Talk:Owen Benjamin

Archives (Index)

Talk:Owen Benjamin/Archive 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Notability Tag

Wow, so this talk page vanished. Anyway I this Owen Benjamin meets notability requirements.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Someone drive by tagged this and didn't discuss. Please see guidelines on tagging, don't just tag without explanation.Removing Tag.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this person have a page on Wikipedia? He's dated Christina Ricci and that seems about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.229.109 (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Owen 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/20080704103733/http://www.palltimes.com/entertainment/x681527682 to http://www.palltimes.com/entertainment/x681527682

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} 12:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: remove or at least place elsewhere pointless sentence in Personal Life section

"His website, HugePianist.com, is a play on words on the fact that he is a trained pianist and stands 6 ft 7 in (2.01 m) tall."

While that is his website's URL (owenbenjamin.com redirects there), it seems pointlessly patronizing to explain how it is a play on words and the two facts that involve it either aren't notable on their own or should be mentioned elsehwere.

181.115.8.231 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018

May be worth noting that it says Owen was born in 1980, then to the right, it says he was born in 1960, and that he's 58. 2600:6C51:7C7F:C221:0:E940:5583:C44D (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done --Danski454 (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This Sentence Just Looks/Feels Wrong

"Scheduled shows of his have been cancelled and he has been suspended from Twitter on account of this behavior"

I know just enough grammar to be considered dangerous, so I could be wrong here, but the construction "scheduled shows of his" seems/feels wrong to me in terms of Readability. I think "his scheduled shows" is more positive, more direct. Also I don't like the word "behavior" to describe what happens on Twitter. The word "behavior" has connotations of physicality, and does not seem appropriate for an electronic speech environment. It would be more accurate to say that he's been "suspended from Twitter" for his "speech". "Behavior" could also be a euphemism to hide the fact that his speech is being censored. One corrects, or punishes the "behavior" of a child who doesn't know how to control themselves, but one censors the speech of a comedian whose speech is politically incorrect. Obviously the text is source-driven, but still I wonder if it can be tweaked to attempt to remove at least some of the bias, or at least make the text grammatically correct. Tym Whittier (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article locked from editing?

86.93.208.34 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the article reads like a propaganda leaflet. "Alt-right comentator" ? Any impartial source for that?

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

Make mention of his antisemitism 37.26.148.168 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Begoon 07:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to sort this out:

"For example, Benjamin has told his audience on YouTube that it is “infinitely more probable” that the Nazis over-worked Jews to death during the Holocaust than it was that they subjected them to execution in gas chambers. He went on to say that he was “a big fan” of Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler’s art.

“Really what he was trying to do was clean Germany, clean it of the parasites, of the fleas. He did not hate Jews. He hated filth and he was trying to clean up,” Benjamin said."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/owen-benjamins-rhetoric-is-growing-more-extreme/

https://vimeo.com/325019623 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.198.31 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already done MrClog (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Source discussion

ModerateMikayla555, Forbes contributed pieces (those which have "contributor (i)" in the byline) are unreliable, see WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is pittsburgh city paper better? They refer to him using the same language. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@ModerateMikayla555: yes, but headlines are unreliable. If it is not in the source's body, it should not be cited. wumbolo ^^^ 08:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019

Owen lives on the west coast, now. 67.249.173.160 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 13:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Name change?

The subject’s birth name was apparently "Smith.” No mention of when or why he began to go by the name of Benjamin. Orthotox (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

2605:E000:8840:AC00:F53D:58FB:2387:D296 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Why don't you say Owen is a Good father, loving husband, he works hard with his hands. He is 1 in 10,000 is it? An IQ of 147. These are the things people need to hear also about owen. Try to understand the the way he looks at life, he is on a different wavelength I believe, able to see things and present them in such a truthful way, most people can't handle it. That's what I see in Owen in 2019, in a brief... 2605:E000:8840:AC00:F53D:58FB:2387:D296 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The relevance of any of this information would need to be explained by reliable sources, which would almost certainly also have to be independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Source and claim issue

Footnote [24] cites https://www.jta.org/2019/04/08/opinion/how-did-conservative-comedian-owen-benjamin-became-a-darling-of-the-alt-right as a source for writing "Benjamin has also posted fabricated verses from the Talmud to demonize Jews". The given source does not contain any evidence for said claims, and the said source is an opinion article, that I reiterate, does not contain any sources for this claim, as it's an opinion piece and clearly identified as such. Either an actual source should be made, or the passage itself reworked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.143.100 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019

