Talk:Medea Benjamin

WTO and arrests

Benjamin disputes the statement that she wanted anyone arrested here. Kellen ^T 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism by Horowitz

I understand the validity of mentioning David Horowitz's criticism of Benjamin. However, since Horowitz makes it his job to accuse virtually all leftists as being Communist sympathizers, I wonder how one makes a determination to include his criticisms and at what length? Does he get a nice long paragraph in the entry for every prominent proponent of universal health care, lifting the embargo on Cuba or ending the US occupation of Iraq?

We need some representative criticism of her from the right. If we could get a better source than Horowitz, that would be great, for the reasons you mention. But a quick google doesn't turn anything else up. Unfortunately, since Horowitz maintains DiscoverTheNetwork and FrontPageMag to criticize specific leftists, he's often the only rightwinger with any specific criticisms of people or organizations, at least online. Kalkin 18:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The section in question is titled "Criticism of leftist views" - are the views cited "leftist", or are they just to the left of Horowitz? The section states as fact that "Benjamin is unpopular among conservatives" - yet only one conservative citation can be found, according to Kalkin. Her views are described as "perceived anti-American" and then a Horowitz list of such dreadful, "anti-American" views as siding with the US Congress against aid to the Contras and siding with the majority of Americans by supporting universal health care is provided. I've edited out "anti-American" as baseless even with the adjective "perceived" lest this section seem more McCarthyite than encyclopedic. I happen to share with John Quincy Adams the belief that the US does not go abroad to seek monsters to destroy, but I don't see Bush and Cheney tarred with the anti-American brush on their wikipages. (I admit that I didn't check - if Bush and Cheney are, in fact, named as "perceived anti-American" on their wikipages, please feel free to revert that portion of my edit.) Biederman 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Money?

On Fox news they called her a trust fund baby. True? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.165.32 (talk • contribs)

While it is not a reliable source itself, a blog printed the Return of Private Foundation from 2011 for the Benjamin Fund Inc which has net assets of more than $12 million. This would indicate that there are substantial family trusts from which she benefits 86.157.47.215 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me here. -- Jreferee 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:American anti-Iraq War activists

User:Thoughtman keeps removing this article from Category:American anti-Iraq War activists.

A person qualifies for the category if she (a) is opposed to the war in Iraq and (b) is an American residing in America who has said publicly either that (i) she believes that the Iraq War was illegal from the beginning or (ii) she believes that the Iraq War is being waged imprudently and she has become publicly known as a critic of the war or the justifications used to launch it.

This article is largely made up of instances of Benjamin's public protests against the war in Iraq. In my view, she clearly satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the category. What do other editors think?—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. At one point I supported the removal because Benjamin is not only opposed to the Iraq War, but more generally antiwar. However, looking at the category description, I don't think that matters, and looking at the current population of the category, she's far from alone. Kalkin (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as well - this is an appropriate category. Kelly ^hi! 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate category and the only reason others like her are on there is because of Shabazz! --Thoughtman (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are nearly 100 articles in that category, and I've only edited three of them. Surely you've got a better argument than "It's Shabazz's fault".—Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How about an argument as to why it's not an appropriate category? You're not being persuasive so far. Kalkin (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween White House protest

For those with issues over the white house taunting reference, it's not a text reference -- the Reuters photo clearly shows Benjamin in costume at the gate of the White House. Can't get much more clear than a photo of the person being discussed doing the thing being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.77.14 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked - the source does not identify her, nor does it look like her as far as I can tell. Considering this is a biography of a living person, where the standards for verifiability are VERY strict, do not re-add this information unless you can provide better sourcing for her presence. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the video - It's very clearly her. Her group announced the protest, she describes what they were going to do in the press release, and she clearly identifies what costumes were going to be worn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.79.148 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Politician?

From the first sentence of the article: "Medea Benjamin (born Susan Benjamin on September 10, 1952) is an American politician, and political activist, famous for...."

She has dabbled in politics, but I wouldn't characterize her as a politician. "Political Activist" is more accurate. She's never held a political office. She has run for several offices, but like most third party candidates, she's not running with an expectation/hope/plan of winning the election. The description in the first sentence of the article should probably be changed. At a minimum, "politician" should not be used as the first characterization of her. Maybe move it somewhere else in the introduction? Strike it altogether?

