![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article states "Along with Trump, Benjamin has endorsed other right wing politicians such as Marine Le Pen.[26]".
This is not supported by the source given. Even though the quoted article, from an experimental academic journalism project named "Nieman Lab", is itself extremely thinly sourced, it never makes such a claim. It only claims Sargon criticized Macron, making a catchy graphic about him that was subsequently picked up by others. "If you don't support me you are my enemy" is not a valid maxim in life (Matthew 12:30 notwithstanding), and should not be such on Wikipedia.
If noone offers convincing arguments to the contrary, I plan to remove that claim from the article. Wefa ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
To report that on April 29, at 6 p.m. French time, Twitter was bombarded by a number pro-Marine Le Pen memes would be correct; to say it was a planned “raid” announced the day before and coordinated from a Discord server would be more accurate (and a far more interesting story). Similarly, to say people depicted Macron as a Marie Antoinette-like figure isn’t wrong, but it’s more comprehensive to note that it came about following a video and posts from an English right-wing activist who goes by the name of Sargon of Akkad.[1]
similarlyMacron was mocked through twitter, which originated with Benjamin. This is a link. Sticking to sources does not mean we have to ignore to basic facts, like the fact that Le Pen was the only candidate running against Macron at that time. This is explaining these two things as being closely connected. As I said, if you want to ignore the causal connection, you would be ignoring the context provided by the source. Grayfell ( talk) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(outdent)Grayfell, you reverted me without seeking debate. You are not the Lord of this article who can overrule the rest of us if we displease you. Please seek consensus before reverting. And frankly, you need to stop projecting your inability to parse simple English language correctly onto Wikipedia. I will spell it out for you. The source wrote:
To report [fact-1] would be correct; to say [fact-1x] would be more accurate(...). Similarly, to say [fact2] isn’t wrong, but it’s more comprehensive to note [fact 2x].
Now, it's glaringly obvious from this that fact1 and 1x are linked, as are 2 and 2x, but there is no link claimed fact1/1x and fact2/2x. As LePen is in 1x, and Sargon in 2x, it thus obvious beyond doubt that the writer did not link the two, not even tacitly! Therefore LePen can not be in this article based on this source. You misread the text. I will therefore reinstate my change. Wefa ( talk) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You try again to argue that "important context" needs to be considered; the "context" being that Macron was running against LePen and thus, in your mind, it can be inferred that anyone who criticized Macron supports LePen. This is obviously bollocks, and WP:SYNTH to begin with. Wefa ( talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Benjamin criticized Emmanuel Macron in his run against far right politician Marine Le Pen. The bolded part has been removed. I fail to see the controversy. Macron was running against Le Pen. This is a simple statement of fact. What's the issue? Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The rightwingwatch quote is problematic. According to the source rightwingwatch.com, in the context of a long interview Sargon is postulating two bad options - the collapse of liberal democracy and the rule of law because of the success of SJW dictators or the success of the alt right. And he notes that the success of the alt right would be less intolerable to him than the other option. Which is, IMO, a somewhat stupid thought experiment, because if the alt right ever got its wish, it would pick up every single bad habit that makes the SJWs so intolerable. But it's a thought experiment, a retorical device, not a political program. Rightwingwatch only reports minimally on the context and turns that thing into a Gotcha! against Sargon. (the RWW articvle is titled "Sargon Of Akkad (...) Reveals His Alt-Right Sympathies"). And the inclusion into the Wikipedia article reduces that context even further. This perfectly illustrates why Rightwingwatch is not a reliable source. Their intent is not reporting but denunciation. Therefore we should remove that reference and the claim based on it. Wefa ( talk) 14:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I assert that it is not trivia to include his racial status. His racial background has had a profound impact on his political views, and are a point of constant contention with those on the far-right. His mixed race background has been used in defense of his self-proclaim liberalist ideology, to discribe how extremist political ideologies destroy the rights of individuals. I also assert that it is not poorly sourced. There are multiple sources where he confirms this ancestry, and it is widely known in the broad audience. Almost all public persons have information concerning their ancestry, and Carl Benjamin should have his listed as well. There is also a video source of Benjamin with his one half black African father. Beyond being one quarter black African from his paternal side, Carl Benjamin is of generally British descent, mostly English. here are some instances, [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
I try to find sources for the context. He wrote this because he criticized her censorship kampagne. He wanted to show that a literal non-threat is also considered a threat. -- Fleritarus ( talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
"I don’t normally when I’m walking down the street feel the need to say to people ‘I’m not going to mug you’ because we’re normal human beings."Commenting on someone's hypothetical rape is aggressive and tactless even if it was "literally" a non-threat. Again, reliable sources would be necessary, but those I've seen appear to understand this point enough to not bother spelling these problems out in detail. The Vice article which mentions the tweet summarizes this point:
"Carl of Akkad, much like the rest of them, seems to pride himself on a sense of purist thinking and a logic-before-all attitude. Problem is, when you're speaking on issues of a social nature that cannot be boiled down to textbook definitions of words, it's not really an approach that works particularly well."Grayfell ( talk) 00:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Three weeks ago, an IP indroduced this gem of political prose into the article. I consider that utter bullshit - the term "liberalist" does not even have a proper definition.
