The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
In the introduction, having drawn skepticism of the first sentence having the sole label "far-right", I edited this, by using the term "right-wing" in the first sentence, followed closely by sourced claims of "far-right" and "alt-right" in the first paragraph. These edits were reverted;
My case is that there is no universal agreement on "far-right" among sources, as he is described differently. "Far-right" and "alt-right" are both subcategories of the Right itself (he is variously as all three), and so it makes sense to describe objectively as possible in the first sentence; i.e., if we had to use only one label (for the first sentence) it does not seem clear to me that it would be "far right", as, again, sources do not universally use this descriptor. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is pretty simple. "Far-right" is a specific subset of "right wing" therefore we use the more precise relevant term so long as we have Reliable Sources for it. You are claiming that "there is no universal agreement on "far-right" among sources" but I see nothing to suggest that. Some sources are using the broader/vaguer term and some are being more precise. That is not a disagreement. We have no Reliable Sources explicitly saying "right wing but not far-right" which is what it would take to demonstrate an actual disagreement.
Imagine that we have 4 sources for a biography. One says that the subject is 6'2". Two say that the subject is "over 6 foot tall" and one just says "6 foot". If the first source is Reliable then we are going to say 6'2", if we have reason to mention the subject's height at all, as that is the most precise. Nobody is going to argue that the other three sources "disagree" with that. Find a fifth Reliable source specifically saying 6'0" or 6'4" and only now do we have a disagreement.
You use height as an analogy. The thing is, height is a good analogy against sole labelling. Say a particular person - this is the case with the Cristiano Ronaldo article - has height varied by different sources. Ronaldo's height (which is relevant for an athlete) ranges from 1.85 to 1.89m by various sources; the sole label in the infobox is the elaborated midpoint of 1.87m. Now, with height, we can numerically compromise. A compromise wouldn't be describing him as "1.89m" because that is numerically not a compromise. But that is obviously more difficult when it comes to politics.
However, the clear compromise politically - as you have written above - is acknowledging "far" and "alt" right as subsets of the Right, and initially describing this particular person as "right-wing." (then describing the subsets). Again, as he is very commonly described as "far" and "alt" right, that should be made clear early in the article; just not the first sentence, as it would be clunky to say "a right-wing-alt-right-far-right individual", as well as unsourced to say solely "far right."
I don't disagree with the fact that calling him "far-right" would be more precise. I do not support very precise labels - that do not appear to be universally sourced - in the first sentence. I am not even disputing him being far-right (he's a UKIPer after all); I am disputing the current clumsy sourcing.
The reason I am extremely skeptical is because I saw this article a few weeks ago describing him solely as "right wing", recently changed to "far-right". Now there is dispute among reliable sources themselves (in addition to Benjamin's own rejection of "far right"); in addition to descriptors of "right wing", "alt right" and "far right", there is description of him as "leftist libertarian" and "classical liberal"; two philosophies that are hardly right-wing. (perhaps the latter centre-right) Again, the majority of sources do use a variation of the right, that much is clear. But if we were to use a sole descriptor, such as "alt right" or "far right"... that is much less clear. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources describe him as "far" and "alt" right. While I - and Wikipedia's own page for it - absolutely agree that the alt-right is a subset of the far-right, to interpret that from reliable sources - as to say that "alt" is a subset of "far" so we shall just use "far" - would be a form of original research. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we required that every fact 'be universally sourced' to the point that all sources use the exact same wording, Wikipedia would contain very little information. I don't see any conflict in the sourcing here. 'Far-right' summarizes the available sources well and isn't seriously disputed anywhere that I have seen. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree personally, but it is not warranted in the first sentence. That is what I am claiming. While "far right" is more precise, I feel like using this in the first sentence is a form of overlabelling and pigeonholing. Basically, if there are many sources for "right wing", "alt right" and "far right", while describing him as "far right" is more precise as @DanielRigal stated above, it seems wrong that there is a tendency to give credence to the most right-wing descriptor for the sake of "precision." Zilch-nada (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, why do you think the sole label "far right" is sufficient enough? Wouldn't "alt-right" - which is also heavily sourced - be a more precise descriptor? (as a subset of the far right) The idea of merging "far right" and "alt right" into a sole descriptor - as I wrote above - is original research. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways - you can't paint someone else's argument as original research while simultaneously pulling requirements that something 'be universally sourced' or 'a form of overlabelling and pigeonholing' out of thin air. MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that choosing the sole descriptor of "far-right" over both "right-wing" and "alt-right" is a form of original research (nitpicking is a better term). The sources themselves describe all of the three as part of "The Right"; "right-wing" is the best sole descriptor. As all three are sourced, why does this article have to veer towards the most right-wing, when all are sourced? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That you personally disagree with a wording choice does not mean that picking a word is original research. The sources support the label, so it cannot be WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better term is "original interpretation". We are using the same sources here, only interpreting them differently. The sources do indeed support various labels, but no source is coming out with a consistent, sole descriptor. Some say just "far right", some say just "alt right", and some just say "right wing." Zilch-nada (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All editors naturally contribute some degree of originality to Wikipedia; if there was no originality in interpreting or researching sources, AI could write the whole thing already. "There are no facts, only interpretations." And interpretations of interpretations. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie and DanielRigal are experienced editors. I'm sure each of us has already thought about what "original research" means, and this would not be the place to quibble over definitions. I have already seen every one of these points countless times before, both here and on many other talk pages. Personally, I'm not keen on using this page to explain basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines in detail yet again.
