Talk:Carl Benjamin/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Carl Benjamin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

the claim of supporting Marine LePen is unsourced

The article states "Along with Trump, Benjamin has endorsed other right wing politicians such as Marine Le Pen.[26]".

This is not supported by the source given. Even though the quoted article, from an experimental academic journalism project named "Nieman Lab", is itself extremely thinly sourced, it never makes such a claim. It only claims Sargon criticized Macron, making a catchy graphic about him that was subsequently picked up by others. "If you don't support me you are my enemy" is not a valid maxim in life (Matthew 12:30 notwithstanding), and should not be such on Wikipedia.

If noone offers convincing arguments to the contrary, I plan to remove that claim from the article. Wefa (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the main relevant paragraph from the source:

To report that on April 29, at 6 p.m. French time, Twitter was bombarded by a number pro-Marine Le Pen memes would be correct; to say it was a planned “raid” announced the day before and coordinated from a Discord server would be more accurate (and a far more interesting story). Similarly, to say people depicted Macron as a Marie Antoinette-like figure isn’t wrong, but it’s more comprehensive to note that it came about following a video and posts from an English right-wing activist who goes by the name of Sargon of Akkad.

Nieman Foundation for Journalism is a generally reliable source. I have no idea why you're saying that it's "extremely thinly sourced", since it's better sourced than most journalism, and that's not really the standard we use, anyway. The above paragraph cites five WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia tends to avoid primary sources directly, instead prefering secondary sources, such as the Nieman article. Benjamin's article in particular has a glut of primary sources, also, so we should avoid adding more if possible. The specific tweet of Sargon's cited by the Nieman article is no longer visible, as the account has been suspended. This is not a fault of Nieman, however.

So this is a reliable source directly linking behavior by Benjamin, who is identified as a "English right-wing activist", to a flurry of pro-Le Pen activity. I would say this is significant enough to include, but this needs to be rephrased to more closely follow the source. Drawing a link to Trump is understandable, but this is not supported by the source, making it WP:SYNTH, so this specific part should just be removed. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. a.) that Nieman article is a press critique. It deals with style of reporting. The quote you present mentions two occurrences which the Nieman author thinks are incompletely reported. But the Nieman article text does NOT claim any causality or link in acting here - he just criticizes what he considers similarily shallow reporting. He mentions Sargon criticizing Macron. That is not an endorsement of LePen. b.) and less importantly, the Nieman article is thinly sourced because it links to a bunch of tweets that have been deleted and thus effectively do not exist any more. Not existing tweets are not sources. Wefa (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, this source links Benjamin to a flurry of pro-Le Pen activity, but I did not say that Benjamin was pro-Le Pen. If you want to claim a lack of causal connection, that would be ignoring the context of the article, but regardless, I agree that the sentence should be rephrased to more closely match the source.

Even on Wikipedia, sources do not have to be online to be considered reliable. Especially with links within sources, WP:LINKROT is not an excuse, by itself, to remove material. We do not expect sources to always directly cite all of their sources, and we don't expect all of these sources to include archives or similar. Sources are not held to the exact same standard as Wikipedia articles. If we accept that a source is reliable then we accept that they know how to handle such sources. If a tweet later gets deleted, that doesn't suddenly invalidate every source which mentioned it when it was live but failed to include a screen-cap.

If you have some reason to believe this article isn't reliable, you need to explain it more clearly, because as far as I know, Nieman Lab has a good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. That's the standard Wikipedia uses. I don't know, exactly, why being a press critique would make this less reliable. If anything, holding journalists to a higher standard is consistent with both Wikipedia and Benjamin's messages. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

NO! This source does NOT "link Benjamin to a flurry of pro-Le Pen activity"! Are we reading two different sources? The source quoted here reports on two unrelated occurrences, and the only connection between these the source draws is the fact that the occurrences are shallowly reported in a similar way. Remember, the Nieman Journalisms Lab's main goal and area of interest is "help journalism figure out its future in an Internet age". As such they deal less with news per se as with the question how news is and should be reported.

Now, maybe, you think you can infer from the text and your knowledge of the writer a between-the-lines claim of causal connection or endorsement by the writer, but the text itself does not support that link. And its not what the writer THINKS what we base Wikipedia articles on, it is on what he WRITES and what is subsequently object of editorial judgment and organized fact checking by the (presumably) reliable news organization we quote as a source.

