Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Vidcon Incident

I think the section on the 2017 Vidcon incident should be reworded. It states flat out that it was a harassment campaign, yet the cited Dailydot article does not call it such. The source that does call it a harassment campaign (the Mic article) cites Polygon as a source. Polygon was targeted by the Gamergate movement, which Carl Benjamin strongly supported in his videos. Naturally, their opinion of him is negative. Their articles on the subject (including the one cited) are far from neutral. Pursuant to BLP policy, anything labeled libellous that is poorly sourced should be removed. Regardless of whether or not the accusation is true, it needs to be cited using a reliable article. I think it should be reworded so that it sounds more like the Dailydot article cited, which presents the subject matter in a neutral manner. Anasaitis (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not how reliability works for a couple of reasons. If Gamergate is opposed to an entire outlet (such as Polygon, Kotaku, and... pretty much everybody else?) that doesn't make the a publication from the outlet any less reliable for covering Gamergate. In other words, Gamergate doesn't have the ability to discredit a source merely by badmouthing it. Further, If Mic is reliable, then they are trusted to fact-check their sources without having to "show their work". The Mic.com article doesn't unambiguously cite Polygon, it merely links to Polygon for further reading. In fact, the Polygon article doesn't appear to directly state this was targeted harassment, even if it strongly supports it. If sources agree that it was a harassment campaign, and the Daily Dot source doesn't dispute it, then we can accept that they know what they were talking about. Sources need to be evaluated based on their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy within the larger academic and journalistic communities, not based on personal opinions, and not based on second-hand minutia and stale Internet drama. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "targeted harassment" is a pretty serious charge to make. If sources do not claim that, neither should Wikipedia. Strongly supporting it, does not suffice, especially in a biogrphical article. Kleuske (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue is with wording. The articles merely parrot the statements of Anita, that she felt harassed. Referring to it as an act of targeted harassment implies intent on behalf of Benjamin, which no sources provide. It has to be changed to clearly mark that it's speculated that it's an act of targeted harassment, or that Anita felt harassed at the event by the actions of Benjamin. There simply isn't any evidence, particularly in the sources, that there was any intent behind the action of participated was meant as any for of intimidation or harassment. I'm okay with bias wanting to paint the picture, but as the article currently stands it states a unproven statement; an outright falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSSatsuma (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Mic.com article directly states it, while multiple other sources support it, and none, so far, dispute it. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

How is the Mic.com article reliable? its substantiation for the the intent behind his actions was, and I quote directly, "though it's clear their presence was simply meant to intimidate Sarkeesian and disrupt the panel." That is pure speculation, and the wikipedia article should probably reflect the article it's sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSSatsuma (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

They may not dispute it, but they do not label it as such, either. You cannot say that they support it just because they don’t dispute it. Furthermore, I was not saying Gamergate discredits Polygon by “badmouthing it”. The opinions of “Gamergaters” is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with what the Gamergate movement said. This has to do with bias on the side of Polygon. Polygon is too close to the issue at hand to be used as a source or by a source cited in this article. They were targets of a movement supported by Benjamin. He even made videos supporting the movement and defaming sites like Polygon. They are not going to write anything remotely positive about a man who has defamed them. They will jump at any opportunity to make him look bad. The article in question written by Polygon is very much anti-Benjamin, pro-Sarkeesian. It is not neutral. The fact that it is even referenced by the Mic article as a source for more information calls into question the neutrality of their own article. The Dailydot, on the other hand, calls it a “Youtuber-on-Youtuber conflict” and a “panelist clash”, which is both accurate and neutral. It describes the event as it was without taking sides. I think that the section of this article about the event should be reworded in a similarly neutral manner. Anasaitis (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Polygon is too close to the issue at hand... according to who? You? Polygon? Or some unnamed Gamergaters? Gamergaters can describe an outlet as biased, but that doesn't invalidate the source, nor does some anonymous claim make a source truly "biased". Gamergate is a nebulous, mostly anonymous movement, and it is therefore not even a source at all, much less a reliable one. Gamergaters do not have any authority to discredit a source by critiquing it, even if those criticisms were legitimate. They are not legitimate in this case, which makes this even less useful for our purposes. The assumption that Polygon will jump at the chance to yadda yadda yadda is just an assumption, and it's not one supported by Wikipedia's guideline. If these specific articles are unreliable for some reason, explain it without personal assumptions. Since the Mic.com directly states:

Benjamin, who regularly makes videos criticizing Sarkeesian and her views, organized a targeted harassment campaign in which he and his friends occupied the first three rows at the panel under the guise of attempting to "engage" with her, though it's clear their presence was simply meant to intimidate Sarkeesian and disrupt the panel.[1]

This is a valid, sourced comment supported by multiple sources. If you want to propose an actionable change to the wording, do so, but vaguely complaining about sources being biased is a dead end. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: You claim that because Benjamin has criticized Polygon, we cannot trust Polygon's reporting to be neutral. Donald Trump criticizes the New York Times frequently. Does this mean that we cannot trust what the NYT says about Trump? No. In fact, the New York Times is cited over 100 times on his biography.

You claim that by being "anti-Benjamin, pro-Sarkeesian", Polygon has shown that it's biased and non-neutral. Wikipedia has articles about climate change. Should we only accept sources that treat climate science as equal to climate change denialism? No, that would lead to an article heavily biased towards a fringe theory, and that's called WP:FALSEBALANCE.

If you pick a side because they're on your team, that's bias. If you pick a side because one side's in the right and the other's in the wrong, that's not bias. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling it a harassment campaign is supported by reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Enough about the “Gamergaters”, Grayfell. I already told you that this has nothing to do with the views of the people behind that movement. I never claimed they had any kind of authority. I never cited their “badmouthing” as a reason for questioning the article. @ChiveFungi:

Are you saying that Benjamin is wrong and Sarkeesian is right? Since when does Wikipedia take sides? This isn’t like the climate change debate or Trump’s criticism of the NYT. This isn’t some debate over proven scientific facts, nor is it just a simple case of criticism. In any event, all I’m suggesting is that the section be reworded so that it is neutral and cannot be interpreted as libellous. If their are reliable sources that support calling it a harassment campaign, however, as multiple editors have suggested, then they should be added. Anasaitis (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anasaitis, you never cited anything as a reason for questioning the article. You're saying that Polygon is "biased", but according to who? Who is saying they are biased? Benjamin is not presumed to be an authority on journalism, and neither are either of us as editors. Your stated reason was Polygon was targeted by the Gamergate movement, which Carl Benjamin strongly supported in his videos. So what? If that's not your point, okay, explain your point. You will need something much, much better to claim the site is "biased", because right now you have presented nothing at all. We have reliable sources saying something and absolutely no reliable sources disputing it. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Polygon article doesn't say anywhere that it was harassment; I looked at every instance of "harass" in the article and only found several quotes by Sarkeesian herself. Mic.com is not a reliable source by any standard, but you're free to inquire at WP:RSN if you think it is reliable. I didn't look at the Daily Dot since no one in this discussion claimed that it said that it was harassment. I will remove the paragraph for now per WP:BLP and we can restore it after consensus to include is developed. wumbolo ^^^ 11:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anasaitis: If you view presenting the facts as reported by reliable sources, then Wikipedia has always "taken sides". Excluding reliably sourced content simply because it makes somebody look bad is not called neutrality, it's called whitewashing.

@Wumbolo: The Daily Dot says "many are wondering how this seemingly progressive gathering dropped the ball and let a YouTuber’s harasser into the front row". --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: The Daily Dot doesn't directly refer to Benjamin's actions as a "targeted harassment campaign". Could we change it to more closely represent the source? I suggest we add a quote from sarkesian and put that there was critique of vidcon for letting him into the front row? Alduin2000 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Back up. Why, exactly, is Mic.com unreliable "by any standard"? The Mic (media company) article is spammy, but the substance suggests it has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and the site itself has extensive editorial standards. What specific reasons are there to dispute this description? Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Mic.com is a relatively new website, so there isn't much to judge. It does seem reliable, they did publish a correction after they fabricated a story. It also has the editorial policy you provided, which I didn't know about previously, so we don't have to rely on the article author to prove reliability. wumbolo ^^^ 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: Why do you find it preferable to use a primary source's opinion as opposed to a reliable sources reporting on the incident? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: well how would you word it? the current wording doesn't represent the source, which never refers to a targeted harassment campaign. I don't find what you describe preferable but as it is right now the section is not supported by a reliable secondary source or an attributable quote from a primary source and needs to be reworded. I don't care whose "side" the article takes as long as we actually represent the source. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: I would use the source that you are edit warring to remove (Mic) to call it a targeted harassment campaign, or one of many other sources that refer to it as such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: or one of many other sources that refer to it as such. You're free to list these sources. Calling it a "targeted harassment campaign" requires WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: edit warring? I removed the source once after another editor said it was unreliable. At the time I thought the other source verified what was there but when I checked it didn't. Immediately accusing someone of edit warring when only one controversial change has been made and no reverts whatsoever is not helpful at all. I see that the source was wrongly labelled unreliable? If that's right then should we attribute such a serious accusation or don't you think that's appropriate? Alduin2000 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Gamergate as a whole is absolutely a targeted harassment campaign, according to an overwhelming number of reliable sources (found at Gamergate controversy). There is nothing extraordinary about that, and re-litigating that would be disruptive. This is about Benjamin, however, and sources support this also, although obviously not to the same degree.

Per Vox: A member of Benjamin's group, Dave Cullen, told Polygon his intentions were to, in effect, enact a real-life version of a derailing internet comment: "to shit-post, in this trolling kind of way."[2] This supports the significance of this perspective. If he was trying to maintain the fiction that this wasn't about harassment, this was an incredibly stupid thing to say. To some people the phrases "shit-posting" and trolling might seem... innocuous in an online context, but this wasn't an online context. Them admitting that they formed a group to attend her event specifically to derail it as much as possible is just a bloated way of admitting 'targeted harassment'.

