Talk:Carl Benjamin: Difference between revisions
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:::::We shouldn't knowingly reproduce obviously false information. I thought that was obvious. But then again, that assumes neutrality.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
:::::We shouldn't knowingly reproduce obviously false information. I thought that was obvious. But then again, that assumes neutrality.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Citing an article from a subsidiary of the [[WP:DAILYMAIL|Daily Mail]], to prove a point about someone not even mentioned in the article, is many different flavors of bad-idea. If she wasn't laughing about male suicide, ''what was Benjamin talking about''? Should we just say that Benjamin was completely wrong? Should we explain that he was using factually incorrect information to justify being a "giant dick"? No, we should summarize what reliable sources say ''about Benjamin''. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::::Citing an article from a subsidiary of the [[WP:DAILYMAIL|Daily Mail]], to prove a point about someone not even mentioned in the article, is many different flavors of bad-idea. If she wasn't laughing about male suicide, ''what was Benjamin talking about''? Should we just say that Benjamin was completely wrong? Should we explain that he was using factually incorrect information to justify being a "giant dick"? No, we should summarize what reliable sources say ''about Benjamin''. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::[Edit Conflict]The Guardian source that says that Philips didn't laugh at male suicide is referring to the same exact incident that the Birmingham source is referring to. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-mp-jess-phillips-insists-10371356 |
|||
Everyone on this page knows what laughter Benjamin was referring to, yet some want to deliberately pretend it is unclear when it is crystal clear.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 03:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:15, 21 April 2019
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carl Benjamin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Position on UKIP SW Eng list 2019
The article says "In the 2019 European Parliament elections, Benjamin was second on UKIP's list for the South West England constituency," and then cites two sources. However neither of these say he is second on the list - one of them says he "is one of two candidates the Eurosceptic party named on Thursday to stand in the southwest region." Is there any source for his actual position on the list? 90.255.24.88 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Full quote regarding Jess Phillips at UKIP Conference 04/19/2019
The full section of the quote is: "If a woman is being a giant bitch and laughing about male suicide I’m going to be a giant dick back to her. Any questions?”[1]
Words in the heart of the quote "and laughing about male suicide" are replaced it with "..." The instance of laughing at male suicide being referred to in the quote [2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- The PoliticsHome source says
It is unclear what comments about male suicide he was referring to.
The Telegraph source is from 2015, several years prior to Benjamin's attempt to explain his comments. This source doesn't mention Benjamin at all, and doesn't actually say that Phillips "laughed" at suicide. It says she laughedat the suggestion that men’s issues should be discussed in Parliament on International Men’s Day...
and then the opinion article mentions suicide with a link to an unrelated article from even earlier. Yet again, Benjamin seems to using a poorly-articulated detail stripped of context as a deflection for his own actions. Regardless, using the Telegraph source for this would be confusing to readers and would be WP:SYNTH. It is completely inappropriate for us to be subtly legitimizing Benjamin's claim that she was "laughing about male suicide" unless a reliable source directly supports this claim. We must also lean on sources to explain why this matters here, because it's not particularly obvious. - Encyclopedias shouldn't pass along confusing, context-free information just because someone said it in a press conference. If sources explain this context, let's see them, because the PoliticsHome one specifically says it's unclear. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
References
- Where does the Telegraph demonstrate this, and which source explains the connection to Benjamin? Any statements about Phillips must also abide by BLP, and if reliable sources do not say this, neither can we. Benjamin is not a reliable source for statements of fact, nor is he trusted to 'connect the two' in a neutral way. It is not clear exactly what he's even talking about, and this needs to be clarified by reliable sources anyway. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Telegraph's "thinking man" section is opinion, so we can't cite it for facts; even then, he doesn't say that she mocked male suicide (read carefully - the author notes that she laughed at Men's Day, then brings up suicide as an unrelated point.) More importantly, The Guardian unambiguously states that she did not, so we have to go with that; and, based on that, we have to be extremely careful not to repeat Benjamin's lies about her in a way that could constitute a WP:BLP violation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is the absolute height for being disingenuous. Everyone who know about this topic knows what Benjamin was talking about. It is caught on video. And you're willing to repeat an absolute lie, what you know is a lie, simply because a newspaper was stupid enough to print the lie. This is really disgusting.LedRush (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- She even admits to laughing and says "you'll have to excuse me for laughing".LedRush (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not WP:OR. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- We shouldn't knowingly reproduce obviously false information. I thought that was obvious. But then again, that assumes neutrality.LedRush (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Citing an article from a subsidiary of the Daily Mail, to prove a point about someone not even mentioned in the article, is many different flavors of bad-idea. If she wasn't laughing about male suicide, what was Benjamin talking about? Should we just say that Benjamin was completely wrong? Should we explain that he was using factually incorrect information to justify being a "giant dick"? No, we should summarize what reliable sources say about Benjamin. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- [Edit Conflict]The Guardian source that says that Philips didn't laugh at male suicide is referring to the same exact incident that the Birmingham source is referring to. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-mp-jess-phillips-insists-10371356
- We shouldn't knowingly reproduce obviously false information. I thought that was obvious. But then again, that assumes neutrality.LedRush (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not WP:OR. I thought that was obvious. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Everyone on this page knows what laughter Benjamin was referring to, yet some want to deliberately pretend it is unclear when it is crystal clear.LedRush (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class YouTube articles
- Low-importance YouTube articles
- WikiProject YouTube articles
- C-Class Atheism articles
- Unknown-importance Atheism articles
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- Unknown-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Articles with connected contributors