I would like to request the ability to add to the content of this page. Wer23567 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wer23567: Please read and follow the instructions. You need to give a complete and specific description of the edit you wish to make. Railfan23 (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wer23567: The edit semi-protected template is not for requesting access to edit a page but a template to request a change be made to a page. Semi-protected pages can be edited by any autoconfirmed account (an account that is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed account. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

I removed a paragraph or two that mention some gross and antisemitic comments he made on his YouTube. Such things need to be provided with secondary sources, for various reasons--one of them being that if "person X said Y" is legitimate if sourced with a link to person X's YouTube channel, we might as well include everything. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

Owen Benjamin is an American conspiracy theorist and a controversial stand-up comedian. Happymerchant (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is what the article says. What change are you requesting? Railfan23 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

N Nothing to do. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

The Antisemitism claims are incorrect. He should be able to sue you people for this. 72.65.123.82 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 08:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Engagement to Christina Ricci

@Jpgordon: I noticed this recent removal by you, and I was wondering why you consider it gossip? It seems both true and appropriately sourced, when gossip normally implies untrue or unverified. While I would certainly agree on the removal if they had merely dated, the fact that they were engaged and their engagement was covered in multiple reliable sources would seem to be adequate for inclusion in my opinion. What do you think? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it the least bit important that this person was briefly engaged to some actress many years ago? Gossip doesn't imply untrue or unverified, certainly. In this case, it's idle talk about the private lives of other people. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Formal engagements are significant acts, and breaking off an engagement is a big deal in most people's lives. Also, they were engaged for over 3 months, which is not a brief engagement. "Personal life" details in a Wikipedia article are usually going to be about a person's private life, and some biographies even have a "relationship" section. This is not "idle talk" (at least in the usual sense of that phrase), but instead a factual statement about a major change in Benjamin's relationship status. This type of information is routinely covered in other biographies, as well as non-tabloid news. Do you think that no engagements are relevant to biographies or is the issue that the engagement never resulted in a marriage? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to reduce it to the earlier mention of Ricci: In 2009, he played the lead role in the romantic comedy All's Faire in Love, co-starring with Christina Ricci (to whom he was briefly engaged). The sources provided there already are the ones the later mention was using. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the engagement belongs as part of his personal life rather than his career. If you feel that it needs to be short, what about: "In March 2008, he and Christina Ricci announced they were engaged, but they ended their engagement two months later." –Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

Remove "Falsehood" from the section titled "Falsehoods and Controversial Statements". These are normally called "conspiracy theories." You may say argue that he has little evidence for transgender rights being a UN eugenics program, but you would be hardpressed to establish its falsity (proving a negative). More importantly, your links don't establish "falsity" of these claims, or even try to. 73.114.21.8 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia doesn't validate WP:FRINGE nonsense. Do not reopen this template until you have consensus. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

Owen is not affiliated with any political group so alt-right statement is incorrect. He does not make statements about jews and LGBT. He makes jokes about them to make a point about free speech and liberty. He is against child abused and sees as so administrating hormones to child below 9 years old. Kauedb (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not an edit request in the required format. You need to specify precisely what you want changed. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

Qwen Benjamin is NOT Alt-Right. 128.227.212.177 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sceptre (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

He is a flat earther

He was a main speaker of the "Flat Earth International Conference (USA) 2019" https://flatearthconference.com/featuring/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:AF09:2270:74E6:8D3D:A3B:3B81 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Talmud Verses mention

@The Mirror Cracked: My reasoning for first deleting the information with a suggestion to add it back with attribution, and then by adding attribution to the information after my edit was reverted is based on RS: "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

The source is on the opinion section of the website and the page itself notes: "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media." This means that the article's credibility relies on the author, not the hosting agency. This is why attribution is appropriate. The source is an opinion article. If you can find a RS that is not an opinion article then there would be no need for attribution. Otherwise there is, according to RS. AaronMP84 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that is it not appropriate to use an opinion article without in-text attribution. Opinion pieces are not subject to the same editorial oversight, and we are using it to make a serious negative claim about a living person. I also removed "to demonize Jews" as I could not find support for that in the article. I think it may be useful to include some additional information from the source, as it goes into the common perception that he has become more extreme and less comedic, which seems to be a increasingly frequent in reports about him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As dialectical exploration (Benjamin's oeuvre)

A placement somewhere in the article - perhaps in the antisemitic or flat earth section - of Benjamin's dialectical process should be mentioned - for many reasons - would bring the whole page together and settle context of all the controversy vs zeitgeist. He is the son of two tertiary level Professors after all (his intellectualism is lost in media headline branding/blackballing). See Identity politics, Satire, The Emperor's New Clothes, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Dialectic. The inherent application of comedy to society has historically a de facto truthyness that is being eroded with social media & limited ownership of mass media opportunities (See "Gatekeeper (disambiguation)").