Examples: Is Ross Perot a politician? I think businessman is more accurate. Ralph Nader? Consumer advocate.

I'll concede that using the same logic, Bill Clinton would be called a lawyer; George H.W. Bush would be called a businessman...but we must consider, and factor what they're *best* known for. --Lacarids (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think striking "politician" entirely is probably a good idea, and I have done so. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin's denials, hypocrisy, "career" agenda, etc.

The comment alludes to remarks made by Benjamin to Horton's questions. If Benjamin CONSENTED TO BE INTERVIEWED--which she did--then her opinions are ON THE RECORD. The addition, therefore, is about Benjamin IMPLICATING HERSELF IN HER REPLIES.

As it stands the Wiki article reads like a sanitized panegyric to her ego.

Here is the interview link:

http://original.antiwar.com/scott/2009/10/07/is-medea-benjamin-confused/

MB:

"We spoke to a lot of women...[who] were stuck inside their homes.

"We just want to do it in a way that is not going to lead to a Taliban takeover that will put women back inside the home."

Brilliant! MB's worst nightmare--which she sees fit to project upon "women," in toto: That a woman might be 1) at home 2) with (gasp!) children!

An obvious casus belli, i.e., continue the airstrikes, the drone attacks, the internecine slaughter. Empire is going to help to establish a civil society (according to Benjamin), while NOT engaging militarily ("not too much anyway!")--even though we here at home have yet to see civility and equity in 233-years of investor class oppression--so that misandrist Benjamin can rest easy at night knowing she helped manumit an Afghani woman "FROM THE HOME."

Stonewhite 02:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewhite (talk • contribs)

All fixed. All POV and promotional elements have been removed, as were the host's opinions to prevent this from becoming a WP:COATRACK for others' opinions. In an article about Medea Benjamin, it does not matter what the interviewer thinks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right! Nor, apparently, ought it matter what Todd Chretien thinks--according to your utterly enlightened metric...: Todd Chretien, a leading member of the International Socialist Organization, wrote, in "A Reply to Norman Soloman and Medea Benjamin" on CounterPunch:

“ Medea Benjamin... and many other liberal and progressive leaders tell us that a Kerry regime "would be less dangerous" than Bush. This may or may not be true... But, even IF Kerry is "less dangerous," he will be MORE capable of wreaking havoc on Iraq, Palestine, Venezuela, abortion, gay rights, civil rights and unions IF we sacrifice our political movement to getting behind him.... Tragically, rather than building on the great start we made in 2000... many of the very same people who helped that effort are trying to wreck it this time around [by] condoning, if not actually leading, a campaign to vilify [ Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo ] as "Republicandupes"... any movement that ever aims to win, must learn to stand up for itself precisely when it is darkest.

Nor, ought it matter what David Horowitz thinks:

Conservative writer David Horowitz's FrontPageMag has attacked her as "a long-time Castro acolyte," and written:

“ Many of the causes that Ms. Benjamin espouses are Communist in nature. The Washington "peace" rally at which she spoke last month, for instance, was organized by the Workers World Party, a Communist organization... In years past, she staunchly opposed US military aid to those fighting against Communist forces in Central America... She favors the creation of a government-sponsored universal health care system funded by taxpayer dollars. She exhorts the US government to lift its trade embargo against Cuba – a nation she notably lauds as a place where people have managed to "thrive despite the odds" against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewhite (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

can you say "hypocrite"? these are just two examples, dear...Need more? I'll oblige you...

are you, in fact, the gatekeeper for codepink? or, a happy recipient of "feminist" baksheesh? or a lesbian/misandrist intent on keeping the article "pure"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewhite (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you've resorted to namecalling, I accept that you have conceded your point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I concede nothing: lesbian/misandrist is NOT of necessity a biased pejorative identification betraying contempt (i.e., heterosexual/misogynist sycophancy being equally galling)--nor was it intended as anything more than an attempt at accurate political identification--but, apparently you've just betrayed your own lack of "PC" by believing it so... and, by the way, this side-stepping of the issue is part and parcel of what the criticism of MB is about--now, we can obviate said criticism as you've jumped tracks with this faux, "wounded party" idea, versus what might have been an acknowledgement of the article's "advertisement" nature... and, good for you! having studied the slave narratives in graduate school, we learned that one of the only means of defense that the slave held in pre-emancipation South was his/her prodigious skill in prevarication...connect the dots to correlate to your own movement's nonsense...