I propose to revert that change. Wefa ( talk) 05:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a stupid term Benjamin invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 98 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Jeff5102: That does not belong in the lede ( MOS:LEDE), since it's not what he's known for. The 'troll' bit is contentious and may be a BLP problem since 'trolling' AFAIK, isn't his main modus operandi, social commentary is. The latter isn't even mentioned. Kleuske ( talk) 11:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
So, I looked over the talk page, and I see that there is a group of people who are using specific sources that don't exactly explain why Carl Benjamin is alt-right or sympathetic to the alt-right. I don't recall him being accused of anti-antisemitism, white nationalism or racism. He's anti-feminist, and I wouldn't mind considering him to be a sexist, but that doesn't justify him being alt-right. I've clearly explained why there is a problem with the sources, and how this Wikipedia article reads as defamatory;
"The "alt-right" label has been disputed in the "Political Views" section. We need to avoid libelous remarks as Benjamin has been debating against the alt-right for quite some time. Also, half of the summary is a literal copy and paste, and in general, it has been accepted that he leans right-wing, considering that classical liberalism is centre-right. I've linked a video when he rants against the alt-right and its problems for 50 minutes."
As expected, it has been reverted and the only explanation is to "stick to reliable and independent sources". And my response was;
"Okay, so I looked over to the "independent and reliable" sources; that redbrick article reads like a hit piece that contains no proof of him being alt-right other than he's anti-feminist, and nothing else; The daily dot article accuses him of being more sympathetic to the "alt-right" than anything, but it doesn't label him as such; Salon does the same thing; the gizmodo article is broken; and Vox calls him anti-progressive. In fact, this Wikipedia article needs more fixing then I imagined. I believe it is fair to summarize that although he calls himself a “classical liberal”, most liberal and progressive sources agree that he is on the right overall. And it is only Salon and The Daily Dot that call him an “alt-right sympathizer” at best. The fact that he’s being “WIDELY” labeled as alt-right at the very beginning is unfair, and comes off as defamatory. Also, that “kekistan” sentence is pointless and it isn’t properly cited."
It has been reverted, again, without any explanation. Look, I don't have any problem discussing the accusations against him, but it's clear that some people are willing to place these accusations at the VERY beginning of this article as a way to associate him with alt-right, even though it is only ONE source that calls him "anti-progessive", which basically means right-wing, and the others are progressive-leaning. This discussion belongs in the "Political Views", it isn't an absolute. And I've already disputed those sources that associates him with the alt-right, and how they're using their reliability to libel against a man without sufficient evidence. Jetski3000 ( talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Last month, the intro ran:
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber known primarily for his political and social commentary. Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1]
I liked that intro: it was neutral, and covered the subject of the article. However, now it is changed into:
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber and self-styled troll [2] known primarily for his anti-progressive videos. [3] Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1]
Moreover, in the box, the "genre" of his videos is changed from Social criticism and Political criticism into Antifeminism, Anti-progressive and Gamergate. I don't believe these changes are beneficial for the article; they were not discussed, they are poisoning the well, and the buzzwords that now go for his "genre" are hardly covering all the subjects of the vids. I would like to revert the intro and the infobox to the previous version. Any thoughts? Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the troll-part from the lead. Now, what do you think of this?
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English Youtube-commentator who criticizes feminism and identity politics. [4] Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1]
THis is much more specific than "social commentary" and it covers his vids rather well. Moreover, it sounds less negative than "anti-feminism."Would this make everyone happy? Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This is not a euphinism, this is exactly how the New York Times describes it. And the New York Times passes as WP:RS. By the way, these changes I dispute here were done by JzG; an editor who put edit summaries in as Alt-right agit-prop is not really "social commentary" and He is nto a critic, more of a bomb-thrower. This does not sound like as if this JzG is making his edits with the principles of WP:NPOV in his mind. Therefore; I'll revert the article to the version of 25 February, and then we can discuss further what might be done to improve it further. Please remember that the edits of JzG were done without any discussion on the talk-pages, and therefore can be reverted. Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"It's used as a right-wing buzzword that means very different things depending on source and context." That is so false, i cant even describe it. Read Mark Lilla. pro Jeff5102 -- Fleritarus ( talk) 10:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"rather narrow view"of identity politics, and it's not one that Wikipedia should use without a lot of careful context and attribution. Also, if you want me to read something, you're going to have to do a bit better than saying you can't even describe why I'm wrong.
videos that either outright support or are in notable ways sympathetic to alt-right causes.and
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.His personal preference for how he's describes shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't completely cancel out how his content and behavior is described by reliable sources. The Vox source both indicates and directly states that Benjamin is alt-right:
What seems clear is that the attention appears to have emboldened Benjamin and other alt-right and anti-progressive YouTubers.... Even without this quote, the context of the entire article is that Benjamin part of the alt-right's obsession with Sarkeesian.
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.If we're going to include this, we cannot ignore the context used just to conveniently emphasize this one isolated factoid. Criticizing a movement doesn't actually prove anything about a person's membership in that movement, especially if it's done as a prelude to defending the movement by saying their behavior is a reasonable response to it's racist ideological opponents.
Medium is a blog platform, not a WP:RS. No editorial oversight, and no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Who is JP McGlone, and why would his opinion matter? By that note, your opinion that this is an "attack statement" doesn't transform it into an attack statement. A variety of terms are used to convey the idea that his videos are anti-progressive and antifeminist. This is according to most of these sources. His opposition to what he labels collectivism is not in dispute, the use of this to counter the "alt-right" is what's being disputed. Since the Medium source is unusable, and doesn't mention the alt-right, this is WP:SYNTH is support of a non-neutral perspective.
