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) WP:BE, etc.

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)

Except Sargon was the only one not laughing, and actually said they shouldn't make those jokes. But who cares about being right. So if no "reliable" source left wing enough and not as overtly bias like we hunted the mammoth looks at the clip we can all see, we all know whats happening, we have to go with their lie of omission and go "we don't know what he is referring to, honest, its groundless, I swear, trust me. Nothing to see here, Jess is an angel who would never laugh at men's issues" . Phillips is at the very least in her own words laughing at a man asking for time to discuss men's issues in International Men's Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I can clearly hear Benjamin laughing and joking in the linked video, and the source specifically supports this as well. My personal interpretation of a primary source isn't useful, and neither is yours. Get it? You're ability to watch a clip of Philips and decide her intentions isn't any more trustworthy than my ability to watch a clip of Benjamin and decide his.

Laughing at a bunch of semi-jokes then maybe halfheartedly back-peddling later... So what? Yet again, what reliable sources care about this?

Benjamin's a real kidder, apparently, since a reliable source points out that he was also laughing at the Toronto van attack, among other things.

So why, exactly, would Philip's own words be relevant to this article? Anyone can ignore context and using primary sources to imply anything. Find sources for it. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

She did laugh, why pretend she did not?, i don't understand. Medicorene4 —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not pretending she didn't laugh. We know she laughed, but that's not all that Benjamin said, is it? He said she laughed about male suicide. No reliable source says she laughed about male suicide. Laughing at male suicide is a serious accusation. A video clip of her laughing can only be used to support that she laughed, and it still needs to be reliable, and weighed in context. We cannot imply that someone did something serious like this without a source verifying it. Not just editors, but at least one reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just went through the article and corrected a number of grammatical mistakes. I also rephrased a couple of things including the lead and the rape statements. Personally, I think we should try to put everything in proper context and not over or under compose it. I think the following gives everyone their proper dues, and it is properly cited:

"At a UKIP press conference announcing his candidacy, Benjamin once again refused to retract his comments about Philips, and he said: "If a woman is being a giant bitch and laughing about male suicide I’m going to be a giant dick back to her."[27] Although Phillips does repeatedly laugh during an exchange on men's issues, media sources note that it is unclear at exactly what she is laughing at during the hearing.[28] Phillips has stated that she believes male suicide is an important issue.[27][29] The Chairman of the Swindon branch of the UKIP called for Benjamin to be deselected, which was rejected by Batten.[30]"

I really think anymore or less information on this episode will do no more good. I believe what's outlined keeps everything in perspective. Sincerely, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: Your opinion is noted, but this is about consensus. There are obvious BLP issues here, and multiple experienced editors have expressed concern with this specific issue. I would request that you revert and gain consensus while discussion is ongoing.

"Although" is editorializing in this context. Nobody has disputed that she has laughed at during this minor event, but that's not the significant point here at all. The issue is that Benjamin is either misrepresenting this exchange, or is confused about what actually happened. We have reliable sources which specifically and unambiguously challenge Benjamin's account, and as a BLP issue for Philips, Benjamin's perspective should not be presented as false balance just because he felt the need to mention it in a press release.

For clarity:

• Benjamin is not qualified to summarize this event. Any summary of what happened needs to come from a reliable source without editorializing or SYNTH.
• Benjamin is the only person who is presenting this event as exculpatory. No reliable source supports this. To rephrase: no reliable source is saying that Benjamin's behavior would even hypothetically be more acceptable if Philips had laughed at male suicide. This wouldn't be an excuse, according to any source I have seen, even if it were true. It isn't true, also...
• Most importantly, No reliable source says that she "laughed at male suicide". We cannot, as a BLP issue, subtly imply that Benjamin might be correct in this, when reliable sources explicitly say that he is not.

Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Gonna be Captain Obvious here, but I fear that some people still don't get it. My opinion is that Jess Phillips acted inappropriately during that session where male suicide was brought up, and that she was laughing at the idea that men's issues do not get enough attention. However, I can't shoehorn my opinion into the article, because rightly, no one gives a shit about my opinion if it's not supported by a reliable source. It's kinda how this project works. Otherwise it falls apart pretty quickly. We show the facts as stated by reliable sources. That's it (or should be). RandomGnome (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The writing of this section is poor at best. It is very clear what Carl was referring to, absolutely everyone knows what he was referring to, and he has clarified that a number of times, therefore the text " It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to;" is simply wrong. What's contested is whether or not his claim is accurate. As there is uncertainty about the accuracy of his account the text should read "It is unclear if his comments are accurate" or "His account is highly contested" or even better just skip straight to "Phillips had not mocked male suicide and believes it to be a serious issue" perhaps better with a clarifying "Jess Philips had laughed at a suggestion of discussing men's rights at a committee but had not mocked male suicide and has publicly stated that it is a serious issue" (I'm not sure how any of wikipedias editors can confidently know what Jess Philips truly believes). The current text reads as a slightly dishonest and possibly politically motivated attempt to smear him as being a rambling idiot who makes illogical comments that everyone is unclear about when the reality is it's very clear what his comments referred to but his view is either wrong or highly debatable/contested. Sadly such poor/biased writing discredits wikipedia much more effectively than discrediting Carl or anyone else and ideally that sentence should just be removed. NickPriceNZ (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The omission of her laughing is editorializing. While it might be unclear what her reasons were as she will lie, as her laughing like a hyena when its suggested men be given time to discuss men's issues. The point is she did laugh. Something like "While it is unclear and disputed what prompted her laughter, she later admits she was laughing during a discussion regarding men's issues" or something would be a more accurate. Cause right now everyone is hiding behind spin when the primary source is clear and the subject admits the action.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling himself Sargon of Akkad is grandiose, but not as obviously so as if he had gone for Napoleon XIV. NRPanikker (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As if no one else ever had a grandiose gamer tag (or Wikipedia user name). --SVTCobra (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to label him anti-feminist in this way

The opening sentence "Sargon of Akkad, is a British YouTuber, political commentator, anti-feminist..." creates the false impression that anti-feminism is what Carl Benjamin first and foremost is all about. That's false. He is a classical liberal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4641:AE95:0:A9A0:9549:D741:C951 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Antifeminism is, per many sources, a significant part of why he is notable. The article explains that he self-identifies as classical liberal. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin self-describes as an anti-feminist. A significant proportion of his output on YouTube (particularly when he was gaining in popularity) has been counterpointing contemporary feminists like Anita Sarkeesian. More recently he has again disavowed feminism in recorded interviews when discussing the controversial Jess Phillips tweet. I can't see how it's a contentious point that sources describe him as a committed anti-feminist. RandomGnome (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

For some reason, adding this seems to create a bit of a fuss, so I figured I'd take this to the talk page. Benjamin first came to prominence as a proponent of Gamergate, itself based in conspiracy theory, and the article itself notes that he peddled a conspiracy theory about Digra. It should also be noted he peddles the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Docktuh (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Carl Benjamin is not the only figure to talk about "Cultural Marxism"; this talking point is common on the right and the circles that he associates with. This is not necessarily due to any perceived antisemitism, it appears these figures genuinely believe it. This latter point is irrelevant, but there are a number of figures that have discussed or are proponents of topics considered by Wikipedia to be conspiracy theories, such as Lauren Southern, Fjordman, Martin Sellner (the Great Replacement), and Stefan Molyneux that are not categorized as conspiracy theorists.