":All fixed."

and, finally, apparently the only thing that's "fixed" is your own thick-headedness

Stonewhite 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Press Release?

Is this a press release? Lot's of peacock language in this entry: the woman who brought Nike to its knees . . . key player ... headed a powerful coalition. . . etc.

Also, her political views are presented as self-evidently true: the problem of unfair trade as promoted by the World Trade Organization. . . "fighting the market manipulation by the big energy companies and rate hikes that cause hardship for low-income ratepayers and small businesses". . . "fair trade" alternatives that are beneficial to both producer and consumer. . . the need to stop giving Israel $3 billion in US tax-dollars etc. 76.226.40.251 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

you are welcome to make those changes. I will try to review it myself over the next days as well. thanks. Soosim (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Many of her activities have been covered by mainstream media, but somebody's got to do the work of referencing it. I guess I can do a little of that... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Interrupting Obama

I rewrote the section on Benjamin's interruptions of Obama on May 23. I kept in all of the citations, but made corrections and added details. There were many, many reasons that the whole section had to be rewritten, but I will keep this brief:

1) There were no details whatsoever regarding the nature of her interruptions. There were several quotes from Obama, but none from Benjamin; in fact, nothing of the content of the interruptions was stated. Both voices must be discussed in the article, with primacy granted to Benjamin -- since it is her article.

2) The section contained misleading statements and falsehoods. Obama did not "allow her to stay"; she was thrown out. She would have been thrown out earlier, according to Benjamin, except for her threats to "make a scene" to the Secret Service and its subsequent bafflement. He did not say that she needed to listen "as well as courageously speak"; he said nothing of courage. Moreover he did not say her voice was "worth paying attention to" and then later "challenge her to listen"; it occurred in the opposite order. I could find nothing of Benjamin saying that she "generally supports the President" -- I followed all of the links and found nothing; moreover, she has regularly criticized his policies. Further, Obama did not announce "new policies including the beginning of the process for closing Guantanamo's prison"; by the President's own admission in the speech, his policy has, for a long time, included closing Guantanamo.

3) None of the many citations included the whole exchange, nor was there any transcript. My new citations include both.

4) Use of the word "heckling." The oxford dictionary tells us that to "heckle" means: to "interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse." Benjamin uncontroversially interrupted the president. But were her comments/questions "derisive"? "Aggressive"? Filled with "abuse"? The only possible way her remarks could be construed is as "aggressive"; but then it fails the test for 2/3 of the possibilities. It also fails the test for what I think is the connotation of the word "heckle", which usually involves a nastiness and lack of constructive criticism. Clearly Benjamin brought up issues that Obama did not address, contrary to his repeated claims in the speech. He never brought up the killing of the 16-year old, for example.

5) Style. The paragraph contained strange constructions like: "numerous further outbursts" and "continued repeated interruptions". I thought it best to write more simply.

These are just a few of the problems the section had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.correct.1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Consolidate "interrupting Obama" coverage?

Three different sections tell the story of her interruption to the Obama speech on Guantanamo. Some are better than others. I think the story belongs in at most two places (a brief entry in the intro, and the story under Activism / Drones). Other opinions? Gnuish (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, but I'm not up to doing it. And the effort may be in vain; the authors of the three sections may try to fix the "error" of deleting one or two of them entirely. (They obviously aren't in the habit of looking through the article for redundancy.) I also note, having just read the entire speech transcript including Benjamin's remarks, that at least two of the three sections quote her wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.196.188 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree article is redundant. But if anyone edits it the Wiki regime police will repeatedly revert it and the admins will ban the original editor for "vandalism" which means disagreeing with an admin or politically connected editor. Long live censorship on Wikipedia.