"His understanding of identity politics" is a lot closer, but it introduces a WP:WEASEL problem. I personally doubt his understanding of the word, but Wikiedia shouldn't be that cavalier. Since this seems like a recurring point of confusion, I am not saying that identity politics is always a buzzword. I am saying that when used by some on reddit/4chan/youtube, it has become a buzzword through overuse and misused. We judge words in context, and in context, it's not all that clear what he's talking about. Presenting this as a term he uses in a way that may or may not be consistent with how other people use it is more confusing than informative. So what, exactly, is he opposed to according to reliable sources? Grayfell ( talk) 00:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
right-wing YouTube star and conspiracist. This seems a little hard to justify based on this one source, but plenty more agree with the sentiment. We have to explain who he is and why he's notable, and sources don't, as far as I can see, emphasize "identity politics" as central. Grayfell ( talk) 05:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
'Opposing identity politics'?? Who came up with this prattle? The lede is far worse now than it was a couple of days ago... PeterTheFourth ( talk) 09:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above, I propose the following wording for the lead:
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is a YouTuber from the United Kingdom whose alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1] Benjamin has been described as anti-progressive, being a part of the alt-right, anti-feminist and
anti-identity politics. [2] [3] [1] [4] [5]; he self-identifies as a classical liberal [6] [7]
References
@ Jeff5102:, @ Fleritarus:, @ Kleuske:, @ Grayfell: the proposal is open for comments. Wingwraith ( talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As per this discussion I've put my proposal (excluding the anti identity-politics part) into the article; you three of can debate that amongst yourselves. Wingwraith ( talk) 00:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Could we all agree that "antifeminist Youtuber known for his opposition to identity politics" is more accurate, equally well-sourced, and better English than "Youtuber opposing feminism and identity politics", the latter being (1) plagarized from the NYT and (2) poor, political caption style writing? Newimpartial ( talk) 23:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
YouTube star Carl Benjamin, known by his username Sargon of Akkad, who criticizes feminism and identity politics.[3]; the source text is not reproduced verbatim; our article text based on that source is brief, and has inline attribution. 2. On what basis is the proposed text considered "more accurate"? 3. What sources are proposed to support a definitional categorisation (or labelling) of "anti-feminist"? 4. Why are "anti-feminist" and "opposition to identity politics" separated? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
criticizes feminism and identity politics. Let's just off-the-cuff the meaning of "critical reflection". To reflect: think back on. To be critical: to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Put together: to analyse an experience. Here, I even googled it. [4] There's a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo in there, but you really only need the first sentence:
Critical reflection is a reasoning process to make meaning of an experience. I have zero clue what "critical reflection" has to do with making a simple statement. I don't expect an explanation for every bit of minutiae, and particularly not for a statement of "what one does". Though I do agree with you that Bromwich hasn't offered a source for their statement. Further, if you're putting up obstacles: your citations for the proposed change and a "critical reflection" are requested forthwith. Hint: your proposed material clashes with what the NYT source actually says. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, trying to AGF: "opposes feminism and identity politics" is the *subject's* description of what he is doing. In the case of feminism, this is probably accurate. In the case of "identity politics" it is quite tendentious, since subject is *pretending* to oppose identity politics while at the same time endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics and articulating white genocide tropes that are, in fact, also versions of identity politics. That the NYT simply swallowed the tag line doesn't say anything good about its reporting, in this instance. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
My evidence for the subject's antifeminism probably starts with Forbes < https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/06/30/here-are-all-the-crazy-things-that-happened-at-vidcon-2017/#49c3d736302a> Newimpartial ( talk) 17:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
She was referring to Carl Benjamin, a YouTuber who goes by Sargon of Akkad online, who showed up with other anti-feminist YouTubers, filling the first three rows of the audience and recording the panel on their phones. I don't see any kind of explanation of how Kain came to that conclusion that SoA is an antifeminist. Just a statement of fact. Now I, being reasonable, won't make you try to jump through the same hoops you've laid out above, but I did feel the need to point it out. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In the case of "identity politics" it is quite tendentious, since (sic) subject is *pretending* to oppose identity politics while at the same time endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics and articulating white genocide tropes that are, in fact, also versions of identity politics. I need a citation for "endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics" and for "articulating white genocide tropes". The alt-right characterization is based on his attacks against Feminism, BLM, Islam and straight white male privilege (refer to, for example the Daily Dot article). I've never heard anyone accuse him of antisemitism, however, that is brand new to me. On the topic of "white genocide" ... I can only think of comments he's made about George Ciccariello-Maher's tweet which said "All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide". I don't really know of any further comments on the subject that have been reported on. In all reality though, we report only what reliable secondary sources say. Period. End of. Mr rnddude ( talk) 20:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Grayfell: Since when was an interview not a credible source of information on a public figure? And since when was someone's own words not a credible source on how they SELF-identify? I'm just trying give a more accurate picture of Benjamin, which is surely the point of a Wikipedia article. I'm struggling to see the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoremasterRaven ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Could use a section on his conspiracy theories. Besides the liberals, feminists and jews or whatever, he has been known to parrot Russian propaganda about how the chemical weapons attacks were false flags [5], the white helmets are terrorists, and Russia is the last bastion of Christian values. -- 134.228.15.146 ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Personal vendettas should not be part of wikipedia. Just because USA, UK and France jumped to conclusion ... this doesn't make Carl a parrot. 217.224.89.183 ( talk) 16:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Since we're dealing with a BLP, here, we should be scrupulous concerning neutrality. Than includes his description of 'alt-right', but also his denial of the same. The quote is sourced to Benjamin himself, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, but since a) it's attributed and b) concerns himself and his political views, it's neccesary to include them in order to present a neutral and balanced article. Hence @ Newimpartial: why are his own political views given WP:UNDUE weight. Please explain. Kleuske ( talk) 13:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not we include this content, we need more encyclopedic text than 'much to his chagrin'. If there's a reason to include quotes from his youtube videos, we should represent it properly, not like a blog post. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
In fact, Kleuske, the Lede of the article already bends farther than I am comfortable with to include PRIMARY (and rather weaselly) disavowals of the subject's actual political affiliations, without the UNDUE insertion attempted recently. For those who believe this material is DUE in the Lede, the correct course would be to actually add a section to the article about the subject's self-characterization, if adequate sources can be found, and then to summarize that in the Lede. If the sources can't be found, or if the NPOV "best version" of the new section doesn't emphasize his disavowals, then the weasel material should not be in the Lede. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
A piece in The Daily Dot stated that Benjamin is not part of the alt-right, although his videos concern "favourite alt-right targets [such as] feminism, Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the notion of straight white male privilege".