Kotaku's article is generally pretty even-handed (that's probably surprising to Gamergaters who don't ever bother reading Kotaku). While it mostly discusses other attendee's perspectives, it does directly agree with Sarkeesian's claim that Benjamin is a "notorious harasser of mine". It also points out that Benjamin, a prominent GamerGater, has indeed made several dozen videos about Sarkeesian, routinely berating and criticizing her. That's an understatement, if anything.

Christian Post is derived from the Polygon article, which doesn't help much, but does establish that Polygon has a positive reputation.

The Polygon article specifically cites this paragraph from the Vlog Brothers press release:

It is difficult to imagine that this group of people (who are aware that their channels have been base-camps for years of harassment of some of our panelists) did not realize that their arriving early to fill up the three front rows of a panel was going to be intimidating. In any case, it looked like intentional intimidation to most people in attendance, and the panelists were understandably on edge throughout the discussion.

The Polygon article quotes many paragraphs from Sarkeesian at length, while Benjamin declined to comment at all despite ample opportunity. The article concludes with If individuals like Anita Sarkeesian can stand up to such aggression, why can’t these huge and powerful organizations? This is a pretty clear indication that the source directly supports Sarkeesian's summary of Benjamin's behavior as harassment.

We have a reliable source which uses the direct, straightforward phrase "targeted harassment", and many other sources which support this in less succinct terms. Articles should summarize, so the succinct term seems favorable. If anybody wants to propose an alternative wording, let's hear it. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There also isn't any evidence that Gamergate was a targeted harassment campaign. We're talking about a movement which during the 3 most quoted days of excited less than 10% of tweets involving the hashtag even involved tagging another person. If that's a harassment campaign it's doing something else a lot more than it ended up harassing others. There is another pretty good explanation that requires less assumptions... The important thing is how statements are substantiated. There's plenty of articles about the health benefits of varies foods and habits that were later found to be bogus, that doesn't mean we keep up the falsehoods long after something is better understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSSatsuma (talk • contribs) 02:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: actually, you need to demonstrate that the Kotaku claim is reliable, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. If you want to show that the Kotaku article is reliable, you should provide some WP:USEBYOTHERS citations at a reliable source or more of them. If Kotaku is the only source, this material is WP:UNDUE since WP:NOTNEWS. wumbolo ^^^ 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"The only source"? What? Did you read anything else I wrote? I posted several lengthy paragraphs explaining how this isn't an exceptional claim, as supported by many sources, and you focus on the single Kotaku paragraph? Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: the Vox source is convincing. In my opinion, a few words on derailing could be added in addition to the current text about targeted harassment. wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I a memeber of one of Carl Benjamin’s discords. It has come to attention that muitle users have been butting heads over the VidCon controversy. Benjamin has cleared this up in a YouTube video. Why we can’t site this makes no sense to me.

I prepose a compromise. We should as netrual as possible. What we should put down is this: “During VidCon 2017, Benjamin attended a panel with Anita Sarkessian in what was considered a targeted harassment campaign against Sarkessian. Benjamin, during the discussion was singled out by Sarkessian and called names like “Garbage Human.” “ Then we added the rest. This would be the most fair, consistent, and neutral we could make it.

I don’t understand why their is argument even about this. The source use isn’t even fully reliable. Aidan Fedorochko (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

We can’t say that Benjamin launched a targeted harassment campaign. We could say it was considerd targeted harassment or “Benjamin’s appearance was considered a targeted harassment campaign by various critics of him.”

Maybe we should just reach out to Benjamin himself? Aidan Fedorochko (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be a better compromise: "During VidCon 2017, Benjamin sat in the front row of a panel featuring Anita Sarkessian in what was widely considered a targeted harassment campaign against her. Benjamin has been highly critical of Sarkesian in the past." and then we can go on to put he denies this. In this case the article wouldn't be putting across a point of view whilst still acknowledging that a wide variety of sources support the view it was harassment. However, the garbage human quote can't be added without a third party source (unconnected to Benjamin or Sarkesian). Is this a compromise everyone can agree to? Alduin2000 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Columbus navigated what was widely considered to be a curved earth." so we can be nice to flat earthers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: the difference here is that whilst one is a claim to the verifiable fact that the earth is round, the other is a claim about intent, an allegation. WP:PUBLICFIGURE gives this example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. This example is relevant because the claim is about why Benjamin did it (he denies the allegations that the reason was harassment). You're case would apply if I had suggested "Benjamin sat in what was widely reported as the front row" but I didn't because that isn't an allegation but a fact. That Benjamin intended to harass Sarkesian is an allegation, even if you think it's obviously true which most people here do, so should be handled as in the example above. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We go by what sources say is fact, rather than what you say is fact. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is or is not a fact, that's irrelevant to my argument. It could be a fact that the politician had an affair and multiple sources could report it as fact but they would also be allegations that were denied. The allegation may be a fact, but here's a definite fact: nobody can read Benjamin's mind so this is an allegation regardless of its truth. Policy, as shown, is that allegations should be presented as allegations. I don't even think we should put "alleged" in, I thought the wording I suggested would be a compromise that everyone would be at least willing to meet because there is obvious disagreement on this. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not an allegation, it's a statement of fact. To reword it as an allegation is to misrepresent our sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the example of the politician it is a fact too, this is exactly the point I responded to. Something can be an allegation and a fact, you're not disagreeing with me there are you. The problem is, like with the example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the allegations which are presented as fact (and may be fact) are denied so should be presented as allegations because Benjamin's intent has (and cannot) be proven unless he admits it. The allegations (which are presented as facts in the source) should be put forth and not just like Benjamin's fans want (as in making out that only Sarkesian claimed harassment) but also not in its current form, per policy. You are disagreeing with me but it's very hard to have a conversation about this if you don't address the policies I am using to put forward my point, it's good for everyone if a compromise can be made. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: he denies the allegations that the reason was harassment do you have a reliable source for this fact? wumbolo ^^^ 16:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: yes, this is already sourced in the article. The daily dot source is what currently sources it but I think some other sources also back this up. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Even the Polygon source[3] details the use of the phrase "garbage human". What's the problem for stating this in the article? Seems like bias to leave the other side of the story out. --Pudeo (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many people have tried to add this unsourced and have been reverted but if it's sourced I don't see a problem with it being added with proper context (ie it should properly represent the source). I'm sure there won't be much disagreement if it's sourced. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Um... Is that a joke? Well yes, there will be disagreement. Reliable sources spend multiple paragraphs presenting this quote in a larger context. If we include this quote without also attempting to include that context, we're actively inviting misinterpretation. If we did try and include that context, this one incident would dominate the page far beyond what's reasonable. Setting aside unreliable tabloids and gossip sites, We should not pad-out this incident to subtly imply that Benjamin was a victim, because reliable sources don't say that. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you misread the comment you were responding to, and Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. wumbolo ^^^ 21:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you joking? Because what Alduin2000 was describing is very much harassment (by definition), but should be KEPT OUT of the article because the RS only quote it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What sources describe this Sarkeesian's insults as harassment? This has nothing to do with RGW. Highlighting some aspects of an incident because it's seen as important to some editors is not neutral. The point is not to find sources which allude to a POV, the point is to try and summarize them fairly in proportion to due weight. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, Grayfell (talk · contribs) the Polygon article is literally called "Anita Sarkeesian's astounding 'garbage human' moment" so this phrase is significant. How about we put something like "Sarkesian singled out Benjamin as a serial harrasser of hers calling him a "garbage human"."? This doesn't make out Benjamin as a victim and adds relevant context. On a more important note do you have any disagreements with my above attempt to reach a compromise on the wording (where WP:PUBLICFIGURE is mentioned). Alduin2000 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

For the "garbage human" moment, I get why that would be useful, but the entire source article is context for the comment, which was what I was trying to explain. I appreciate the proposal, but I'm not convinced it adds clarity. I am curious to see what others say about it.