Contested deletion Comment

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because a variety of third-party publications such as the Washington Post, Huffington Post, ABC News, etc. that establish notability. --Bahooka (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

User:Sportfan5000 has chosen to make the external links that did not conform to our guideline a "further reading" section instead. I don't see how those provide any value to this article whatsoever. Anyone else have thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been patiently explained to you several times including at Talk:Dallas Buyers Club#Further reading. Your use of WP:EL guidelines does not apply to See also and Further reading sections. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is arguably a disruptive action by you, as you're simply moving links in an external link section into the further reading in an article you've never been to before. I have not been "warned," you're simply trying to make a point for a reason I cannot comprehend. Is there a reason why these should be in a further reading section? If not, they'll be removed. This isn't hard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything was patiently explained to you at Talk:Dallas Buyers Club#Further reading. You have no basis for removing potential sources from the Further reading section, nor basis for requiring others to incorporate the sources. I don't see a need to respond to you, endlessly, as i was willing to the last time we went over this same ground. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So why did you move bad external links into a further reading section? What benefit do those sources give to the article? The burden is on those who want to include material, so I'd like to see that justification. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything was patiently explained to you at Talk:Dallas Buyers Club#Further reading. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the Dallas Buyers Club article. I'll ask again: why did you move bad external links into a further reading section in this article? What benefit do those sources give to this article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[1] Citing @Viriditas:, from that very discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So is this you admitting that you have no justification for including these links? I see an attack against me, but no rationale. I also see some canvassing, which is a nice plus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no attack, no one is admitting anything. I pinged Viriditas as I'm citing their statements from that discussion. The same discussion which exactly parallels this one. This is a pure case of you not getting the point that others keep making. It's bordering on WP:NotHere. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for you to justify the inclusion of the material that you have added to the article. This is how things work here. If you don't have a justification, it will be removed. That's all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportfan5000 was a sock of a banned user, and his comments should be disregarded here. Collect (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the significance of "Medea?"

As somebody who teaches Greek classics I've been amazed by her name for some time. Surely an interviewer has at some time asked her what she was symbolizing by renaming herself Medea? With all the provocative Greek myths to choose from, why choose the name of a woman jilted by her husband for a younger woman, who murders her children in revenge? I'm not making this up. The myth is best known from Euripides's famous play, "Medea," in which, Wikipedia summarizes, "Jason leaves Medea when Creon, king of Corinth, offers him his daughter, Glauce.[2] The play tells of Medea avenging her husband's betrayal by killing their children." I'm not asking us to start psychoanalyzing Medea Benjamin. I'm saying she gives her opinions about everything in the else in the world, so she must have given her reasons for the name at some time. Why not Athena, or Diana, or, if you want to call attention to yourself as unheard prophet, Cassandra? Why on earth "Medea?" A woman who murders her children? Profhum (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Medea Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071127065046/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_general/us_sen.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_general/us_sen.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120927041643/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0109-03.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0109-03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Medea Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050215162318/http://www.commondreams.org:80/views04/0723-09.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-09.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060114003122/http://www.progressivevote.org:80/articles/events/summit-2005-benjamin.php to http://www.progressivevote.org/articles/events/summit-2005-benjamin.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224123209/http://www.commondreams.org:80/news2007/1204-08.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-08.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050718080458/http://www.commondreams.org:80/views04/1011-29.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1011-29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Beaver?

Concerned with the link in the opening paragraph, which takes you to the article on beaver species, not even a disambiguation page (if it were a journalism term I was unfamiliar with). Is this simple vandalism? --Crayolamanic (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Medea Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618045700/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1026-04.htm to https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1026-04.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-09.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progressivevote.org/articles/events/summit-2005-benjamin.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-08.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fresnostatenews.com/archive/2002/April/Activist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124125149/http://www.codepink4peace.org/section.php?id=478 to http://www.codepink4peace.org/section.php?id=478
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217071827/http://droneswatch.org/ to http://www.droneswatch.org
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/shame-on-you-why-i-interrupted-obama-counter-terrorism-adviser-john-brennan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209210943/http://codepink4peace.org//article.php?id=6174 to http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=6174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108033455/http://codepink.org/article.php?id=6064 to http://codepink.org/article.php?id=6064
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://zmag.org/benjamin.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1011-29.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209152341/http://www.codepink.org/article.php?id=51 to http://codepink.org/article.php?id=51

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medea Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019150739/http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=5147 to http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=5147
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/benjamin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medea Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330010626/http://greenshadowcabinet.us/members to http://greenshadowcabinet.us/members
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222161532/http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=14 to http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medea Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814132943/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/us_senate_summary.pdf to http://sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/us_senate_summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Venezuela

The following text was recently removed from the page with a summary that the source was unreliable:

"In May 2019 she said US sanctions against Venezuela had reportedly caused the deaths of at least 40,000 people and that removing sanctions would be the best way of alleviating the suffering of the Venezuelan people."