(bold emphasis added)
I don't find this sentence neutral, because of the although. although (usually better than though in formal registers) is a contrastive link. This suggests that there is some contrast going on. Should it be changed to and? wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
I was doing work on this page when a random person posted this in the middle of the article. I will reply to the best of my ability with the bias of my personal positions. I found this page completely by accident while looking up the historical Sargon of Akkad but can someone at Wikipedia explain to me why this whole section is not taking into account situational context? Somehow I feel like this whole page makes this person seem like a bad guy when, with context, people could be able to come to a conclusion that they would feel is more accurate to the potrayal of this person, with their own thinking as I know there is more context than what seems to be denoted as simple hate speech. If someone that is reading this would kindly change this section to include a bit more context on the issues this man talks about and regarding his statements, in an unbiased sense obviously, that would be much appreciated. Wikipedia has many editors, that Benjamin himself would classify has SJW'. For example the page for Frank Stallone after the David Hogg incident was completely modified many elements of his career were deleted. There is a type of editor like that. Myself and other have tried to post the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, which shouldn't be on her page but on the page of Feminist Frequency. But hold and behold when we did it on her page they were quick to intervene, on Frank Stallone not so much. This is my interpretation of it, and please use the talk page to post your opinions, not the article. Also use your ability to edit if you do not like the content of an article, but keep it neutral. Filmman3000 ( talk) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
|
I read that to edit this article you need to Gain consensus. Where is it done or is it a sandbox thing? Filmman3000 ( talk) 02:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This is about this edit.
The specific details of how he arranges his YouTube content is only relevant to the extent it is mentioned by reliable sources. I cannot recall ever seeing any reliable source mention his historical stuff, but if so, it's only been in passing, and never with enough weight that it needs an entire section. The use of a separate channel for live-streaming is, perhaps, worth a single sentence, but it's a technical detail which doesn't really matter when describing him from an encyclopedic perspective. This article isn't about how YouTube's weird notification system has forced content creators into slicing up their content in weird ways. This article is just about Benjamin. If reliable sources do not explain these distinctions, it's just spam. This isn't a platform for helping him promote his crap. Him reading public domain books doesn't belong in the lede unless it is supported by a reliable, independent source as a defining activity. Grayfell ( talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Grayfell that the channels aren't really relevant, especially in the lede. They're not why he is notable, as shown by lack of coverage in reliable sources. I don't even think mentioning he has multiple channels is worth noting in the lede, maybe not even the article at all because his other channels aren't the subject of a single article. Also, I'd like to add that the info about where he got his alias from was moved to the bottom of the lede because it was argued it is borderline trivia. I don't know if a consensus was reached but that was the argument from what I remember. Alduin2000 ( talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Bonadea: where does it compare Benjamin and Watson? The only sentence where these two are mentioned is:
and that's not a comparison. wumbolo ^^^ 20:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Carl Benjamin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Youtube Career section, is it listed that Carl Benjamin took part in a "targeted harassment campaign" against Anita Sarkeesian, yet one of the sources cited (12 [1]) fails to directly attribute Benjamin himself to a harassment campaign and the other (13 [2]) clearly states that he was not participating in any harassment campaign after an investigation was done. However, it does seem that Benjamin did mean to cause Sarkeesian some level of discomfort.
Therefore, I am proposing that the wording of this line be changed to not specifically mention a "harassment campaign", such as changing:
"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."
to:
"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian in order to cause her great discomfort."
The sources already cited for this line support this version better than what is currently listed. 198.140.222.129 ( talk) 12:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
References
"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."
I don't donate money to this site so that it can wasted on libel lawsuits. Seems like Sargon has a good case for libel here why has no one realized that sitting politely is not "targeted harassment". I was there this is not what happened how do we fix this and keep misinformation from appearing on a wiki page again? This is not platform for personal views on a subject only facts right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staticpage ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be stating an opinion as fact. Violates NPV. I agree it should be removed. OnceASpy ( talk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"Benjamin contested the claim against the video, which used substantial portions of The Guardian's video, but was not successful." Given the process of DMCA takedown via youtube, the fact that it was put back up means that he won the claim. the source says that "According to the conservative news site Breitbart London, YouTube took down Sargon's video in response to a request by the Guardian. Sargon then appealed for help on Twitter, saying the newspaper had filed a "false claim" of infringement. The video has since been restored, although it's not entirely clear why." Thus it does not say if the claim was successful or not, or who was in the right. This makes the claim that he failed the claim unsubstantiated conjecture. [1] 73.223.253.98 ( talk) 19:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article states "Along with Trump, Benjamin has endorsed other right wing politicians such as Marine Le Pen.[26]".