Regarding PUBLICFIGURE, the sources I listed in the 07:00, 7 June 2018 post get at why I don't think this is productive. We have to be able to use simpler language when we can. Everything which is a fact can also be an allegation if somebody disputes it, but that's not how we should handle things. We already mention his claims about his intentions, which is plenty. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What does not cease to amaze me is that Wikipedia relies (in this article) on the very publications which get lambasted by Sargon on a regular basis and we regard them as absolutely reliable on the topic of one of their critics. Kleuske (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course we do. If sources are reliable, they are still reliable even if the people they cover insult them. This has already been explained by multiple people in this very discussion. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And you never, ever doubt that these sources are actually reliable on this topic? Not for a very short moment? If so, please stay away from WP:BLP articles. Kleuske (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll bite: Yes, you are correct. I never doubt that a source is reliable just because an unreliable source rants about them on youtube sometimes. There needs to be a reason why they wouldn't be reliable other than just this. Reliable sources report on people who hate them all the time. Having an ability to report on them anyway is part of what makes them reliable. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, however, Sargon of Akkad is not just "an unreliable source", he's the subject of a WP:BLP, which should be cause for extra caution. And of course, you can dismiss Sargons publications as "ranting" but that's only an extra ground why you should stay away from this article, since it betrays you have other considerations than WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they are reliable, maybe they are not. We don't judge sources by the topic they cover, we judge them by two things: general reliability and reliability of individual articles. If we chose not to use a newspaper if it published a bunch of falsehood on a topic, we could not use it for a ton of truthful content it published; e.g. the Donald Trump article cites over a hundred New York Times articles, because the NYT are generally reliable, even thought they have published falsehoods about Trump. wumbolo ^^^ 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well said. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case we should be cautious citing NYT on Trump. But this isn't about Trump, this is about one of the main critics of exactly the publications we cite to accuse Sargon of "targeted harrassment" and the "garbage human" who is one of Sarkeesians most vocal critics. In this case, we rely on unreliable sources and people are noticing that. if we care about Wikipedia's reputation, we should be carefull to present both sides of the argument as WP:NPOV requires. At the moment, we're only presenting one side of the story, despite desperate efforts to create a more balanced article by several editors. Kleuske (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: about PUBLICFIGURE: I don't think my proposed wording really adds much complication at all. The sources you talk about do support the interpretation that it was harassment but I don't see how the example I highlighted doesn't apply, it's a highly reported allegation (many of the supporting articles don't even explicitly call it harassment at all). How about, as a compromise, we word it as "widely considered", then note Benjamin's denial, then add the comment by the other YouTuber which shows they weren't there to engage but to (at least if not worse) troll? It doesn't have to add too much but a lot more will be conveyed to the reader. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I find this difficult topic to be honest to talk about, you have to discount the Green brothers and their statements because they at the time had a financial interest in Anita Sarkeesian as her merchandise was sold through their shop as well as being close personal friends of hers. I also find it difficult to believe any sources that lean towards her as historically anyone who has crossed her path has been bullied & black listed out of the Games Media Industry Liana K being one of two major notable examples of this happening simply due to differing opinion. most of the footage of the incident as well as the Women Online panel is from people who are acquainted with sargon and participated in the sit in of a rather empty panel as it wasn't the main panel in that section. the one video that wasn't attached to their side I could find was a of a middle age woman who was clearly confused and distraught over the situation & legitimately took Anita's accusation at face value, which is where I think most of the Harassment claims came from. but when reviewing footage from both sides, what you notice are two things the other panelists are Unaware of Sargon and the other's presence or at least act like it till Anita points them out directly & accuses them completely derailing the panel. also how empty the panel seating is which I think regardless of where they sat they would of been pointed out and accused of harassment. also ironically enough Know you meme does the best coverage of the incident. UlashtLazarev (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't use YouTube videos of the incident to describe what happened because that would be original research. On Wikipedia we use reliable, third-party sources to verify the truth and notability of pages and specific facts etc. In this case the Green brothers' statement is relevant because they run vidcon and the statement is attributed to vidcon. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure a YouTube video can't be used? On Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research it says "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading/watching the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research". Makes sense to me, just watching and listening would not usually constitute "research". Irrogalp (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems like Ulasht does want to make changes that would require interpretation, though. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I see, thank you, I was reacting to "describe what happened because that would be original research". But the article still doesn't say "garbage human", which is a pretty central point. I think it should be mentioned. Irrogalp (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I just think if you are going to have a page on someone and mention and incident it should reflect the facts, all written documentation of the incident is second and third hand accounts while the video documentation provided and further found of the event in question paints a different picture. Individuals like Carl will never be painted in a favorable light by the media as long as they are not required to cite two verified sources which they have not needed since President Obama abolished the US law requiring them to "to allow them to be more competitive in a Digital Age." what I'm doing is placing the ball on the written articles court by providing as much contextual information as I can find that would either force the removal of the word harassment and replace it with something more neutral or pull into question the nature of the entirety of the incident as it is placed. you have multiple written sources " saying harassment, harassment." but you also have video footage with audio of Carl being quiet till he was pointed out an interacted with and even then he didn't say anything that would legal constitute harassment or abuse by his verbal communication. the problem becomes what is valid? can you honestly expect individuals to go against someone and accurately state a situation when they are financial invested in or could affect their job security? and the answer is no. and honestly if the videos don't work to change your minds a little, then I would have to dig into each writer till they were discredited by association, which quite frankly wouldn't be that hard to do considering how incestuous the games media industry is. which is a whole different level of sad really that they could easily be discredited like that. UlashtLazarev (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against original research. This is how tertiary sources work. Your research into this purported conflict of interest is not going to be compelling without a reliable sources specifically saying that they have a conflict of interest. A venue selling some merchandise simply doesn't seem even remotely persuasive, here, but it's not up to me, it's up to sources. Research into how quite he was beforehand, or whether or not this was legally harassment. this is all your own research. Sorry, we don't care about that at all. If you already assume that all of the sources you don't agree with must be corrupt, your not critically analyzing this, but perhaps you're right. Again, this is a tertiary source, so it's not optional that we must use reliable sources to do our dirty work for us. Find reliable sources saying this particular incident was misrepresented or something. Until then, this is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

so you are basically saying that it is most likely spin but it's coming from "trusted" written sources despite their obvious clear leanings, then wouldn't Forbes Take on the incident trump both Polygon's and Kotaku's as it's a Business news site with no connection to either party? because the problem is I can't use sources close to Carl but it's fine to use sources close to Anita or one of her non-profits feminist frequency & Crash override. I can't use blogs because "trusted" written sources are available from polygon and Kotaku, can't use Video footage of the incident in question because it would count as Original Research, despite it both A coming out before the written articles. the problem is most written articles and videos citing harassment are based on one of two things Rumors and Confusion and are one of two things don't include footage of the incident in question or are from people who weren't there. I mean I would love to use articles from The Sun or One Angry Gamer but despite that being a multi person site it's not Polygon or Kotaku. if the Idea is to Strive for Neutrality I think A finding Neutral Sources or having a mix of sources from both sides would provide a better overall explanation then the use of two or three sites that are clearly bias to one way. and it's just kind of funny how even World Magazine has a better grasp on the situation. just so funny how more then Two Sources could have a different take of other then Harassment, it's almost like they legitimately researched their topic and didn't just go based off of rumors & one source, how odd. UlashtLazarev (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UlashtLazarev (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts properly per WP:SIGNATURE. Without a time and date stamp posts will not archive properly.

Wikipedia's policies on sourcing can be frustrating, especially for recent events, politics, and biographies of living people, which this is all three. The idea here is very specifically not to include "both sides" unless sources very specifically support that. For one thing, we cannot assume there are only two sides. For another, we do not assume that both sides are equally important, because that's false balance.

The Sun is a tabloid with a reputation on Wikipedia that's only slightly better than the Daily Mail (which is garbage), and Ian Miles Cheong also specifically has a reputation problem. Even with that in mind, he does support that "It seems fairly obvious that, if nothing else, Benjamin and company were trying to provoke her and got exactly what they were after"[4] so...

One Angry Gamer is basically a blog site with no reputation to speak of, but it's about page doesn't suggest a history of retractions or similar editorial oversight. Most of Forbes content, including the article you link, is "contributor" content which has almost no editorial oversight and is not usable for statements of fact. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Created by shitposters"

I'm removing this stupid junk that Mark Schierbecker (contributor to Heat Street, the now defunct alt-right news site) is trying to add. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Lol, calling Heat Street "alt-right" is highly laughable to me. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we can concentrate on the WP article? "Created by shitposters" isn't encyclopedic tone; this isn't a tabloid. The current description seems fine to me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't much care what wording we use as long as "Kekistan" is briefly defined for those hapless readers who don't have a PhD on the culture wars. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested change

Does anyone have any problem with the following change to wording based on Wikipedia policy (you can see my reasoning for changing due to WP:PUBLICFIGURE above). I have taken into consideration that reliable sources describe it as targeted harassment whilst at the same time not stating explicitly as fact that this was Benjamin's intention (the allegation):

At VidCon 2017 Benjamin sat in the front row at a panel discussion featuring Anita Sarkeesian during a targeted harassment campaign against her, allegedly with the intention of disrupting the panel. (Possible inclusion: Sarkesian singled out Benjamin as a serial harrasser of hers calling him a "garbage human".) Benjamin has denied that he was present at the panel to harass Sarkesian and stated he would like to know how she "would like to be approached". (Possible inclusion of statement by Dave Cullen that says they were there to troll.) VidCon issued a statement apologising for the situation "which resulted in [Sarkeesian] being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for".

This suggested change states there was a targeted harassment campaign as fact but does not violate PUBLICFIGURE. The bracketed parts are up for discussion but hopefully we can put the rest of the changes up before those discussions occur. Any other suggestions are welcome too. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree you should add "Sarkesian singled out Benjamin as a serial harasser of hers calling him a "garbage human", right after the alleged/targeted line. whichever is decided upon. This is factual and reported by RS, not to mention the videos. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with that if the "garbage human" stays in, since it's well attested and on video, and Dave Cullen stays out. It has been argued that Sargon isn't a reliable source on his own BLP, so I don't see why Cullen is. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if the Dave Cullen quote is added it will be sourced by the Vox article not as a primary source. I'm not sure it's exactly relevant to the paragraph as much as the other stuff but I thought I'd bring it up as a possiblity just in case. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anasaitis:@Grayfell:@ChiveFungi:@PeterTheFourth:@Wumbolo:@Aidan Fedorochko:@Pudeo: any opposition to these changes? Alduin2000 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose including the Cullen quote because we only include quotes if they have been commented on by reliable sources. If a source merely states a quote, it should not be included. wumbolo ^^^ 21:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no go. This specifically removes relevant context because it makes fans of the article subject uncomfortable. We're not editorialising our sources for that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't, what context does it remove. It retains the information about the targeted harassment campaign. There is no editorialising, no opinion is presented in the changes that isn't supported by the sources. You keep bringing up vague objections to any changes suggested without actually making an argument for this staying the same based on policy (I have already put forward my case for why it should change). I'm beginning to wonder if there is any compromise you would agree to at all. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's something here, but as it is, I oppose this. I'm concerned this is adding WP:WEASEL issues. Among other things, presenting this as an allegations seems awkward. Even Benjamin's posse seem confused about what they were actually trying to accomplish. In addition to the "shit-post" comment, Benjamin yelled at her about his "right" to debate her. He has no such right, and heckling someone during a presentation is disruptive. "She started it" isn't an excuse, because it's never an excuse, and also, it was her panel. The sources I've seen fully understand this context, even if Benjamin claims not to. Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: "She started it" isn't an excuse for what? For sitting? wumbolo ^^^ 08:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

For yelling about his supposed right to debate her. Also, y'know, all those hundreds of videos slamming her for daring to express opinions about video games. Heckling is disruptive. If a reliable source says her behavior was at fault, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

He's not at all yelling in any video as far as I can remember. And the hundreds of videos are not all slamming her for "daring to express opinions about video games". And do you even know what heckling is? Here from Meriam-Webster:

: to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibes

Unless you meant that Sarkeesian was heckling Benjamin, you were wrong. And no one ever wanted to prove that "her behavior was at fault". Furthermore, the discussion participants who disagreed with you actually wanted you to provide reliable sources that say that Benjamin's behavior was at fault. The sources that have been provided to date: say that he wasn't at fault, say that Sarkeesian thought he was at fault, or say that Benjamin's friend thought that Benjamin was at fault. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What reliable source says he wasn't at fault? Polygon (which is still more reliable than you, me, or youtube) says that When Sarkeesian addressed Benjamin and his pals sitting in the first few rows in an attempt to antagonize her, Benjamin started yelling back about his right to debate her.[5] (Note that he wasn't "allegedly" attempting to antagonize her.) Regardless of how significant the 'yelling' part is, the past history and larger context of his behavior towards her has not been ignored by sources, and we should not ignore it either. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: but at this point I'm not even saying the harassment campaign is alleged; I specifically removed my earlier suggested changes that it be referred to as "widely considered" because of these issues being raised. The fact that there was a targeted harassment campaign is now stated as fact. Benjamin's intentions are alleged (nobody knows his intentions but him) and he denies he was there with the intention of harassing Sarkesian regardless of whether or not a targeted harassment campaign occurred as a factual event. I don't think this is a WEASEL issue because the word alleged is representing the sources' allegations, unless you want to attribute the whole thing now? Alduin2000 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I was referring to the part that says ...allegedly with the intention of disrupting....

Yeah, we cannot know his true intentions, so if we cannot know something, why are we framing it to make that part central? If sources were presenting this as an allegation, we should attribute the allegation to those sources. If the allegations were from unreliable sources, we should use reliable sources to explain who is making the allegation, and we should use those sources to explain why it is significant. They are not, though. They are basing this on his behavior in context. If he somehow didn't realize this was going to be confrontational and obnoxious, perhaps his friend Cullen could've pointed it out to him, but regardless, this hypothetical oversight isn't something we could account for even if we wanted to.

There is a deeper, and trickier issue here. Judged by reliable sources, Benjamin isn't actually particularly significant. There aren't that many reliable sources out there to work with. The majority I've seen which discuss Benjamin link him to gamergate. Gamergate, on the other hand, is extremely well documented. An overwhelming number of sources support that gamergate was (and still is) a targeted harassment campaign against Sarkeesian and others. Sources are not as direct in connecting A to B as they could be, but they do support the connection. Again, the sources do support this, so we should pay attention to them when they say this was about harassment/antagonism/shit-posting/etc. I feel like this has already been said, but BLP applies to both Benjamin and Sarkeesian, and aiming for "both sides" would be a bad mistake, because that's false balance. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Talking about this incident in the context of GamerGate is textbook WP:SYNTH. wumbolo ^^^ 07:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't a part of gamergate. It includes people involved in it but that means nothing. Calling this a part of gamergate is OR and using that to support the current wording is SYNTH. Currently, we have only one source calling this a targeted harassment campaign. None of the other sources actually say that. Either we change the wording to represent the majority of sources or attribute the targeted harassment campaign line. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This implies that there is a majority of sources who don't refer to it as a targeted harassment campaign. That's a lie. The majority of sources we use in this article are not about the targeted harassment campaign and as such do not refer to it at all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to the sources about this exact incident, not the sources in the article in general. Only one calls this specific event a targeted harassment campaign and should be attributed if we keep this in. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Do elaborate, please. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The only source to call it a "targeted harassment campaign" was mic.com.[6] The Polygon article has this to say: After so many public appearances, Sarkeesian has grown accustomed to speaking in front of a few hundred people. But today she feels a certain intimidation. A crowd of her most vociferous critics, including YouTubers, sit together in the front rows, their phones pointed at her. It goes on to outline who Benjamin is and even notes he tells his fans not to harass Sarkesian (although unsuccessfully according to Polygon). Polygon doesn't call the incident a targeted harassment campaign, it only says Sarkesian feels intimidated by a group of her critics, not harassers. Vox says Last weekend at VidCon, the annual conference devoted to online video, the pop culture critic and longstanding Gamergate and alt-right target Anita Sarkeesian appeared on a panel to discuss women in gaming only to discover that one of her most prominent and vocal YouTube critics and a group of his friends were taking up the first two rows. Carl Benjamin is better known online as Sargon of Akkad, an anti-progressive YouTube ranter with about 650,000 subscribers. A member of Benjamin’s group, Dave Cullen, told Polygon his intentions were to, in effect, enact a real-life version of a derailing internet comment: “to shit-post, in this trolling kind of way.” and goes on to detail statements by Sarkesian and vidcon. It doesn't call the incident a targeted harassment campaign, it lets the quotes talk for themselves (also refers to them as critics not harassers). Kotaku did agree with Sarkesian that Benjamin is a “notorious harrasser” of hers in the past but doesn’t call this specific event a targeted harassment campaign or any type of harassment. Grayfell earlier in this talk page used this article to back up use of the term targeted harassment campaign, but this article refers to Benjamin as Sarkesian’s “alleged harasser”. Forbes writes During a panel on online bullying, feminist video game critic, Anita Sarkeesian, called one of her detractors a 'garbage human.' 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. The Forbes writer also puts forth their own personal opinion (which calls it intimidating but not harassment, also note the use of detractor rather than harasser). The Daily Dot calls Benjamin a harasser of Sarkesian's but does not call this event harassment or a targeted harassment campaign. The targeted harassment campaign is only supported by one source, others that are being used to supposedly support that narrative do not put this accusation forth. Therefore, this should be attributed to mic.com or even better the wording should change to represent the majority of these sources, ie to remove the accusation. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Except that all of these sources are describing a targeted harassment campaign, whether or not they use the phrase. Aside from a quibble in one source about the terms "harassment" vs. "intimidation", all sources agree that these are planned actions that target Sarkeesian individually. Editing out the phrase or placing it as if only one source interpreted Sargon's actions as harassment would clearly be biased in relation to the available reliable sources that we are supposed to follow, regardless of how the Sea Lion population might feel about things. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

They're not all describing a targeted harassment campaign. Many of them just state the fact that he was there and puts in the context that he has been a vocal critic of hers (some say harasser but most said critic). Only mic.com frames this exact event as harassment, whilst the others suggest that Benjamin was likely there to provoke/troll not as a targeted harassment campaign. To make out that these are the same thing would be dishonest. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Alduin, your distinction between provocation, trolling and a harassment campaign amounts to original research. Targeted, unwanted provocation or "trolling" of a specific individual *is* what is meant by a harassment campaign. Honestly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you equating them is OR. If the sources don't call it targeted harassment campaign then they don't call it a harassment campaign. You don't get to say that what they call it means your interpretation of what it means - that's clearly OR. Most of the sources don't call it harassment so to say that they support it through different wording would be OR. I am literally rejecting OR in what I'm saying. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your argument might be more relevant if none of the RS used the term. Instead, some use "harassment" or "harasser", and some use other terms, but your argument is completely OR in arguing that because the terms "intimidation" or targeted Trolling are used in some sources, that therefore it isn't harassment. That argument is both "original" and completely implausible. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You're twisting the sources. Many do refer to his past actions calling him a harasser, but most of the sources simply call him a critic. Again, this is the past, not the event itself. Only one source refers to the incident itself as a targeted harassment campaign, a narrative which the other sources do not support. The phrase "targeted harassment campaign" has to be attributed or else removed or reworded. The source that talks about intimidation, by the way, does not actually say Benjamin meant to do this, it was an expression of personal opinion by the writer of the article. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the one twisting. For one thing, the article says that the incident was part of the harassment campaign, not that it was the harassment campaign. Secondly, the consensus fact is that Sargon attended the panel to intimidate/harass/"Troll" Sarkeesian - if there is literally any other "narrative" about this in reliable sources, please point to it - I see none. Finally, this notion you have that most sources "refer to him as a critic" is reflected in the tone of the article as a whole (I would say overly so), but clearly, in the case of Sarkeesian, Sargon's "criticism" stepped over the line into other behaviours. It would be unencyclopaedic to leave this out, especially given how highly the incident was publicized (people are constantly trying to add "facts" to this article that Reliable Sources don't cover at all). Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The source we are using to justify the wording says that this is the harassment campaign. But that is only one source; it's also an allegation. If we keep this in it needs to be attributed. I'm not suggesting this be removed, I'm just concerned about the current wording. The prevailing idea presented by the sources is that Benjamin sat in the front row probably as an attempt to troll or provoke, not a "targeted harassment campaign". I suggest we either A) attribute the statement (eg. "as part of a targeted harassment campaign according to mic.com") or B) remove the wording and i) let the quotes talk for themselves or ii) change the wording to "to troll/provoke". It's not as if I want to paint Benjamin as an angel here, the current wording just seems to me to violate PUBLICFIGURE to me. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that these sources do indeed describe a targeted harassment campaign. I don't understand why you'd view them as a mainstream consensus against that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about what they describe; we need to prove that they call it harassment. wumbolo ^^^ 07:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"It seems" - WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