I haven’t been able to find anything indicating that the Real News Network is unreliable. The text comes from Benjamin herself as part of an interview with the Real News Network. The same views appear on other sites so it is clear that she does hold these views. Given it is her page it seems reasonable that her views should appear on it. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Yes, it was removed for no good reason. --87.170.198.243 (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin is probably referring to a Center for Economic and Policy Research report which compares Venezuela to Colombia and admitted that could not determine how the situation would have been without the sactions. This report has been disputed. I'm worried that besides that it is not being quoted, the reference is a primary source and quotes directly from an interview. I'm also worried that this refers more to her political views, without being a politician, but this should be discussed along with the whole "Organization efforts" section. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

We don’t need to concern ourselves about whether Benjamins views can be proved to be accurate. I agree that the views have been disputed but this is not relevant to including them in her wikipedia article. If there are sources which criticise or discuss Benjamins views then we can include this information along with her views. From my reading of the relevant wiki policy an interview with a person is a primary source for a persons views. Primary sources can be used for controversial statements as long as the statements are clearly attributed. I think the statements in the removed text are attributed by way of the words "she said" and "reportedly". Burrobert (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about the due weight of the statement/section? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think due weight is relevant to whether the text should be included. If this were the Venezuela or 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis‎ page then we would need to consider whether Benjamin’s opinion has due weight. However, on her own page she is in a majority of one about her own opinion and there is no minority opinion to consider. The same applies to the Venezuela section.

There is also the question of balance to consider. Wikipedia policy says that "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". We need to consider whether her Venezuelan statements and actions have significance for her and are not just casual actions. I think she has taken a strong interest in the Venezuelan situation and that her opinions are not just casual remarks that she has made without consideration. For example her month long stay in the Venezuelan embassy indicates this. Therefore I think a section on Venezuela, including her opinion on the crisis, is appropriate for a page about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

I understand. I'm still worried about this issue, but I'd alo like to know other editors' thoughts. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes lets see what others think about this. Burrobert (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC on Benjamin's views on Venezuela

The consensus is to exclude this material because of insufficient sourcing. There is no prejudice against revisiting this if a high quality source can be found to support this material.

Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following text be added to Benjamin's wiki page in the Venezuela section?

In May 2019 she said US sanctions against Venezuela had reportedly caused the deaths of at least 40,000 people and that removing sanctions would be the best way of alleviating the suffering of the Venezuelan people. 

Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes include the text. My views are in a discussion earlier on this talk page under the heading Venezuela. No decision was reached on whether the text should be included. Burrobert (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article explains mostly content in the section "Organization efforts", which explains actions or organization that she has undertaken to oppose US foreign policy. The proposed text does not explain how this is part of her activism and is merely a political view, which currently would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and not WP:NPOV. A similar problem happens with the quote of her interview by Democracy Now. So far, the text that seems to be consistent with the rest of the section is her occupation of the embassy in Washington D.C. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Find better source Without a more reliable source, this shouldn't be added.HAL333 22:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not critical or highly relevant for a biography of this length without much better sourcing Dartslilly (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References and Notes

I just created a "Notes" section in this article distinct from "References", with the former "References" becoming "Notes" and the new "References" containing a single citation to a book. I did this to allow me to reference that book in the text by the common citation tradition of "Surname (year, page)", which I will add in a minute.

I've started doing this in other articles, because the refereed scientific journal that published a substantial revision of a Wikiversity article seems to require that style AND it doesn't seem inconsistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

I mention this, in case others might question this change. I hope you find it acceptable and even appropriate and maybe useful. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Benjamin's publicly stated views on Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 204.11.189.94 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

She has a brand new book on this subject:

Medea Benjamin; Nicolas J. S. Davies (15 November 2022), War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, Wikidata Q115253268

It was just officially released two days ago.

If you'd care to add something on this, please do. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Women's Movements in Latin America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaschronicles (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jaschronicles (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)