This is not supported by the source given. Even though the quoted article, from an experimental academic journalism project named "Nieman Lab", is itself extremely thinly sourced, it never makes such a claim. It only claims Sargon criticized Macron, making a catchy graphic about him that was subsequently picked up by others. "If you don't support me you are my enemy" is not a valid maxim in life (Matthew 12:30 notwithstanding), and should not be such on Wikipedia.
If noone offers convincing arguments to the contrary, I plan to remove that claim from the article. Wefa ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
To report that on April 29, at 6 p.m. French time, Twitter was bombarded by a number pro-Marine Le Pen memes would be correct; to say it was a planned “raid” announced the day before and coordinated from a Discord server would be more accurate (and a far more interesting story). Similarly, to say people depicted Macron as a Marie Antoinette-like figure isn’t wrong, but it’s more comprehensive to note that it came about following a video and posts from an English right-wing activist who goes by the name of Sargon of Akkad.[1]
similarlyMacron was mocked through twitter, which originated with Benjamin. This is a link. Sticking to sources does not mean we have to ignore to basic facts, like the fact that Le Pen was the only candidate running against Macron at that time. This is explaining these two things as being closely connected. As I said, if you want to ignore the causal connection, you would be ignoring the context provided by the source. Grayfell ( talk) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(outdent)Grayfell, you reverted me without seeking debate. You are not the Lord of this article who can overrule the rest of us if we displease you. Please seek consensus before reverting. And frankly, you need to stop projecting your inability to parse simple English language correctly onto Wikipedia. I will spell it out for you. The source wrote:
To report [fact-1] would be correct; to say [fact-1x] would be more accurate(...). Similarly, to say [fact2] isn’t wrong, but it’s more comprehensive to note [fact 2x].
Now, it's glaringly obvious from this that fact1 and 1x are linked, as are 2 and 2x, but there is no link claimed fact1/1x and fact2/2x. As LePen is in 1x, and Sargon in 2x, it thus obvious beyond doubt that the writer did not link the two, not even tacitly! Therefore LePen can not be in this article based on this source. You misread the text. I will therefore reinstate my change. Wefa ( talk) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You try again to argue that "important context" needs to be considered; the "context" being that Macron was running against LePen and thus, in your mind, it can be inferred that anyone who criticized Macron supports LePen. This is obviously bollocks, and WP:SYNTH to begin with. Wefa ( talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Benjamin criticized Emmanuel Macron in his run against far right politician Marine Le Pen. The bolded part has been removed. I fail to see the controversy. Macron was running against Le Pen. This is a simple statement of fact. What's the issue? Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The rightwingwatch quote is problematic. According to the source rightwingwatch.com, in the context of a long interview Sargon is postulating two bad options - the collapse of liberal democracy and the rule of law because of the success of SJW dictators or the success of the alt right. And he notes that the success of the alt right would be less intolerable to him than the other option. Which is, IMO, a somewhat stupid thought experiment, because if the alt right ever got its wish, it would pick up every single bad habit that makes the SJWs so intolerable. But it's a thought experiment, a retorical device, not a political program. Rightwingwatch only reports minimally on the context and turns that thing into a Gotcha! against Sargon. (the RWW articvle is titled "Sargon Of Akkad (...) Reveals His Alt-Right Sympathies"). And the inclusion into the Wikipedia article reduces that context even further. This perfectly illustrates why Rightwingwatch is not a reliable source. Their intent is not reporting but denunciation. Therefore we should remove that reference and the claim based on it. Wefa ( talk) 14:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I assert that it is not trivia to include his racial status. His racial background has had a profound impact on his political views, and are a point of constant contention with those on the far-right. His mixed race background has been used in defense of his self-proclaim liberalist ideology, to discribe how extremist political ideologies destroy the rights of individuals. I also assert that it is not poorly sourced. There are multiple sources where he confirms this ancestry, and it is widely known in the broad audience. Almost all public persons have information concerning their ancestry, and Carl Benjamin should have his listed as well. There is also a video source of Benjamin with his one half black African father. Beyond being one quarter black African from his paternal side, Carl Benjamin is of generally British descent, mostly English. here are some instances, [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
I try to find sources for the context. He wrote this because he criticized her censorship kampagne. He wanted to show that a literal non-threat is also considered a threat. -- Fleritarus ( talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
"I don’t normally when I’m walking down the street feel the need to say to people ‘I’m not going to mug you’ because we’re normal human beings."Commenting on someone's hypothetical rape is aggressive and tactless even if it was "literally" a non-threat. Again, reliable sources would be necessary, but those I've seen appear to understand this point enough to not bother spelling these problems out in detail. The Vice article which mentions the tweet summarizes this point:
"Carl of Akkad, much like the rest of them, seems to pride himself on a sense of purist thinking and a logic-before-all attitude. Problem is, when you're speaking on issues of a social nature that cannot be boiled down to textbook definitions of words, it's not really an approach that works particularly well."Grayfell ( talk) 00:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Three weeks ago, an IP indroduced this gem of political prose into the article. I consider that utter bullshit - the term "liberalist" does not even have a proper definition.