When some sources refer to a pattern of behaviour as "harassment" and others don't, it can't possibly be OR or SYNTH to refer to that behaviour as harassment. It is simply an exercise in editorial judgement. AFAIK, there aren't any reliable sources that claim that the events in question aren't harassment, they simply use other terms for the harassing behaviour. In such a situation, WEASEL language is to be avoided. 17:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Because only one source calls it harassment and none of the others do in any terms (as I showed above with the quotes) we should attribute it. We're going in circles here: only one source refers to this incident as harassment in any terms whatsoever, the others do not. As I've said, to make this fit policy, we need to attribute this or reword it. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You might think that there's a policy saying "if only one source uses a term, it should be attributed" but they really, really isn't. Attribution might be appropriate in situations where the characterization of an event is subject to conflict among sources, but this one really isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've put forward my argument as to why this should change above due to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Furthermore, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is relevant because this is an important claim that isn't backed up by multiple sources; as I've pointed out only one source refers to this incident as harassment in any terms at all. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There should nothing exceptional here, though. Multiple, reliable sources refer to Sargon as participating in harassment/intimidation/"meatspace trolling" in relarion to this incident, and all of these terms are essentially synonymous in this context. Your claim that "only one source refers to harassment" is simply factually incorrect. Perhaps time to re-examine the evidence? Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've read through all the sources. Only one source refers to this event as harassment in any terms at all. Others refer to past actions in this way or present it as a personal opinion, not fact. Even if they were synonymous (which is simply an assertion, basically OR) it would still only be one source. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a poor understanding of our original research policy. Reading sources and making judgement based on their content (e.g. "it seems that these sources do describe") is exactly what we need to be doing as editors. That you'd decry putting content in our articles based on the sources we're using is very troubling. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made very clear on several occasions that I do not want this content removed. My problem is with the wording. I'll try to lay this out as clearly as possible because it seems I'm talking past you. Only one source calls the event a targeted harassment campaign, I have read the other sources and they do not comment on whether this is true or not; they don't even paint a picture that seems to suggest that. They just state the facts of what occurred - if the facts seem to personally suggest a targeted harassment campaign to you then that is OR. The fact that this claim is important and an allegation made by a single source means that the current wording violates PUBLICFIGURE and EXCEPTIONAL. Scroll up to see my reasoning if you must. My proposed changes have also been clear: attribute the targeted harassment line, change the wording, or remove that specific wording (nothing more) because it violates said policies if not attributed. Do you understand what I'm saying now? Do you have any argument against this based on policy? Alduin2000 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You keep stating that it's an allegation. It's not, it's simply a statement of fact. We have no reason to doubt the reliable source on this occasion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't I already address this point to you? Read what I wrote to you above and if you still disagree then the wording still violates EXCEPTIONAL. Do you have any objections based on policy? Alduin2000 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The content isn't 'exceptional'. None of sources disagree with the facts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims include claims which are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". The claim that somebody would conduct a targeted harassment campaign is surprising and important. Furthermore, EXCEPTIONAL claims include claims "that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended". Benjamin has told his followers not to harass Sarkesian so why would he?[7] Alduin2000 (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That someone associated with the alt-right would claim to oppose harassment while at the same time engaging in it is exactly what ome would expect, and does not fall under EXCEPTIONAL. The behaviour is 100% in character, even typical. (Just as it is not on any way exceptional for figures associated with the alt-right to deny that they are alt-right, racist, misogynist, etc.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The source consensus is that he isn't alt-right, we even have sourced in the article that Benjamin has called the alt-right racist and authoritarian, so I'm not really sure how this characterisation is relevant. Harassing Sarkesian would be "against an interest [he] had previously defended": that of him saying not to harass Sarkesian. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh. You might wanna clarify what you're saying here because it's not making any sense to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to Newimpartial's comment on my justification that this falls under EXCEPTIONAL. I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure which part doesn't make sense to you; it seems pretty self-explanatory to me but that's probably just because I wrote it. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The operative part from the official VidCon statement is the following:

This year, we had a contingent of attendees (some who paid, some who snuck in with fake passes) who had been either perpetrators of this harassment, or had, for years, watched as the outrage they cultivated resulted in followers doxxing, harassing, intimidating, and even threatening the lives of the creators on these panels.

It is difficult to imagine that this group of people (who are aware that their channels have been base-camps for years of harassment of some of our panelists) did not realize that their arriving early to fill up the three front rows of a panel was going to be intimidating. In any case, it looked like intentional intimidation to most people in attendance, and the panelists were understandably on edge throughout the discussion.

VidCon calls Benjamin (and his allies') behaviour "intimidating", and something which Benjamin could not have failed to realize. The media sources who reported on this matter Polygon, for instance) calls the behaviour "organized trolling". The same point is basically made by other outlets like Vox.com, Mic and The Daily Dot. It seems to me that, as a summary, "organized trolling" and clearly "intimidating" behaviour are roughly synonymous with "harassment". Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a tertiary source which uses WP:summary style. So I do not have a problem with using the word "harassment" here. Benjamin's own viewpoint is quoted as well for balance, per WP:NPOV. So I find the OP to be mostly off-target.

However, what I would like is for the paragraph to first state what Benjamin (and his allies) actually did. I wasn't familiar with this incident, and reading the paragraph made me confused more than anything else. For instance, the problem is not only that Benjamin sat in the first row, but that the first two (or three) rows were all filled with Benjamin and his allies, many of whom had frequently criticized Sarkeesian in the past. Even the topic of the panel (which dealt with the experience of women online) isn't mentioned in the paragraph. These things are highly relevant and should be mentioned. All of the sources start with the actual events, before moving on to the description. I have amended the first sentence in line with the comments above. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think this context should've been added from the beginning. Even if the wording changes we should detail what actually happened - that's far more useful than a mention of what it could be described as. I disagree that those terms are synonymous; harassment to me seems like a much more serious accusation to make than trolling or even intimidation, but either way I'm fairly happy with the wording now. We should remove the disputed tag unless someone else disagrees? Alduin2000 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The solution (or at least a partial solution) is to clearly attribute the organized harassment claim to Sarkesian. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

When I first added the VidCon blurb I included Sarkesian's accusation that she was being harassed as well as her "garbage human" call-out. Our write-up currently does not mention what Sarkesian's reaction was, which is critical context. It seems more than a trifle odd that her perspective is left out. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added reference to that with relevant context. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You should fix the following sentence as well, because it now appears to mean completely different from what it meant earlier. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think about that. Fixed now anyway. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we can ignore the Mic source, which unambiguously states Benjamin, who regularly makes videos criticizing Sarkeesian and her views, organized a targeted harassment campaign in which he and his friends occupied the first three rows at the panel under the guise of attempting to "engage" with her, though it's clear their presence was simply meant to intimidate Sarkeesian and disrupt the panel. And a quick search turned up another source stating But at VidCon earlier this summer, the harassment campaign targeting female gamers moved offline when YouTube activist Anita Sarkeesian, a high-profile victim of the attacks, faced one of her abusers. ... Sargon of Akkad, one of her most vicious critics, who packed the room with other trolls to intimidate the women on the panel. And the Daily Dot source is hardly an argument against that characterization, since it leads in with ...many are wondering how this seemingly progressive gathering dropped the ball and let a YouTuber’s harasser into the front row. So for now I've restored the longstanding text unambiguously calling it harassment, though of course I left in the new details and clarifications. I don't feel his own personal statement that he doesn't support harassment is sufficient to ignore so many sources unambiguously describing his behavior that way. EDIT: Here is an academic source that, by my reading, calls it harassment as well (the "in this case" clearly describes it as an instance of the harassing behavior from the previous sentence.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that second source is; it says the campaign went offline, is the campaign gamergate in this source? Either way I think this should be attributed, I don't think the academic source is really relevant here because one academic source doesn't prove a view is academic consensus. Alduin2000 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't mean gamergate since Sarkeesian is not a gamer and the source said harassment campaign targeting female gamers (emphasis mine). Probably meant the anti-Gamergate anti-gaming people targetting pro-Gamergate female gamers, but I'm just speculating what the source is referring to. wumbolo ^^^ 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That is splitting hairs, Wumbolo. Many RS state that Sarkeesian was targeted for harassment etc. within Gamergate, and your source here in no way implies "anti-Gamergate anti-gaming people targeting female gamers". Do they have legal edibles where you live? Newimpartial (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• That source is here. In context, "harassment campaign targeting female gamers" is its summary of Gamergate; this is a reasonably common description among reliable sources (ie. that the ultimate purpose of Gamergate was to enforce the boundaries of gaming as a male space by harassing prominent women in the field - though some sources detail an elaborate way in which core members, in pursuit of this goal and a more general culture war against feminism, manipulated and mobilized peripheral ones using a series of ever-changing narratives.) I also suspect that that source's definition of 'gamer' is broader than yours. Anyway, we've had this discussion repeatedly on the main article for that subject and, if anything, the number of sources approaching it from that angle or something similar have only increased over time, especially in academia, to the point where it's pretty universally-accepted - the early uncertainty from a media that didn't know how to investigate or approach online discussions has mostly settled by now. Right now we don't have to repeat all that discussion here, of course, since we're not describing it as a whole. Anyway, another academic source summarizes this specific incident as Participating in a June 2017 panel at VidCon about women's online experiences, Sarkeesian was confronted by her online harassers, who sat in the front two rows filming her. I don't think attribution is appropriate when we have a broad range of sources describing the event in one way in their article text and, as far as I can tell, no sources directly disputing that in their article text; it seems like nearly all sources either refer to Benjamin's actions as harassment, or describe his presence there in the context of him being Sarkeesian's harasser. --Aquillion (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have fully protected this article for 1 week to stop the unproductive edit warring. Please discuss the issues here, on the article's talk page, and come to a compromise that is acceptable to all parties. Fish+Karate 08:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that both I and the other user lost our marbles. However we choose to have a civil conversation.2001:569:7BF5:DB00:D50:AF85:3B1C:72B5 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed lede @2001:569:7BF5:DB00:D50:AF85:3B1C:72B5 @Filmman3000:@Grayfell:

Carl Benjamin (born c. 1979) is a British YouTuber better known by his online alias Sargon of Akkad. The alias, which is also the name of his main YouTube channel, is taken from the first ruler of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon of Akkad. Benjamin's early videos promoted the Gamergate controversy and antifeminism. Since then he has covered topics such as politics, anti-progressivism, and the alt-right.

Benjamin has other YouTube channels where he has hosted live streams with guests, including internet personalities such as JonTron, Kyle Kulinsky and Dave Rubin. He also appeared as a guest on The Joe Rogan Experience in June 2017, and The Rubin Report.