"Owen Benjamin has publically stated he is a proponent of free speech and for the dialectical exploration of what is considered "taboo" or "politically incorrect". This lens of "dialectical exploration" should be used upon all of Benjamin's more controversial "antisemitic" statements - both as a comedian and as critic in the 21st century situ." (See WDTL799, & nightstream). Text mdnp (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

All of this looks like original research, and it looks like it verges on WP:FORUM, which is not allowed on talk pages. If your content is not based on reliable published sources, then it is not appropriate to include on Wikipedia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sources but need to read more about thirdpartyness to those sources (& html to link) ... his page does need a reminder he is a well established comedian (& dialectic is inherent to that situ) ... "everything is political" ... thank-you for the assist Text mdnp (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe in Wikipedia's editing policy ... I am in no way inventing a "original research/discussion/persuasion value" to mutate the article - I am using the article's 'talk' page to perhaps get an assist on bettering the article (pure & simple) Text mdnp (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The entire antisemitic section should be removed. Too sensational & source/quote heavy that does non fit typical good article structure (Wikiquote is for that?) Text mdnp (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

After observing Owen Benjamin for some time, it is clear that he is "Right-Leaning", and not , by Wikipedia definition, "Alt-Right". In these dangerous times, it would seem clarity is VERY important to ensuring people's safety and therefore, I suggest this minor, yet crucial change. Jeff The Aussie (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your opinion is not a reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

Requesting a citation needed for the accusation of Benjamin Owen being alt right at the end of the first paragraph, as there are no sources are listed for the claim per Wikipedia's rules. Unbiasedpredator (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement is sourced. Danski454 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

To any wiki mod that sees this, you're basically asking someone to "prove" he's not alt right, a label given onto him by you. Please source your claims if you're going to add it in the article at least. Telling people "your opinion is not a reliable source" is rather hypocritical if you refuse to show sources for the opposing argument, no? Unbiasedpredator (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement that Benjamin is alt-right is supported by sources. To change that, we would require sources that state otherwise. Danski454 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Struck some parts, as I didn't fully read the request. The statement had no inline citation when this request was made (although sources used in the body called him alt-right), but sources have since been added. Danski454 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: in addition, you seem to have quickly scoured the internet for any source you could find to back up the claim. Using a guilty until proven innocent modus operandi is incredibly dishonest. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/owen-benjamin-youtube-twitter/ In the source there are no personal comments, no self identifying remarks, at no point does Owen Benjamin claim to be alt right. I find the bias on this page to be on the extremes, no wonder you have to be approved to edit.

Nice one. You are unbiased but you didn't even fully read the request. Really shows what's going on here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpredator (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Moved the updated request into chronological order, it is difficult to follow the order of events when comments are amended) We should maybe attribute this inline, since it is a somewhat contentious label. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations look fine to me, though I would also support simply "right-wing" if alt-right is too contentious. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Are mods here just absolutely insane? There’s a clear distinction between alt right, and right wing. These ‘sources’ are a complete joke and simply points at the guy while calling him alt right. Benjamin has no clear ties to any alt right groups or individuals based on the sources given. Recommend updating the article as this entire talk page is just filled with requests to edit this very contentious point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpredator (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

He's Not Alt-Right

In the first 2 minutes of this interview Owen Benjamin categorically denies being Alt-Right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbxhl-qbT0

So is that something the press (and Wikipedia editors) can determine about a person when the person says they're not? ElizaBarrington (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin's jokes should not be conflated with his views.

