchallenged. This reliable source explicitly challenges them, and we have to provide that context. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that although it was said in the edit description that the article didn't call what Benjamin said a "conspiracy theory" it in fact does. This is a direct quote:

At DiGRA’s annual conference this August, Shaw and Consalvo participated in a roundtable session on “identity and diversity in game culture.” Notes from the roundtable were discovered online, showing how participants discussed the impact of feminist game studies on the video game industry, and whether academics could influence developers. Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development.

Sargon of Akkad, a YouTube user who regularly discusses “gaming, anti-feminism, history and fiction” on his channel, has fueled that conspiracy theory. The connections between DiGRA, Shaw, Golding and other journalists, Sargon argues, suggest “DiGRA is the poisoned spring from whence all of this evil flows” -- meaning Gamergate and the argument that gamer culture is dying.

Alduin2000 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not understanding the edit summary saying that this wasn't cited. The citations seem extremely strong and very straightforward. From the source: Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development. Sargon of Akkad, a YouTube user who regularly discusses “gaming, anti-feminism, history and fiction” on his channel, has fueled that conspiracy theory. That unambiguously characterizes his beliefs on the topic as a conspiracy theory. (I'd also add, for what it's worth, that that section in general and that part in particular have had extensive discussions in the past to agree on the current wording - obviously consensus can change, but I'm not seeing that here yet, and obviously it'd need more than just a bare objection from one editor.)

EDIT: Although, reviewing that section, I found several ways to improve it and to reword it to follow the sources more closely. The Inside Higher Ed section is better separated into its own sentence given its specificity relative to the first sentence of the section; it also mentions multiple videos, not just one. We should lead with the fact that he was fueling a conspiracy theory, both because they do so and because it's important to present that disclaimer. And I think the second part of the quote - how he thinks it became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers - captures the 'conspiracy theory' that that source focuses on more concisely. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the quotation because it wasn't in the citation. I removed the attribution of certain views as being a conspiracy theory because that is not supported by citation. It said that Benjamin has fueled a conspiracy theory regarding academics influencing game developers. Aquillion has fixed the underlying issues.LedRush (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead changes

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

Some other sources going into more detail about the dispute:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "quote" from The Daily Dot article

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

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

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

Here's what the Daily dot actually wrote:

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

There are several problems here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Spencer's opinion on Benjamin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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