I think this reflects the conversation to avoid edit warring. Any objections? Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I would change He also appeared to He appeared. guests, including internet personalities such as looks to me like it is duplicating something; I would entirely omit "guests" and only say "internet personalities" as I think all of his guests are internet personalities. wumbolo ^^^ 14:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think those are good suggestions but I think it would be better to put "guests" and omit "internet personalities". Alduin2000 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, he has had multiple guests who are not online personalities such as the retired Polish MEP Janusz Korwin-Mikke 92.5.12.112 (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to suggest Changing Led a Harassment Campaign to Alleged Harrasment Campaign due to the overwhelming evidence that be found proving that this was not his intention plus the phrasing is more nuetral. Hauntedhuntsman (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The Wikipedia policy of using editorial articles with a heavy bias just because they are not primary sources is a silly equivalency with non-editorial sources. 78.150.72.207 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

James Delingpole column

I have partially reverted Grayfell's edit here. The original edit wasn't accurate, because the opinion referred to a columnist, not the Spectator editorial board. I have therefore attributed the opinion. As to whether it should be included altogether, I think it's fine. This whole article is filled with opinion pieces. One more attributed opinion is fine to include. I have also moved the text from the first to the second paragraph because the source is making the same comparison as the Vice piece (to Paul Joseph Watson), only from the "other side", so to speak. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Tim Pool's account of the VidCon incident

@Grayfell Tim Pool report states that Benjamin et.al. silently filmed the panel, and the extent of the harassment (intended or not) was the fact that Benjamin appeared in the first rows of the audience. None of the other sources dispute these facts, nor report them, while they are relevant and important to the situation. Those should stay in the article.

Regarding "targeted harassment", you wrote:

The Mic.com article directly states it, while multiple other sources support it, and none, so far, dispute it. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's one arguably reliable source that disputes it, so direct "targeted harassment" wording should be removed as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

Regarding WP:WEASEL, I agree that "while others defended Benjamin's rights to peacefully watch the panel" might be suboptimal, but I couldn't find a better way of leaving both, important, third-party accounts. I'll reword it as "Appearance of Benjamin in the audience produced a controversy. He has been described as an organizer of a targeted harassment campaign, and was defended as a peaceful participaror." Any suggestions are welcome. RongXi (talk)

@RongXi: No, since these changes have been challenged, you should gain consensus before restoring the edit, per WP:BRD etc. Tim Pool is, at best, a borderline reliable source, and if he directly disputes this, you will have attribute this to him. If he indirectly disputes this, this seems far to weak to be included, because interpreting his comments to be indirectly disputing a reliable source is WP:OR. This has already been discussed at length above, also. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Pool directly disputes, separately, the harassment and targeted harassment allegations in the video. Guess I should attribute the positions to Mic (since no other source supports it) and to Pool, respectively. I fail to see how Tim Pool is not a reliable source, though. Care to comment on why do you think that? While certainly not as prominent mainstream sources, he's no less reliable than Mic.com. I stand on the point that including this source is important -- it contains additional information (mentioned above) that is important and is weaseled around in existing sources, requiring interpretation. As for your comment about "opinions and assumptions", while the video contains Pool's opinions and assumptions, it also contains aforementioned facts, which other sources lack. RongXi (talk)

• No, I was wrong. After watching the Pool video, it's worse than I though it was going to be, and it doesn't belong in this article at all, even with attribution. It's just a series of his personal opinions which rest on a number of unsupported prior assumptions. We have no obligation to presume this vlog is significant to the topic. There is an endless supply of sympathetic fellow Youtubers. We don't need more of them here. We need independent reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. This is an opinion from a non-expert who happens to be notable for unrelated activity. Per WP:BLPSPS this should not be included at all. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Grayfell: are you implying that Polygon (website) is an expert on harassment? wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't get glib, please. Compared to a youtube vlog from one of Benjamin's friends offering his opinions, Polygon is definitely a reliable source. We've already been over this. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

RongXi, injecting your response into the middle of my comments will only cause confusion. Your opinion that he's just as reliable as Mic is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Mic is an outlet with documented editorial guidelines, editorial oversight, fact-checking, a history of retractions, etc. Pool's video has none of these things. Yes, the Mic.com bit is more mainstream, but this contributes to its reliability. WP:RS uses "reputation", which means a reputation among the established, published community of experts. Wikipedia has a "mainstream" bias, and this article isn't the place to challenge that. Saying Pool's opinions are "important" is subjective and misleading. They are not important just because you say they are. They are important to the extent they are supported by reliable source. As has already been discussed to death, multiple reliable sources directly support that Benjamin engaged in a targeted harassment campaign against Sarkeesian. The fact that only one uses the specific phrase "targeted harassment" is a flimsy distraction. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'll have to concede the reliability point to you, and I have nothing against WPs mainstream bias. Still, I believe Pool's reported facts extend the information in already sourced articles. I'll record specific quotes here once I have time to read and listen through those again.

Both Tim Pool and Inquisitr report that Sarkeesian's behavior was unprovoked. Pool reports it "according to the audience", so it's weak-ish. Inquisitr is better and more reliable as a source. This fact is not present in the current sources and should be included in the article. It also arguably contradicts "targeted harassment" claims. RongXi (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Inquisitr is not a reliable source, since it is a news aggregator with a poor record of fact-checking and editorial oversight. This site comes up fairly often, such as this discussion at WP:RSN a few months ago. That specific source was brought up on this talk page last year. Here's what I said at the time:

The Inquistr page is an opinion (no different from a blog post) published on a site with extremely lax submission standards and a poor reputation for fact checking. They've cited Natural News as credible,[8] published hoaxes as real,([9] via [10]), been included on lists of fake news,[11] pushed blatant fear-mongering click-bait,[12], etc. Buzzfeed News holds their nose up at them, and while they've improved their reputation, Buzzfeed still knows clickbait when they see it.

The article's author, Tony Smejek, is not a journalist nor a recognized expert in a relevant field, he's a freelance writer for Inquisitr. Tony has B.S. in Environmental Studies and an A.S. in Computer Programming. Freelance writer of an opinion piece means absolutely nothing at all here. He's presumably paid on a per-click basis, similar to other clickbait factories, but that doesn't make this anything more than standard user-generated content.

Wikipedia isn't a good place to right great wrongs nor to present "both" sides of the story. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thank your help and for the relevant links. I have nothing more to add. RongXi (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Free Speech Activist Categorization

I've noticed some minor edit warring over this characterization occurring and I think this is a change that is worth discussing on the talk page. Benjamin himself consistently argues for freedom of speech, was a major figure at the free speech rally that is cited for the categorization, and even his critics insist he is a "Free Speech Extremist". At a minimum this is worth discussing and I think the evidence suggests that this category should be included. SWL36 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories need to reflect articles, and articles need to reflect reliable sources. This has not happened regarding "free speech activist", so the category is premature at best. He says a lot of things about himself, but this article isn't an extensions of his many social media platforms, and we need to reflect reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources.

The Mirror is a tabloid that says plenty of things about Benjamin, and none of them belong in the article without much better sources and context. The Guardian article mentions Benjamin only briefly and describes him as "a YouTube personality". Benjamin says that "totalitarianism, identity politics and Islamism" are the same thing. What does this have to do with free speech activism? For that matter, what does it have to do with reality? That article contextualizes "free speech" with a bit of skepticism also, as it uses the phrase in quotes and is otherwise barely mentioned as a concept.

Lots of notable people attend protests. Not everybody who attends a protest is defined by that activity. Again, unless multiple reliable sources consistently mention this, and this is supported in the article, it's not treated as a defining trait and doesn't belong as a category. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that the activities around free speech be first discussed in the article. Categories are blunt instruments. Two quotes from WP:CATDEF are useful here:

Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. and

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)M/p>

Fair points, I do also think the article should discuss his free speech activities but its in such a mess at the moment I think it would require heaping more opinion pieces and primary sources on an already poorly sourced article. I now do agree with grayfell that the category is not appropriate at this moment after I reviewed my sources and the guidelines. SWL36 (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content

I was just wondering why this section of the political views section was removed. It is definitely relevant to Benjamin's political views.

Benjamin was a vocal supporter of Brexit and is economically critical of the European Union. He described Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils, compared to Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 US presidential election. Prior to Clinton's nomination as the United States Democratic Party candidate, Benjamin said he would have preferred Bernie Sanders over Clinton or Trump. Benjamin criticized Emmanuel Macron in his run in the 2017 French presidential election.

If it was mistakenly removed I think it should be added straight back in. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies removed it here with an ES of Political views: only one little thingy here had proper secondary sources; his political opinions don't see to be very important Most sources were YouTube - wp:NOTRS wp:primary wp:selfpublished. Needs secondary / tertiary sources. Jim1138 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh right that makes sense, thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this sort of biased, untrue nonsense acceptable on Wikipedia nowadays?