The entire left-right spectrum is a simplification, and we assume that readers will be intelligent enough to understand that. Readers understand that there is no pass/fail test for this, because real people are not RPG game characters. Benjamin is (or was) a politician, and his political position is a defining trait, and those belong in the lead. "Far-right" is a reasonably simple and reasonably neutral way to summarize what many sources say. If you disagree, despite many words and several tangents, you haven't actually explained why. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the section on his views, three sources label him as right-wing and four as far-right. The far-right label is far from unanimous or even majority among the sources. As such, far-right is a completely inappropriate characterization of his politics to be put in the first sentence. X-Editor (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment pretty much completely ignores the substance of the above discussion, and of all the other times this has come up on this talk page. As for the sources in the body, context matters, same as always. The Newsweek source used in the body for "right wing", for example, says he was a candidate for the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)[1] In other words, it directly supports "far-right" also. If you want to try and simplistically divide this into two categories, you will also have to actually look at what those sources say, but even then you cannot pretend that these two categories are mutually exclusive. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also think "far-right" in the first sentence is unwarranted. The lead already covers this further down, there's no need for a definitive statement in the first sentence and Benjamin being anti-feminist is far more central a characterisation (hence an important descriptor for the opening sentence). I think the lead was fine previously (a while ago) when it covered this in the lead but further down and with more detail. I think I may have missed subsequent discussions about this since then though so maybe I'm missing some justifications that were cited in favour of it being in the first sentence. Shapeyness (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using the label in the first sentence is problematic. It's not good writing style in part because it's a subjective label (subjective in that it doesn't have a clear, agreed definition). Do the sources that use it offer a solid explanation why they use it or is this something like, "Far-right commentator CB said X in an interview last night"? It would be better to have the opening sentence state the objective facts (goes by SofA, is British, is a political commentator - is he just on YT?) The include some level of summary of his views which could include, "his commentary is described as far-right [cites]". The same information in conveyed but it's done in an objective, impartial fashion. Springee (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see 5 sources in the body used to support far-right. BFN isn't a high quality source for such labels and doesn't actually call CB far-right. Wired clearly does call him far-right though they are basing that on a claim by Hope not Hate. It's not clear why that would be considered authoritative. The Hill and The Independent both call him a far-right. Newsweek said he is running as a candidate for "the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party". So it doesn't say he is (or isn't) far right. Per Wikipedia far-right includes, "Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." Being associated with any of those things is quite clearly a negative thing thus this is a pejorative label and when dealing with a BLP should be attributed and preferably include supporting facts. Springee (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, another time-wasting discussion of something that has been done many times. Springee says "5 sources", some of which amount to {{fv}} (allegedly). That sort of lazy comment might encourage others to add more sources, drawing on what's available but not currently included. Like this one, or this one. But if editors then load up an article with long lists of sources, other editors will (legitimately) cry "overkill" and do a cull. The bottom line: there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe CB as far-right, and it wastes people's time to imply otherwise when you merely haven't explored it properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there are several sources that call him far-right, but putting the description in the first sentence definitely has tone and neutrality issues. X-Editor (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Far-right" is a well-defined and neutral academic term with a clearly-established meaning. Stronger sourcing is needed when someone denies a political affiliation that the sources bluntly describe them as holding, but that's clearly satisfied here. When high-quality sources primarily describe someone that way, we're bound to do the same - the alternative argument is basically saying "well, I don't think they ought to use that terminology." WP:NOTCENSORED means that we can't just arbitrarily decide that a particular word or term is completely forbidden because some editors dislike it - if you feel that a term is not encyclopedic, you need to demonstrate that by showing that eg. it has minimal use in academia or other high-quality sources, which seems difficult in this case given the term's origins. It is a large and well-established field of academic study; in fact, the reason it is so easy to find high-quality sources describing Benjamin's far-right activism is because his prominence in the modern far-right makes him important for the numerous scholars who study the far-right to examine. From an academic standpoint, I would argue that his far-right affiliation is one of the most notable things about him. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To dispute whether or not far-right should be the sole descriptor in the first sentence is not to negate the descriptor at all. I don't think anyone denying "far-right" as the sole descriptor in the first sentence is denying high-quality sources describing him as far-right. I have made my case above that "far-right", "alt-right" and similar labels should absolutely be mentioned, but I do not condone the style of using one very specific descriptor in the first sentence. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it is admittedly quite difficult to dispute the far-right label, because sources describing him as "right-wing" - a label which includes the far-right - do not directly negate it. It would be quite hard to find a direct negation; "Carl Benjamin is a right-wing (but not far-right)..."Zilch-nada (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, for someone who was not a major far-right figure, it would be relatively easy. Obviously the absolute best sources to refute that would be ones disputing it directly (and when large numbers of sources say something like this, I think it's reasonable to expect sources that dispute them to actually exist if it is disputed), but we can parse sources to an extent - all you'd really need to do is find sources describing him as mainstream or in other ways that clearly contradict the academic definition of the far right. If I was to try and describe, say, Kevin McCarthy or Mitch McConnell or Mitt Romney as far right, it would be trivial to find sources that contradict this in the article voice - sources directly describing their positions as divergent from or opposed to the far right. The reason it's hard to do this for Carl Benjamin because those sources don't exist, and the reason those sources don't exist is because he is, in fact, notable for being a major figure in the structure of the online far right. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zilch-nada's point is 100% valid. Most of the time sources are trying to make their own point. Unless their intent is specifically to show another author is wrong. I don't know if you have any experience in academic writing but when we are in a position where we are rated on what we publish there is little value in saying "they are wrong" unless it can be part of a bigger picture. I one reviewed a conference paper that had a flawed analysis. I could show via alternative modeling that the results of the paper were wrong. What would I get out of trying to write such a paper? I would have to wait a year to present it at next year's conference. As the only contribution was to say some other not overly important paper was wrong my paper wouldn't be important and, as they say, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Springee (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim, that far right is a clear, well defined term assumes that people who use the term are versed in the agree definition and are using it correctly. It would be helpful (and if the research paper is worth while, required) that sources define the term or point to a definition. We can point to the definition provided by Wikipedia but is that aligned with the academic definition? In this case, at least I assume we do have academic sources of reasonable quality who have described him as such. Do any of those sources define the term? If not I think your claim of well defined and neutral isn't supported in this case. Springee (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely ridiculous, do you think we shouldn't link to the page for the Atlantic Ocean when sources mention it because they may be using a definition of "Atlantic Ocean" that doesn't align with what's written on the page, despite no evidence of a discrepancy? You ask people to assume good faith, which is fair, but this kind of sophistry makes it hard to imagine you're interested in a legitimate discussion. XeCyranium (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source denoted for "He apologised for the remark in 2024" says that a "better source" is needed. But upon examining the source, it has a video that the source did as an interview with Carl where he makes the apology on camera. Is this necessary? If it's believed to be a deep fake or other misrepresentation, perhaps this should be denoted in the article? Crumpled-Padlock (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use reliable sources to establish the facts and to determine which facts/views to include. If Benjamin's apology is not covered by reliable sources, we might be affording it undue weight in this article. We also become a more reliable encyclopedia by citing less unreliable sources, so we avoid using GB News wherever possible. Even if it's not possible now, it might become so in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know there were sources cited for his political position here. I had simply checked his Wikipedia page and saw it said right-wing, and assumed that was consensus. Might need to go change that to far-right. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)