I am not an expert in Gamergate by any means. I am aware that this is an early flash point of what Benjamin's circles describe as "the culture war", and as a result I cannot say to what extent Gamergate is based in conspiracy theory due to the very conflicting list of sources one can find that will assert one way or the other. As a result, I am not going to take your word for it based on Gamergate but if somebody else also disagrees with him on this statement I will let them challenge it instead. One question I would like to ask: if Carl Benjamin is labelled as a proponent of GamerGate, then why isn't Phil Mason, another Gamergate figure, also labelled a conspiracy theorist? I am not going to argue that Phil Mason discredits your argument as a whole, I would need a much larger number of figures like Dr. Mason with Wikipedia pages to assert that, and I am not aware of how many pr-Gamergate figures have Wikipedia pages. I am curious as to if there is a line between being a proponent of Gamergate and being a proponent of Gamergate and thus a conspiracy theorist. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate centered on an actual conspiracy, so ... --SVTCobra (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate was an actual conspiracy. FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah, Gamergaters were very open about what they wanted. You should look into the conspiracy of the journalists if you claim to be impartial. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspired to astroturf, brigade and harass. It's not about the goals, it's the means chosen. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. What people now seem to call 'prominent Gamergaters' are people like Benjamin. They are very different than the 4chan or 8chan (or wherever they came from) trolls that 'took up the cause' in their own toxic way. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've read Gamergate controversy and Carl Benjamin. The view held by reliable sources appears to differ from yours. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a problem with "reliable sources" as they don't understand the subject. Yes, reading the Gamergate article and mainstream media, you would naturally conclude it was about "death threats" and harassment of women. Some people even believe this was its purpose. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is a literal conspiracy theory. That it is a common talking point of the right makes no difference. Docktuh (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd call it an umbrella term for observable cultural trends they find disagreeable. If it is a conspiracy theory, you should be able to lay it out in a few sentences. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Marxists snuck into schools and governments to undermine Western culture by any means necessary. One sentence will do; I could have gone shorter, but I wanted to capture the "nuances" of the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's more an observance they exist in colleges. Quite openly, too. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. "Marxists teach Marxism" isn't controversial, nor is it a theory, not does it have anything to do with issues like gender, sexuality, and race that provoke people to talk about "Cultural Marxism" - which, in the sense the CT use it in, is neither cultural nor Marxism. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If they only taught the history of Marxism. A Penn State study found: "The highest proportion of Marxist academics can be found in the social sciences, and there they represent less than 18 percent of all professors (among the social science fields for which we can issue discipline-specific estimates, sociology contains the most Marxists, at 25.5 percent)." --SVTCobra (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Laughing at men's suicide?

The article has this "Although Phillips does repeatedly laugh during an exchange on men's issues, media sources note that it is unclear at exactly what she is laughing at during the hearing.[28]"

The link is to a Daily Telegraph article. I have read it several times but I can't see where is notes that it is unclear what she is laughing at.Varnebank (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Per above, the source doesn't mention Benjamin at all, and only obliquely implies why she was laughing. Importantly, it is an opinion article. It should not be used for controversial claims about a living person without attribution, but that is not appropriate here, either. Who is Glen Poole? What is "online magazine insideMAN"? What does any of this have to do with Benjamin's claims? We need reliable sources to explain all of this. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

New video evidence futher shows how Jess Phillips did laugh at male's issues, repeteadly showing how she does laugh over them. Please change the inaccurate part on his article that states "It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to; Phillips had not mocked male suicide and believes it to be a serious issue", because as this video proofs, this is false, it is truth she laugued at this and it is clear what Mr. Benjamin was talking about Medicorene4

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJk2bqTg3YI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicorene4 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We all know what Benjamin was claiming, but reliable sources don't agree with him. We cannot pass-along these inflammitory, speculative claims without a very good reason, and without context, both of which need reliable sources. WP:SPS are not reliable sources. How many times does this have to be explained? These are not even close to reliable sources. If and when reliable sources discuss this, the article can be updated accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir, i believe video evidence is the strongest kind of evidence there is. I only ask that, as this video shows she did laugh, the part that says "it is unclear what Mr Bejnamin's comments reffered to" be erased. Plan and simple. Please note that this video was released today and is not the one cited previously.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJk2bqTg3YI

Medicorene4 —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained several times, interpreting evidence must be left to reliable sources, not editors. Random, sympathetic youtubers are not reliable sources, either. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The article inaccurately states that "It was unclear what Benjamin's comments referred to;" in an authoritative voice. Benjamin has made it very clear to what he was referring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfsk_UfalNY . Buzzardswatchmework made fair, proportionate changes to the language to cure this BLP violation and it was inexplicably reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Benjamin&type=revision&diff=894312071&oldid=894300011 I've added a new citation that eliminates any doubt that could have existed as to what he was referring, but Drmies has decided to revert again despite the new source and try and get me blocked. Benjamin seems like a good source to talk about what Benjamin thinks, yet for some reason it is being stripped of the article and replaced with an obviously false statement made in WP's voice.LedRush (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

Please change "alt-right politics" in the introduction to "conservative politics" as I think this a more accurate representation of the broad range of topics he covers.

Also regarding the comment about his "targeted harassment campaign against her" in the YouTube Career section, please change this to "alleged harassment". Considering that this event was a controversy in both the left-wing and right-wing sphere of the YouTube community, I don't think the article should reflect a political bias towards one side of the argument or another, especially since there is a strong support for Carl Benjamin claiming he was falsely accussed of harassment. Later on in this very wikipedia article it is also disputed that it may not be harassment.