WP:NOTFORUM discuss on another venue

In particular, the offending sentence: "Benjamin and some of his allies, who had frequently criticised Sarkeesian in the past, coordinated to fill the first three rows in the audience and film Sarkeesian as part of a targeted harassment campaign against her". It is not only a grammatical travesty, but completely untrue. None of the 4 cited sources or any of the partakers (including the ringleader of this particular "silent protest", the youtuber going by the name of "Armoured Skeptic", which the writer of this sentence would know with a modicum of research) claim it was either in poor faith, or to harrass anyone on the panel. According to both "Sargon of Akkad" and "Armoured skeptic" the entire, so-titled harrassment consisted of the nefarious, unjust action of listening what the panel would have to say, and offer polite applause to a standing ovation once the panel was done without proceeding to do anything else than be there in presence. The sentence's absurdity does not end there, the whole claim of "some of his allies" is absolutely ridiculous. Given a quick view of the varying content, "Armoured Skeptic" nor Carl Benjamin agree on very much politically, and come from wildly differing backgrounds. There is no way you could in any way describe the two as allies. Among these claimed allies are still more people; "ShoeOnHead" whose content is primarily humoristic or satirical views and what could be described as "cringe humor", and "Computing Forever" who Carl Benjamin (who self-identifies as a classical liberal, and center-left) has described as "Right Wing". The nonsense doesn't end even there. Taking a look at all of their content on all of their channels, the average amount of videos across all their channels is 4 videos focusing on criticising Anita Sarkeesian per channel, with "Computing Forever" having by far the most, and "Armoured Skeptic" having the least. This could hardly be understood as "frequent" under any even plausible definition of the word. As far as i see it, the only one receiving harrassment in this incident were the people sitting in the front row. I'm not exactly sure why this has not been remedied yet, and why it needs to be painstakingly pointed out with overwhelming evidence toward it being false being within the reach of a simple google search. 87.92.152.36 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of a poorly sourced claim

A line claims that "Benjamin has also described some of Harvey Weinstein’s victims as “gold-digging whores”. Upon investigation of the source I found that the article was unable to back up its claim as it did not source the statement, which is done with most other claims in the article. Because the claim cannot be verified it should be removed in line with Wikipedia's policy about removing contentious material about living persons that are sourced poorly, especially if potentially libelous. If The Guardian updates the article or anyone can properly source this statement, then it should be allowed to stay/put back up. However, without proper evidence this page is repeating a claim that is potentially misunderstood, taken out of context, or even fabricated and should be removed immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcrider (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We assume reliable sources have done their fact checking. We do not do the fact checking ourselves as that would be original research. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hcrider: if you believe that we should not use The Guardian article as a source, you may start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard or the original research noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, respectively).--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I'm still researching and understanding wikipedia's guidelines, so I appreciate the informative replies. I might see about following it up on the noticeboards, but my big thing was just to express a concern and see if it warranted a change. If someone else wishes to follow it up, I will leave it to them. Hcrider (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

All the top ghits for this phrase are related to the comedian Bill Burr. I wonder if Benjamin was quoting if and when he used it. Agree that we should assume that Guardian has checked its facts but it might be worth looking into this further. Tigerboy1966  07:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep Benjamin said it: a YT video Fall of the House of Weinstein posted 13 October 2017 on his second channel The Thinkery. Tigerboy1966  07:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:ALLEGED wording issue, the source we're using unequivocally describes it as fact: he described some of Harvey Weinstein’s victims as “gold-digging whores” – and taunts about rape on Twitter, from which he is banned. They qualify whether this is misogyny or not with 'alleged', but we're not saying that here anyway; they have no such qualifier for whether those people are Weinstein's victims. Remember that some cases have been confirmed in one form or another or were admitted by Weinstein, while others are going to court; the distinction here is therefore more important than it might seem, since it indicates which victims Benjamin targeted. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Right it makes some sense to say "alleged" when talking about an accusation of a crime but probably not when talking about a person, and definitely not when talking about a victim. "Accuser" might make sense in some cases, but "victim" does adhere more closely to the source. Nblund ^talk 19:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: Not true. See WP:NOTVICTIM. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a page. Do you mean WP:VICTIM? Because that doesn't say anything about using the word "alleged" to apply to victims or perpetrators. "Alleged victims" makes it sound like the victims themselves are accused of wrongdoing. Swap in synonym like "accused" and it's pretty clear why this doesn't make sense: "the accused victims of Harvey Weinstein" almost makes it sound like being a victim of Harvey Weinstein is a crime. Nblund ^talk 13:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Polygon

Since Polygon is a website forked from The Verge, it would just make sense to look at the reliability of The Verge. From WP:RSP:

There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. There is no consensus regarding The Verge's articles on "culture".

I'm pretty sure that the content we are citing to Polygon is a "culture" topic, and that if The Verge isn't a reliable source on culture, then Polygon is not likely to be either. Your thoughts? wumbolo ^^^ 15:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That is an essay, The Verge is not Polygon, the specific RFC cited makes it clear that it is generally reliable depending on context and the main problem with "culture" was that it was too vauge. Documenting Benjamin's activity is not even remotely the same level of vagueness as "culture", and this seems like fishing for an excuse to remove a source you just don't like. Grayfell (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You are the one looking for excuses to include a source you just like, since you repeatedly compare it to a youtube vlog from one of Benjamin's friends and assert that it's reliable because it's more reliable than a youtube source. I don't know if this is more laughable or desperate. wumbolo ^^^ 16:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Wumbolo. Polygon has professional editorial oversight and is generally agreed to be a reliable source for matters of fact. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Polygon is reliable or not, it's clearly biased, so Wikipedia should still use neutral language and not flat out say that it was harassment. Cite it if you absolutely insist, but keep Wikipedia's language impartial, just like the Daily Dot. Songwaters (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, we're not citing Polygon for whether it was harassment or not (there are four cites for that, none of them Polygon.) We're just citing them as a source for what Sarkeesian herself said in the next sentence. I think it's clearly sufficiently reliable for that - whether she said it is not seriously contested. (That said, it was easy enough to find additional sources, so I added two.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning that many sources said it was harassment. But Wikipedia should not flat out state that it's a fact that it was harassment, as that is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Benjamin insisted he was there to converse, not to intimidate, so no objective statement should call it harassment. Songwaters (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining which specific part of WP:NPOV is being violated, and how? --ChiveFungi (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Avoid stating opinions as facts. [...] these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. [...] Prefer nonjudgmental language. [...] When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. wumbolo ^^^ 09:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding opinions: What makes you think the three articles cited which call Benjamin's actions harassment were stating opinions rather than facts? They don't appear to be opinion pieces. And while they all quote people saying it was harassment, they also say in their own voices that it was harassment.

Regarding nonjudgmental language: We have three sources which clearly call his actions "harassment" and zero sources which say his actions were innocent. To not state that his actions were harassment would be obvious editorial bias. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

All three articles cite Polygon, and Polygon itself nowhere states that it was harassment. And how exactly do a video game website, a trash website, a magazine, and a media company not have obvious editorial bias?!wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We can trust the analysis of reliable sources. We don't need to 'investigate' their analysis - that steers a bit close to original research. If there's a problem with the sources, maybe WP:RSN is the right direction. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

In a sense we do, and that's also explained at WP:OR. But reliability is, of course, something for RSN. wumbolo ^^^ 15:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Polygon describes what happens (in this sense it could be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, coming immediately after the event.) Putting together, evaluating, and interpreting primary sources is the purpose of secondary sources. Since those sources are reliable, their interpretation and analysis is what goes into the article. If you disagree with their interpretation of the events described in their sources, you can write a letter to the editor there requesting a retraction, but until then we have to go by them. Personally I feel that it's a very reasonable interpretation of the events Polygon described - obviously, we cannot put my interpretation directly into the article; but fortunately we have a large number of sources interpreting it for us. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It all comes down to whether Polygon is reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 19:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Only the reliability of the source we are citing directly is what matters. Part of the point of a reliable source is that we trust them to sift through hearsay, rumors, eyewitness reports and so on and report the truth; we cannot, for instance, cite blog posts or randos on the internet, but we can absolutely cite reporting from reliability secondary sources that use them, since we trust the reputations of those sources to have properly vetted those specific statements. If you feel the secondary sources are doing so so incorrectly in that case, you should send them letters asking for a retraction; but until then, "we can't use these academics because I dislike the sources they used" is absolutely not a valid argument; the nature of a reliable source is by definition that they do research using sources that we cannot ourselves interpret directly. Or, in other words, when (for instance) an academic cites Polygon as fact in a peer-reviewed paper, whatever they cited Polygon for has gone through the peer-review process, and that fact (as cited in the paper) can now be reported in Wikipedia using the reliability of that paper and its publisher rather than Polygon - by publishing it as fact rather than hearsay, they put their institutional weight and reputation behind the accuracy of that particular interpretation for that particular statement. Of course, I think that Polygon itself is reliable on this subject anyway, especially given that it's a tech-related scandal - but even though I considered your argument against it to be weak, I was willing to compromise by shifting to less controversial secondary sources, since we have several. By asserting that you believe all of those sources were incorrect, you're doubting the reliability of each of them in a way that makes your argument hard to take seriously. They're reliable sources; they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You need more than "I don't like the fact that they trusted Polygon!" to argue against them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You're quoting the wrong part of WP:RS. Since we have multiple high-quality sources (including academic ones) describing this as harassment, the correct policy is Avoid stating facts as opinions. If you feel that it is seriously contested, you must produce similarly high-quality sources actually contesting it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