I propose to revert that change. Wefa ( talk) 05:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a stupid term Benjamin invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 98 ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Jeff5102: That does not belong in the lede ( MOS:LEDE), since it's not what he's known for. The 'troll' bit is contentious and may be a BLP problem since 'trolling' AFAIK, isn't his main modus operandi, social commentary is. The latter isn't even mentioned. Kleuske ( talk) 11:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
So, I looked over the talk page, and I see that there is a group of people who are using specific sources that don't exactly explain why Carl Benjamin is alt-right or sympathetic to the alt-right. I don't recall him being accused of anti-antisemitism, white nationalism or racism. He's anti-feminist, and I wouldn't mind considering him to be a sexist, but that doesn't justify him being alt-right. I've clearly explained why there is a problem with the sources, and how this Wikipedia article reads as defamatory;
"The "alt-right" label has been disputed in the "Political Views" section. We need to avoid libelous remarks as Benjamin has been debating against the alt-right for quite some time. Also, half of the summary is a literal copy and paste, and in general, it has been accepted that he leans right-wing, considering that classical liberalism is centre-right. I've linked a video when he rants against the alt-right and its problems for 50 minutes."
As expected, it has been reverted and the only explanation is to "stick to reliable and independent sources". And my response was;
"Okay, so I looked over to the "independent and reliable" sources; that redbrick article reads like a hit piece that contains no proof of him being alt-right other than he's anti-feminist, and nothing else; The daily dot article accuses him of being more sympathetic to the "alt-right" than anything, but it doesn't label him as such; Salon does the same thing; the gizmodo article is broken; and Vox calls him anti-progressive. In fact, this Wikipedia article needs more fixing then I imagined. I believe it is fair to summarize that although he calls himself a “classical liberal”, most liberal and progressive sources agree that he is on the right overall. And it is only Salon and The Daily Dot that call him an “alt-right sympathizer” at best. The fact that he’s being “WIDELY” labeled as alt-right at the very beginning is unfair, and comes off as defamatory. Also, that “kekistan” sentence is pointless and it isn’t properly cited."
It has been reverted, again, without any explanation. Look, I don't have any problem discussing the accusations against him, but it's clear that some people are willing to place these accusations at the VERY beginning of this article as a way to associate him with alt-right, even though it is only ONE source that calls him "anti-progessive", which basically means right-wing, and the others are progressive-leaning. This discussion belongs in the "Political Views", it isn't an absolute. And I've already disputed those sources that associates him with the alt-right, and how they're using their reliability to libel against a man without sufficient evidence. Jetski3000 ( talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Last month, the intro ran:
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber known primarily for his political and social commentary. Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1]
I liked that intro: it was neutral, and covered the subject of the article. However, now it is changed into:
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English YouTuber and self-styled troll [2] known primarily for his anti-progressive videos. [3] Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1]
Moreover, in the box, the "genre" of his videos is changed from Social criticism and Political criticism into Antifeminism, Anti-progressive and Gamergate. I don't believe these changes are beneficial for the article; they were not discussed, they are poisoning the well, and the buzzwords that now go for his "genre" are hardly covering all the subjects of the vids. I would like to revert the intro and the infobox to the previous version. Any thoughts? Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the troll-part from the lead. Now, what do you think of this?
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is an English Youtube-commentator who criticizes feminism and identity politics. [4] Benjamin's alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1]
THis is much more specific than "social commentary" and it covers his vids rather well. Moreover, it sounds less negative than "anti-feminism."Would this make everyone happy? Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This is not a euphinism, this is exactly how the New York Times describes it. And the New York Times passes as WP:RS. By the way, these changes I dispute here were done by JzG; an editor who put edit summaries in as Alt-right agit-prop is not really "social commentary" and He is nto a critic, more of a bomb-thrower. This does not sound like as if this JzG is making his edits with the principles of WP:NPOV in his mind. Therefore; I'll revert the article to the version of 25 February, and then we can discuss further what might be done to improve it further. Please remember that the edits of JzG were done without any discussion on the talk-pages, and therefore can be reverted. Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"It's used as a right-wing buzzword that means very different things depending on source and context." That is so false, i cant even describe it. Read Mark Lilla. pro Jeff5102 -- Fleritarus ( talk) 10:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"rather narrow view"of identity politics, and it's not one that Wikipedia should use without a lot of careful context and attribution. Also, if you want me to read something, you're going to have to do a bit better than saying you can't even describe why I'm wrong.
videos that either outright support or are in notable ways sympathetic to alt-right causes.and
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.His personal preference for how he's describes shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't completely cancel out how his content and behavior is described by reliable sources. The Vox source both indicates and directly states that Benjamin is alt-right:
What seems clear is that the attention appears to have emboldened Benjamin and other alt-right and anti-progressive YouTubers.... Even without this quote, the context of the entire article is that Benjamin part of the alt-right's obsession with Sarkeesian.
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.If we're going to include this, we cannot ignore the context used just to conveniently emphasize this one isolated factoid. Criticizing a movement doesn't actually prove anything about a person's membership in that movement, especially if it's done as a prelude to defending the movement by saying their behavior is a reasonable response to it's racist ideological opponents.
Medium is a blog platform, not a WP:RS. No editorial oversight, and no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Who is JP McGlone, and why would his opinion matter? By that note, your opinion that this is an "attack statement" doesn't transform it into an attack statement. A variety of terms are used to convey the idea that his videos are anti-progressive and antifeminist. This is according to most of these sources. His opposition to what he labels collectivism is not in dispute, the use of this to counter the "alt-right" is what's being disputed. Since the Medium source is unusable, and doesn't mention the alt-right, this is WP:SYNTH is support of a non-neutral perspective.
