Talk:Carl Benjamin

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?”

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

— 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 laughed at 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

This is one of the worst apologetics I've ever seen. The quote is the quote and the telegraph clearly demonstrates that she does laugh at male suicide. Benjamin's own works connect the two. There is literally no cogent reason not to include it.LedRush (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

I strongly disagree. The sources universally indicate that his accusation was groundless and that it was unclear what he was talking about. It is possible that he misremembered or misread that editorial, or one much like it, in the same way you did abve, and that his (utterly baseless) comment about male suicide was therefore an innocent mistake on his part; but it is equally possible that it was a deliberate lie intended to smear his victim by making an accusation that he knew to be false. We cannot make that conclusion ourselves and can only go with what the sources say, which is that he made an accusation against her that was flatly untrue; we cannot speculate, as you seem to be, about why it was untrue, or try to fudge it into "well, what he really meant was..." The other source you added, after all, doesn't mention him at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not an editorial but his memory of the primary source. The most charitable interpretation of which is that she was laughing at the idea men being given time to ask questions in their interest on International Men's day. One of the primary issues related to men is the elevated levels of suicide and one of the first things Phillips mentioned, but she was already in her words,"laughing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, that's simply not what the majority of sources say. She falls under WP:BLP; we would need much better sources than these to imply anything of that nature, especially when we have multiple high-quality sources unambiguously stating that Benjamin's accusations against her were groundless. --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I agree that given the sources are unanimous in stating that Benjamin's accusations were not true that Philips was laughing at male suicide. However, you reverted my addition of information regarding what he was referring to (even if he was twisting the incident). This is not a BLP issue because it can still be stated that she was not laughing at male suicide and in fact finds it to be a serious issue. Furthermore, the event is well reported on by secondary sources. Therefore, I don't see any issue with adding this information. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Um why not go to the source, its on youtube, here is the video of Jess Philips laughing at Philip Davies (if you cant be bothered to look at the 10 minute clip its within the first minute and she starts laughing at him at 1:28) At 4:25 she goes on to say she doesnt believe that the men on the list (to talk about men's issues such as suicide, etc.) "have that much to fight for" as in belittling the issue. Jess Philips: "I absolutely care about men's issues and when I have parity and when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate (parity as in equal representatives of women in goverment) and that will take an awfully long time." But tell me how this was unclear as Sargon has repeatedly referred to Jess laughing at Philips. This wasnt even just a one off. BBC followed up with an interview of both and Jess says she is for men's issues then proceeds to interrupt Philip Davies as he raises issues then attempts to raise other issues irrelevant to the topic at hand. She even says dismissively "we thank you for your sorority" when Philip is saying the importance of women's day. Full Clip: (time stamps referred from here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q. Daily Mail report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI (contains all important sections) BBC post interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAk7oPxWXI Wikipedia is bias Comrades what do we do when previous information counters current dogma? Do any of fine upstanding citizens have a memory hole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.241.105 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not trying to interpret the event itself, and we are especially not interested in trying to divine Philips' motives for her actions. When forming an interpretation, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, (Benjamin is not reliable for Philips' actions or motives) and Wikipedia also strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources. A clip of her actions is a primary source. Interpreting a source and coming to a conclusion which is not specifically supported by that source is original research, which is not acceptable. If you have sources about this event which specifically discuss Benjamin's interpretaion, let's see them, but they still have to be reliable. The Daily Mail, for example, is explicitly not a reliable source on Wikipedia. If I were allowed to cite unreliable sources, I might, for example, mention that Benjamin laughed out loud about a fellow youtuber's murder. If we expect context and nuance for Benjamin's laughter ("gallows humour" or whatever), we would have to extend the same courtesy to Philips, right? Isn't that, ironically, what Benjamin was asking for? I bring this up to demonstrate a point, but I cannot cite this in the article, and for good reason. The standards for which Benjamin is held are the same as those which Philips are held. In both cases, we need reliable sources to explain this -not random Wikipedia editors like me or IP addresses like you. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Patreon Ban Issues

There are 2 issues in the commentary I see.

One his comment that "White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another" is clearly satire and sarcastic. This is clear in the context, in relation to his beliefs he has stated dozens of times, in the tone of voice used and universally in his comments after.

Second is of the general tenor of his ban and of the other creators that left. Patreon clearly bent their own rules stated in their community guidelines and by the statements of the CEO Jack Conte. Their terms of service applied to Patreon the platform, not the creator's behavior elsewhere. Carl's behavior occurred off Patreon. The other creators that left did so because they felt that this double standard and arbitrary enforcement was intolerable and a dangerous precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific change you want to make to the article? And is that change supported by reliable sources? Nblund ^talk 18:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is this man using a traditional Assyrian/Mesopotamian name?

Sargon is only used by ethnic Assyrians, indigenous Christian Aramaic Semites from modern Iraq, northeast Syria, southeast Turkey and northwest Iran, descended from the Ancient Mesopotamians (Assyrians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Sumerians). Is this man Assyrian? If not, an odd name to use for an English right wing nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he has ever explained the usage. It might simply stem from an admiration of the legendary king. Also, not sure what him being a "right wing nationalist" makes it particularly odd. User:WoodElf 17:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

He has explained it dozens of times. It was his gamer tag cause he was a fan of the figure. He used the tag to create his YouTube account and went by it until his name was doxxed.