VidCon incident

The paragraph about the incident between Benjamin and Anita Sarkeesian at VidCon 2017 blatantly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Someone, who has criticized and made fun of you, showing up to hear you talk is not a form of harassment. There is absolutely zero objective evidence that Benjamin was "coordinating" to "harass" Sarkeesian.Songwaters (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted, but the paragraph is backed with four citations. The description of the incident as "targeted harassment" comes directly from this [13] source. Thus, WP:NPOV does not apply as the information is not being made using Wikipedia's voice, but rather in the voice of a reliable source.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Polygon is not a reliable source; it's heavily laced with bias in favor of Sarkeesian. For one thing, they reached out to Sarkeesian but made no such effort to reach out to Benjamin. On top of that, it misrepresents what Dave Cullen said: yes, they agreed to go to the talk together and record what she had to say, as well as hoping she'd be willing to engage with them, and they also made a few comments to ridicule her. But that is not evidence that they were there to maliciously intimidate her. I mean, if we're going to call that a reliable source, shall we also include The Sun's equally-biased-in-favor-of-Benjamin article to balance it out? Songwaters (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Songwaters: noted again, but Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects what is said in reliable, independent sources. If an editor disagrees with what a source says or questions said source's impartiality, they may file an entry at the reliable sources or NPOV noticeboards (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, respectively) to have said source(s) discounted. Until that time the source can be cited, especially if consensus was to include/maintain it. As far as the the Sun's article is concerned, much of the content falls within the purview of WP:PRIMARY as the source heavily features an interview with Benjamin. But I digress; much of this has been discussed already at Talk:Carl_Benjamin/Archive_3#Vidcon_Incident (under the same thread name no-less).--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Your assessment of Polygon is not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. It is also factually incorrect, as the Polygon article says "Polygon attempted to contact Benjamin via his Twitter page and an email address, but have yet to receive a reply."[14] Using a tabloid to "balance it out" would be false balance, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's polices either. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Since when do "Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources" consider video game websites an authoritative source on whether someone is a harasser? wumbolo ^^^ 14:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said the last time you raised this exact point Don't get glib, please. Compared to a youtube vlog from one of Benjamin's friends offering his opinions, Polygon is definitely a reliable source. We've already been over this. We've already been over that we've already been over this! Grayfell (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion here. As I pointed out below, we're only citing Polygon for Sarkeesian's own comments; the cites for the fact that it was harassment were in the previous sentence. That said, it was easy to find other sources that covered this (and their take seems identical to Polygon), so I've added a few for that sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: and Polygon's take is that it wasn't harassment. wumbolo ^^^ 12:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• You'll have to pull out a quote for that; but in any case, we're not relying on Polygon for that statement. The source I just added, though, gives it as an example of this: Anita Sarkeesian, the blogger and YouTube producer whose now ended Tropes vs Women in Video Games arguably contributed to much of the anger that eventually bloomed into GamerGate, continues to be harassed and threatened in person at conferences where she speaks around the globe. Likewise, the other paper uses it as its initial example: Since beginning her “Tropes vs. Video Games” series, which deconstructs sexist stereotypes in video games, Sarkeesian has been a persistent victim of harassing behavior, including death threats, slurs, and sexually violent language, originating from various far-right and men’s rights groups. In this case, Carl Benjamin... Also Mic: Benjamin, who regularly makes videos criticizing Sarkeesian and her views, organized a targeted harassment campaign in which Vulture: But at VidCon earlier this summer, the harassment campaign targeting female gamers moved offline when YouTube activist Anita Sarkeesian, a high-profile victim of the attacks, faced one of her abusers. ... The man was Sargon of Akkad, one of her most vicious critics, who packed the room with other trolls to intimidate the women on the panel. I know you're aware of all this, since we've discussed this extensively in the past, so I'm confused that you seem fixated on Polygon. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: They weren't at VidCon when it happened in the first place, i think they're sharing an opinion ̶b̶y̶ ̶A̶n̶i̶t̶a̶. Found an article at Vox that quotes the Polygon article that is used as a reference in the page, in which David Cullen (one of Benjamin's allies present at vidcon) states they were here "to shit-post, in this trolling kind of way" but added that there was "no malice" intended. (also quoted in another article by Polygon) --Mayimbú (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nothing in those sources implies that it is an opinion. Again, the point of using such secondary sources is that they can weigh first-hand accounts and give us interpretation and analysis based on them, which allows us to report facts when the sources broadly agree on them. It is indeed very likely that those sources read the sequence of events and trusted Sarkeesian's account over eg. Cullen's (likely based on the expertise of the reporters and broader knowledge of and research about the people involved), but that sort of interpretation is precisely the sort of thing such sources exist to do, and the implicit argument that people seem to be making here - that they shouldn't have done that or that they got it wrong by doing so - isn't a valid argument, since it amounts to saying "I think, based on my own research, that the facts are different than what the sources say." If (as you're implying) the sources were wrong to make that assessment, it should at the very least be easy to find similarly reliable sources disagreeing with them directly. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

I don't think the above discussions are going anywhere. Is it time to take this to WP:DR. Tigerboy1966  07:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of arguing about wording, we should simply include the direct quote from the source. Henry ^TALK 04:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Public Intellectual

Would this be a better description of Carl Benjamin than simply just "Youtuber"? Youtube is his main platform but he has done talks around the world and was recently interviewed on BBC radio so I feel to simply call him a "Youtuber" is inaccurate and would fall under the category of POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.106.17 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Do reliable sources use that description? "Youtuber" is well-sourced, and accurately depicts his primary medium, and I don't know of any reliable source that calls him a "public intellectual". Nblund ^talk 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I fully support Nblund's comment; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects what is found in WP:RS, and the vast weight of sources referrer to Benjamin as a YouTuber.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin Banned from Patreon Permanently

Patreon banned him, citing that he had had ties to various alt-right and far-right organizations, and accusations of "hate speech." This was done in a sweep, with other similar figures such as Milo, and James Allsup. We'll need to see if Paypal does the same. Sargon continues to claim that he is a centrist and a "classical liberal." Benjamin was receiving over $12,000 USD a month from his Patreon in donations. 2601:982:4200:A6C:F8C3:B3F1:AF84:CE83 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is currently mentioned with the Vice source, and I have expanded it slightly. It seems to me that readers would naturally want to know why Patreon banned him, so I have added Patreon's statement. The Heavy.com article seems flimsy (listicle format and too many typos) and the Mashable merely repeats the Vice source. I do not see any source specifically calling this permanent, but it's unlikely that Patreon would want to explicitly state that.

There's also this:

In a livestream recorded in February, Benjamin appeared to lose his temper at commenters. “You are acting like a bunch of [N-word], just so you know. You act like white [N-word],” he said. Benjamin insisted his comments had been taken out of context.[15]

This would be a clear example of the racial slurs the company cited as its reason, although Patreon has every reason to be as opaque as possible about their decisions, so this is speculation and WP:SYNTH for now. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that was exactly why they did it.[16] Torven (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• I think it should be added that prominent progressive personality Sam Harris is now boycotting Patreon, and taking his 1 million followers with him, in protest over the banning of Benjamin: [17] .

Progressive? Calling a member of the "intellectual dark web" who promotes Charles Murray a progressive is more inflammatory than informative. Regardless, Washington Times is not a good source. So do reliable sources directly link this to Benjamin? Yes, but not very strongly. If this is really significant, it would make a lot more sense to explain it at Sam Harris first, according to WP:DUE demonstrated by reliable sources. Harris specifically said he doesn't agree with Benjamin, Yiannopoulos, McInnes, Allsup, etc. and per the Business Insider source, Harris simply said he did not "share the politics of the banned members," but did not address the aspect of hate speech. so... this seems like it's more about Harris than Benjamin or any of the many other banned figures. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right?

"Covering the alt-right".

I find it a bit problematic how this is phrased. Sargon has condemned the alt-right a few times, but he hasn't quite "covered" it, and I don't believe his channel "covers" it on more than two or three occassions. His channel is more centered towards political correctness, British political issues (Brexit, migration, public education) and interviewing political figures (Steve Bannon, Lord Pearson, Jordan Peterson)

Furthermore, there's no citation that proves he "covers" the alt right.

Can someone help me? Signed-- Me! Mildare. (contact details removed for privacy reasons) Mildare (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not only does he cover the alt-right, he caters to them. He's an alt-right YouTuber and there's plenty of citations in the wiki to cover that.HappenedAnd88 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Either you don't know what the alt-right is or you don't know about Sargon's content. As for sources, what you mean is that other people who work in the media, who don't know what the alt-right is have called him alt-right. Your argument is essentially "When the good people from Vox and Mic and The Guardian call someone alt-right we should just believe them uncritically". There's some lovely footage of Sargon at a protest speaking with a journalist (IIRC from the BBC) who called him a member of the alt-right. Sargon asked the reporter what he thinks the alt right is. The reporter said, in so many words, anyone who is right of center but not a traditional conservative. For almost all media alt-right is a pejorative; a snarl word rather than used with any specific meaning. Sargon says he is not a member of the alt-right and actively opposes their set of views. The alt-right says he is not one of them. But of course we should trust the mainstream media who seemingly know nothing of either the alt right or Sargon as to his views. 81.236.166.204 (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Turns out that you are absolutely correct. When reliable sources call him "alt-right", then we call him "alt-right". That's precisely how we operate here, anything else is WP:Original research and is verboten.

BTW, there is no "Alt-right Central Committee" issuing edicts on who is and who isn't alt-right, so saying "the alt-right says he is not one of them" is a valueless statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thats some pretty stale OR, IP. Just because you don't like that the RS report on him being alt-right, doesn't make it less true. In fact, I'm curious as to why it isn't in the lede. Can we get the ball rolling on including it? BMK?HappenedAnd88 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom

What rationale is there for including Carl Benjamin in this category? I actually checked some of the articles in this category and most of the articles on these figures appear to be neo-Nazis, antisemites, and individuals with clear far right views. My edit removing this category was undone, with the editor saying "Including him in this category does not mean as such {does not mean that Benjamin is a member of the far-right}." If so, then why is Carl Benjamin included this category? --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

He has been connected to the far-right (such as, but not limited to, through the alt-right) by multiple reliable sources. Further, he very vocally and pointedly joined the UKIP, which is in Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom. It's a non sequitur to imply that Benjamin should not be in the category because other members of the category are "neo-Nazis, antisemites, and individuals with clear far right views." His views may not appear clearly far-right to you as an editor, but he is connected to the topic according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"targeted harassment" vs Anita Sarkeesian

I honestly do not know too much about it. So take my quotations as just lack of knowledge.....

From a superficial web search, it sounds much of a hot political topic with plenty of ways to look at it.

This article for example [18] uses the term harassment for him showing up with a group at her lecture.

In this link [19] it seems that a year and a half ago, Patreon deemed his activities not to be severe to a degree deserving ban.

This report [20] feels that it is more of a feud between two strong accusing persons.

I guess someone got to study those stories to find credible evidence and give a reliable balanced view.

Sorry to throw work at you guys.... Just giving my fast impression. God knows what research will unearth..... Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Know your meme does not qualify as a reliable source. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue is literally the sources. Most of the sources Wikipedia labels as "reliable" say this was part of a targeted harassment campaign and assert it as though it is solid hard fact; it does not matter if what the sources Wikipedia uses are false unless you can get sources "reliable" according to Wikipedia that say such a harassment campaign was a fabrication or not as absolute as the other sources say. You are certainly not the first person to take issue with what Wikipedia says went down between Benjamin and Sarkeesian. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Period. You want a site that uses biased sources, try Conservapedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)