"His understanding of identity politics" is a lot closer, but it introduces a WP:WEASEL problem. I personally doubt his understanding of the word, but Wikiedia shouldn't be that cavalier. Since this seems like a recurring point of confusion, I am not saying that identity politics is always a buzzword. I am saying that when used by some on reddit/4chan/youtube, it has become a buzzword through overuse and misused. We judge words in context, and in context, it's not all that clear what he's talking about. Presenting this as a term he uses in a way that may or may not be consistent with how other people use it is more confusing than informative. So what, exactly, is he opposed to according to reliable sources? Grayfell ( talk) 00:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
right-wing YouTube star and conspiracist. This seems a little hard to justify based on this one source, but plenty more agree with the sentiment. We have to explain who he is and why he's notable, and sources don't, as far as I can see, emphasize "identity politics" as central. Grayfell ( talk) 05:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
'Opposing identity politics'?? Who came up with this prattle? The lede is far worse now than it was a couple of days ago... PeterTheFourth ( talk) 09:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above, I propose the following wording for the lead:
Carl Benjamin (born 1 September 1979), also known by his pseudonym Sargon of Akkad, is a YouTuber from the United Kingdom whose alias is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. [1] Benjamin has been described as anti-progressive, being a part of the alt-right, anti-feminist and
anti-identity politics. [2] [3] [1] [4] [5]; he self-identifies as a classical liberal [6] [7]
References
@ Jeff5102:, @ Fleritarus:, @ Kleuske:, @ Grayfell: the proposal is open for comments. Wingwraith ( talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As per this discussion I've put my proposal (excluding the anti identity-politics part) into the article; you three of can debate that amongst yourselves. Wingwraith ( talk) 00:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Could we all agree that "antifeminist Youtuber known for his opposition to identity politics" is more accurate, equally well-sourced, and better English than "Youtuber opposing feminism and identity politics", the latter being (1) plagarized from the NYT and (2) poor, political caption style writing? Newimpartial ( talk) 23:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
YouTube star Carl Benjamin, known by his username Sargon of Akkad, who criticizes feminism and identity politics.[3]; the source text is not reproduced verbatim; our article text based on that source is brief, and has inline attribution. 2. On what basis is the proposed text considered "more accurate"? 3. What sources are proposed to support a definitional categorisation (or labelling) of "anti-feminist"? 4. Why are "anti-feminist" and "opposition to identity politics" separated? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
criticizes feminism and identity politics. Let's just off-the-cuff the meaning of "critical reflection". To reflect: think back on. To be critical: to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. Put together: to analyse an experience. Here, I even googled it. [4] There's a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo in there, but you really only need the first sentence:
Critical reflection is a reasoning process to make meaning of an experience. I have zero clue what "critical reflection" has to do with making a simple statement. I don't expect an explanation for every bit of minutiae, and particularly not for a statement of "what one does". Though I do agree with you that Bromwich hasn't offered a source for their statement. Further, if you're putting up obstacles: your citations for the proposed change and a "critical reflection" are requested forthwith. Hint: your proposed material clashes with what the NYT source actually says. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, trying to AGF: "opposes feminism and identity politics" is the *subject's* description of what he is doing. In the case of feminism, this is probably accurate. In the case of "identity politics" it is quite tendentious, since subject is *pretending* to oppose identity politics while at the same time endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics and articulating white genocide tropes that are, in fact, also versions of identity politics. That the NYT simply swallowed the tag line doesn't say anything good about its reporting, in this instance. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
My evidence for the subject's antifeminism probably starts with Forbes < https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/06/30/here-are-all-the-crazy-things-that-happened-at-vidcon-2017/#49c3d736302a> Newimpartial ( talk) 17:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
She was referring to Carl Benjamin, a YouTuber who goes by Sargon of Akkad online, who showed up with other anti-feminist YouTubers, filling the first three rows of the audience and recording the panel on their phones. I don't see any kind of explanation of how Kain came to that conclusion that SoA is an antifeminist. Just a statement of fact. Now I, being reasonable, won't make you try to jump through the same hoops you've laid out above, but I did feel the need to point it out. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In the case of "identity politics" it is quite tendentious, since (sic) subject is *pretending* to oppose identity politics while at the same time endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics and articulating white genocide tropes that are, in fact, also versions of identity politics. I need a citation for "endorsing antisemitic dogwhistle politics" and for "articulating white genocide tropes". The alt-right characterization is based on his attacks against Feminism, BLM, Islam and straight white male privilege (refer to, for example the Daily Dot article). I've never heard anyone accuse him of antisemitism, however, that is brand new to me. On the topic of "white genocide" ... I can only think of comments he's made about George Ciccariello-Maher's tweet which said "All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide". I don't really know of any further comments on the subject that have been reported on. In all reality though, we report only what reliable secondary sources say. Period. End of. Mr rnddude ( talk) 20:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Grayfell: Since when was an interview not a credible source of information on a public figure? And since when was someone's own words not a credible source on how they SELF-identify? I'm just trying give a more accurate picture of Benjamin, which is surely the point of a Wikipedia article. I'm struggling to see the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoremasterRaven ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Could use a section on his conspiracy theories. Besides the liberals, feminists and jews or whatever, he has been known to parrot Russian propaganda about how the chemical weapons attacks were false flags [5], the white helmets are terrorists, and Russia is the last bastion of Christian values. -- 134.228.15.146 ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Personal vendettas should not be part of wikipedia. Just because USA, UK and France jumped to conclusion ... this doesn't make Carl a parrot. 217.224.89.183 ( talk) 16:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Since we're dealing with a BLP, here, we should be scrupulous concerning neutrality. Than includes his description of 'alt-right', but also his denial of the same. The quote is sourced to Benjamin himself, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, but since a) it's attributed and b) concerns himself and his political views, it's neccesary to include them in order to present a neutral and balanced article. Hence @ Newimpartial: why are his own political views given WP:UNDUE weight. Please explain. Kleuske ( talk) 13:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not we include this content, we need more encyclopedic text than 'much to his chagrin'. If there's a reason to include quotes from his youtube videos, we should represent it properly, not like a blog post. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
In fact, Kleuske, the Lede of the article already bends farther than I am comfortable with to include PRIMARY (and rather weaselly) disavowals of the subject's actual political affiliations, without the UNDUE insertion attempted recently. For those who believe this material is DUE in the Lede, the correct course would be to actually add a section to the article about the subject's self-characterization, if adequate sources can be found, and then to summarize that in the Lede. If the sources can't be found, or if the NPOV "best version" of the new section doesn't emphasize his disavowals, then the weasel material should not be in the Lede. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
A piece in The Daily Dot stated that Benjamin is not part of the alt-right, although his videos concern "favourite alt-right targets [such as] feminism, Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the notion of straight white male privilege".