I will not pursue the sources issue at this point. While I disagree with you, it is of minor importance, since the article seems to be well sourced enough for the points it is actually making. Here we just need to stick to them :-) Wefa (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The text itself does link Benjamin to pro-Le Pen memes. It mentions the pro-Le Pen memes and says it would be more interesting and more accurate to mention Discord, and then says that similarly Macron was mocked through twitter, which originated with Benjamin. This is a link. Sticking to sources does not mean we have to ignore to basic facts, like the fact that Le Pen was the only candidate running against Macron at that time. This is explaining these two things as being closely connected. As I said, if you want to ignore the causal connection, you would be ignoring the context provided by the source. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An inferred link to specific events/behaviors that were favorable to one candidate and unfavorable to another is not equivalent to stating that Benjamin "endorsed" one of the two candidates. Stating that he "endorsed" Le Pen without a primary source citation, in a BLP, is synthesis, and disallowed by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. A tacit endorsement is not an endorsement. I have rephrased this accordingly. We do not need a primary source for this, however. We should use secondary sources, whenever possible, to establish due weight. Not every political comment he makes belongs, so this would require secondary sources to indicate it's worth mentioning at all. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That was my point - if the article is to say that he 'endorsed' Le Pen, it would have to be from the LP's mouth, which is appropriate and allowed in a BLP, when there is controversy about what the LP did/didn't express. Thanks for fixing the article. Anastrophe (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you have converted an open denunciation into a tacit one. Lets not mince words here for a second: the purpose of bringing LePen in here is denunciatory - link Sargon to Nazi LepPen and thus implicitly denunciate Sargon as a Nazi. The source did not say that - it is the Wikipedia author who infers that and uses it to undue purpose. Frankly, LePen needs to go from this text, as there is no substantial reason for her to be here. I changed the article accordingly. Wefa (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly we differ in our interpretation of the source. Benjamin's actions are what's being reflected here, and this includes important context specifically supported by the source which would not otherwise be obvious from the text. It is not up to us to determine how that should reflect on Benjamin, but it should reflect on him, since we are attempting to write an article which reflects his actions according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(outdent)Grayfell, you reverted me without seeking debate. You are not the Lord of this article who can overrule the rest of us if we displease you. Please seek consensus before reverting. And frankly, you need to stop projecting your inability to parse simple English language correctly onto Wikipedia. I will spell it out for you. The source wrote:

   To report [fact-1] would be correct; 
      to say [fact-1x] would be more accurate(...). 
Similarly, 
   to say [fact2] isn’t wrong, 
      but it’s more comprehensive to note [fact 2x].

Now, it's glaringly obvious from this that fact1 and 1x are linked, as are 2 and 2x, but there is no link claimed fact1/1x and fact2/2x. As LePen is in 1x, and Sargon in 2x, it thus obvious beyond doubt that the writer did not link the two, not even tacitly! Therefore LePen can not be in this article based on this source. You misread the text. I will therefore reinstate my change. Wefa (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You try again to argue that "important context" needs to be considered; the "context" being that Macron was running against LePen and thus, in your mind, it can be inferred that anyone who criticized Macron supports LePen. This is obviously bollocks, and WP:SYNTH to begin with. Wefa (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked Grayfells most recent edit which was reverted. The removed material stated, in its whole, Benjamin criticized Emmanuel Macron in his run against far right politician Marine Le Pen. The bolded part has been removed. I fail to see the controversy. Macron was running against Le Pen. This is a simple statement of fact. What's the issue? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeesh. I did not say that Benjamin directly supported Le Pen. Although I do think the source strongly implies that he indirectly supported her, and the source does specifically mention Le Pen as the context for Benjamin's activities (or rather, both as context for news media's coverage of right-wing trolling). I specifically altered the wording to removed the statement that Benjamin supported Le Pen. I also did not originally include the phrase "far right" before Le Pen, although again, this is a simple statement of fact according to an overwhelming quantity of sources. I retained "right-wing", and this was specifically because the context of the entire "political views" section is discussing Benjamin's political position, and the source specifically calls him "right-wing".

I do not really have a strong opinion on "far right" vs "right-wing" in particular, but it's indisputable that it's related to the attached source's commentary on the election, and also relevant to a section on Benjamin's political position. We are obligated to assess sources as a whole, not merely the thinnest possible slices which apply to the topic at hand. Media literacy means we have to assess the surrounding elements of a statement, not merely take it in total isolation, but I'm sure me explaining something as remedial as this would be almost as condescending as if I were to accuse you of lacking the basic ability to parse simple English language correctly onto Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to wade further into these waters, but apparently that's not stopping me :). A couple of concerns here would be Weight and Recentism. I realize, fully, that google result counts are not probative to determining the importance of an event (or idea or whatever). However, it is worth noting that if you search on "carl benjamin" "marine le pen" in a single query, it registers a massive.....375 results, and of course it's 374 when you exclude the first result which is to this selfsame article. That falls into the noise in terms of notability. Mr. Benjamin has expounded for hundreds of hours on his youtube channel, and on pretty much every imaginable current or near recent political or ideological matter.

So, at this point, I tend to feel that the inclusion at all of this material falls well into WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENT. It's just not something that appears to have been particularly noteworthy, or material to the BLP.

Two cents tendered. Anastrophe (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The righwingwatch quote

The rightwingwatch quote is problematic. According to the source rightwingwatch.com, in the context of a long interview Sargon is postulating two bad options - the collapse of liberal democracy and the rule of law because of the success of SJW dictators or the success of the alt right. And he notes that the success of the alt right would be less intolerable to him than the other option. Which is, IMO, a somewhat stupid thought experiment, because if the alt right ever got its wish, it would pick up every single bad habit that makes the SJWs so intolerable. But it's a thought experiment, a retorical device, not a political program. Rightwingwatch only reports minimally on the context and turns that thing into a Gotcha! against Sargon. (the RWW articvle is titled "Sargon Of Akkad (...) Reveals His Alt-Right Sympathies"). And the inclusion into the Wikipedia article reduces that context even further. This perfectly illustrates why Rightwingwatch is not a reliable source. Their intent is not reporting but denunciation. Therefore we should remove that reference and the claim based on it. Wefa (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 i agree --Fleritarus (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done --Fleritarus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)