And lastly please remove the part that says "Although Phillips does repeatedly laugh during an exchange on men's issues, media sources note that it is unclear at exactly what she is laughing at during the hearing." That is so outstandingly false that I'm astounded that someone on wikipedia decided it was even okay to cite. "I'm not entirely sure why it's so humorous" - Philip Davies in response to Jess Philips laughing. "You have to excuse me for laughing but the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is quite frankly a laughable thing" - Jess Philips admitting to laughing at the idea of men's issues and Philip Davies' concerns over men's issues and wanting a debate over men's issues. "I wasn't making the point that men don't have an opporunity to ask, it's about men's issues" - Philip Davies. You can find the full exchange here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q as well as Jess Philips interrupting over other speakers to interject her own potentially sexist opinions towards men. I suggest to watch it in full.

That is all, I hope you take these changes into consideration, thank you and I hope you have a good day today. 5.151.197.82 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see the above discussions, and find a reliable WP:SECONDARY source directly connecting this to what Benjamin said. Interpreting a primary source to support a prior conclusion is not appropriate in this situation, and neither is editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent sources

Benjamin's campaign has prompted an increase in scrutiny for his past behavior, as documented in these sources:

• Walker, Peter (22 April 2019). "Ukip MEP candidate blamed feminists for rise in misogyny". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
• Ankel, Sophie (23 April 2019). "UKIP candidate blames actions of male mass murderers on feminism". indy100. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

• Birnbaum, Emily (26 April 2019). "Twitter suspends EU election campaign accounts for two candidates who were previously banned". TheHill. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

• "Ukip candidate Carl Benjamin accused Jewish people of 'identity politics' over the Holocaust". The Jewish Chronicle. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

• Brewis, Harriet (26 April 2019). "UKIP MEP candidate: 'Personally I find racist jokes funny'". Evening Standard. Retrieved 28 April 2019.

There are plenty of others covering the same issues, and a few others, but it's a start. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, the newest one is a daily mail smear article accusing him of saying that it's OK to sexually abuse boys. The accusations are entirely out of context (similar to saying that *I* said it was ok, because of the previous sentence). The DM are definitely going to get sued over it, but meanwhile, all the other outlets are parroting them. this document outlines the facts, but is a primary source. I don't think I've seen this level of journalistic underhandedness in a long time; so glad I !voted for banning the DM as a source. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Eww. That DM article is trash, and should not be cited under any circumstances, obviously. All the other outlets? I'm not seeing anything pop up, yet. Do you mean other tabloids?

If the Daily Mail is sued, it would hardly be the first time, would it? Regardless, the truth won't be outlined by a duel of factoids between an anonymous Google document and a Daily Mail smear. We still need to go source-by-source, claim-by-claim.

I linked the above sources because I thought the outlets were at least plausibly reliable enough to consider or discuss. The individual articles will have to be judged on their own merits as WP:RS, same as always. The difficulty is striking a balance between due weight and offensive gossip. As I've said dozens of times, not everything about Benjamin which can be sourced belongs in this article. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Benjamin (mine is probably obvious) this is about making a fair, clear article. The DM source is a clear demonstration of why this matters. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, agree that the balance is in giving due weight. I wasn't meaning to imply that the sources that you cited were in any way similar to the DM article, just mentioning something else that came up under the umbrella of "recent sources". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I hear ya. I just wanted to make it clear for future reference. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

RE: Born in Swindon

Sargon was not born in or grew up in Swindon. He has stated this several times in multiple videos. Remove this from the 'born in' section

 Done Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

We should add the incident where the Daily Mail falsely accused Benjamin of supporting pedophilia. I even brought sources that support this

Source#1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmox2h4lpXZwGKffqEpLjjlu2iyqf8Kdz4Qb0AhDct8/edit

Source#2: https://youtube.com/Iz0FPS-aImk

Don't know if Google Docs have a format or are allowed as sources, so in that case, the Youtube video should suffice VolseniMack (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

​The Youtube link returns a 404. But no we can't really cite a Google Docs file. In my opinion we should not even mention that someone "has been accused of supporting pedophilia" in a biography of a living person unless that was something that received a whole lot of media attention. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)