(bold emphasis added)
I don't find this sentence neutral, because of the although. although (usually better than though in formal registers) is a contrastive link. This suggests that there is some contrast going on. Should it be changed to and? wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Off topic
|
---|
I was doing work on this page when a random person posted this in the middle of the article. I will reply to the best of my ability with the bias of my personal positions. I found this page completely by accident while looking up the historical Sargon of Akkad but can someone at Wikipedia explain to me why this whole section is not taking into account situational context? Somehow I feel like this whole page makes this person seem like a bad guy when, with context, people could be able to come to a conclusion that they would feel is more accurate to the potrayal of this person, with their own thinking as I know there is more context than what seems to be denoted as simple hate speech. If someone that is reading this would kindly change this section to include a bit more context on the issues this man talks about and regarding his statements, in an unbiased sense obviously, that would be much appreciated. Wikipedia has many editors, that Benjamin himself would classify has SJW'. For example the page for Frank Stallone after the David Hogg incident was completely modified many elements of his career were deleted. There is a type of editor like that. Myself and other have tried to post the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, which shouldn't be on her page but on the page of Feminist Frequency. But hold and behold when we did it on her page they were quick to intervene, on Frank Stallone not so much. This is my interpretation of it, and please use the talk page to post your opinions, not the article. Also use your ability to edit if you do not like the content of an article, but keep it neutral. Filmman3000 ( talk) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
|
I read that to edit this article you need to Gain consensus. Where is it done or is it a sandbox thing? Filmman3000 ( talk) 02:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This is about this edit.
The specific details of how he arranges his YouTube content is only relevant to the extent it is mentioned by reliable sources. I cannot recall ever seeing any reliable source mention his historical stuff, but if so, it's only been in passing, and never with enough weight that it needs an entire section. The use of a separate channel for live-streaming is, perhaps, worth a single sentence, but it's a technical detail which doesn't really matter when describing him from an encyclopedic perspective. This article isn't about how YouTube's weird notification system has forced content creators into slicing up their content in weird ways. This article is just about Benjamin. If reliable sources do not explain these distinctions, it's just spam. This isn't a platform for helping him promote his crap. Him reading public domain books doesn't belong in the lede unless it is supported by a reliable, independent source as a defining activity. Grayfell ( talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Grayfell that the channels aren't really relevant, especially in the lede. They're not why he is notable, as shown by lack of coverage in reliable sources. I don't even think mentioning he has multiple channels is worth noting in the lede, maybe not even the article at all because his other channels aren't the subject of a single article. Also, I'd like to add that the info about where he got his alias from was moved to the bottom of the lede because it was argued it is borderline trivia. I don't know if a consensus was reached but that was the argument from what I remember. Alduin2000 ( talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Bonadea: where does it compare Benjamin and Watson? The only sentence where these two are mentioned is:
and that's not a comparison. wumbolo ^^^ 20:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Carl Benjamin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Youtube Career section, is it listed that Carl Benjamin took part in a "targeted harassment campaign" against Anita Sarkeesian, yet one of the sources cited (12 [1]) fails to directly attribute Benjamin himself to a harassment campaign and the other (13 [2]) clearly states that he was not participating in any harassment campaign after an investigation was done. However, it does seem that Benjamin did mean to cause Sarkeesian some level of discomfort.
Therefore, I am proposing that the wording of this line be changed to not specifically mention a "harassment campaign", such as changing:
"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."
to:
"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian in order to cause her great discomfort."
The sources already cited for this line support this version better than what is currently listed. 198.140.222.129 ( talk) 12:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
References
"At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her."
I don't donate money to this site so that it can wasted on libel lawsuits. Seems like Sargon has a good case for libel here why has no one realized that sitting politely is not "targeted harassment". I was there this is not what happened how do we fix this and keep misinformation from appearing on a wiki page again? This is not platform for personal views on a subject only facts right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staticpage ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be stating an opinion as fact. Violates NPV. I agree it should be removed. OnceASpy ( talk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"Benjamin contested the claim against the video, which used substantial portions of The Guardian's video, but was not successful." Given the process of DMCA takedown via youtube, the fact that it was put back up means that he won the claim. the source says that "According to the conservative news site Breitbart London, YouTube took down Sargon's video in response to a request by the Guardian. Sargon then appealed for help on Twitter, saying the newspaper had filed a "false claim" of infringement. The video has since been restored, although it's not entirely clear why." Thus it does not say if the claim was successful or not, or who was in the right. This makes the claim that he failed the claim unsubstantiated conjecture. [1] 73.223.253.98 ( talk) 19:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)