Benjamin's comedy is intentionally absurd and often provocative. Just because he joked that the moon landing was a hoax doesn't mean that he sincerely believes it was a hoax. Likewise, he might claim that he wants to bring back slavery, but that was clearly a dig at Shaun King. When writing a biography of a living person, especially a comedian, it's important to differentiate between what's real and what's not. I suggest erring on the side of caution, and taking much of what Benjamin says with a grain of salt. Humor, especially bad humor, should not be conflated with sincerely held views. Good examples of Wikipedia articles that do not have this issue include Dave Chappelle and Andy Kaufman. –Sebanderson (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We can dig through WDTL & source his quotes on these things - the whole article needs tidying up. I just deleted the anti-semitic section (as too passionate & tabloid'esque in sources/rhetoric vs a reasoned stance?) Text mdnp (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete anti-Semitic section as has become a tabloid style mess

Wikipedia & Comedy deserve better than this unusual inclusion of obscure websites as sources in the article's very text vs a standard reference tag? Text mdnp (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In Benjamin's comedy special 'Art Before The Horse', he makes fun of a post-NAZI legacy in culture & infrastructure ... is he anti NAZI or anti Semitic? The views section has become a farce - we must wiki-standardise the subject's tropes/grammar vs zeitgeist/fashion lexicons to clear the article. I say we delete & absorb a condensed version of the anti-semitic sub-section into the Views section? Text mdnp (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is base on reliable sources. To the best of my knowledge and based by community consensus at WP:RSP, most sources in this section are generally reliable. Could you describe in particular which of these sources you deem unreliable for these purposes and why?

In addition, Wikipedia is not based on WP:Original Research. It is totally possible that Benjamin is doing something complicated in his work, but we must base that judgment on what exists in RS. Do you have secondary sources that describe this? Jlevi (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The website sources being included in the very text vs a "cherry picking nature" is non objective/consistent to what I have experienced with article quality & WP:Original Research in the past. There is actual & lateral evidence of passionate article muddling here. "Anti-Semitic" subject reflects the complicated passions of the land-bridge/silk road politics "Semitism" is. I am non "soap boxing/forum/weasel words" here &c.

A condensed absorption of 'Anti-Semitic' section into 'Views' could look like this:

Benjamin in his live shows & streams has expressed many ideas that some outlets claim supports anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Thank'you for the assist Jlevi. Text mdnp (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Insider Inc." using the term "White Nationalist" is OK here? Text mdnp (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

New intro sentence to views section could look like this: "Using a classical moral stance & dialectical lens to explore zeitgeist taboos, his comedy is intentionally offensive and frequently uses slurs. Benjamin describes his comedy as a ..." Text mdnp (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Classical moral stance"; "dialectical lens"; "zeitgeist taboos", these terms challenged/questioned with WP:WEASEL? Text mdnp (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Some outlets claim" is falsely implying that this is disputed by other sources, or that this is a subjective opinion. Sources support this in direct language. When reliable sources say something, Wikipedia reflects that without editorializing on how much of a claim it is. Your personal interpretation of Benjamin's "moral stance" etc. is original research. The burden is on you to cite reliable sources for all of this flattering cruft. Otherwise, we are not interested in that, and this isn't the place to share these perspectives.

To repeat for clarity, we are interested in summarizing reliable sources. Editorializing by casting doubt on reliable sources based on first-hand opinions is inappropriate. Further, we are mainly interested in independent sources, and Benjamin should not be directly cited as reliable source without attribution and context, which must be provided by a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

With Editorializing/OR aspect, see Benjamin's podcast WDTL799 (& nightstream) for his discussing dialectic & being the son of two professors; see WDTL930's "I make fun of everybody" (ts38m18s). I will draft a "more anti-antisemitic" section that omits sources from the actual article text & is just the ref-tag as should of been originally. Sources being included in the article's actual text reads corny/sensationalized/tabloid to me. That is what I was trying to do initially. Thank'you for the assist. Text mdnp (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• See above "In Benjamin's comedy special 'Art Before The Horse', he makes fun of a post-NAZI legacy in culture & infrastructure ... is he anti-NAZI or anti-Semitic‽" Text mdnp (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• "That voice is insane" (JRE998 1h27m56s-1h28m15s) - regarding scapegoating & identity politics - using example of the NAZI Germany reaction to post Versailles Treaty era - same thread goes on to discuss Genghis Khan/Native Americans vs cultural taboos vs idols/icons with social issues to/in history. Text mdnp (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin's podcast is almost never going to be a reliable source. Joe Rogan isn't a reliable source, either. Any quotes from podcasts should be directly supported by a reliable sources, or should be uncontroversially relevant to an issue raised by a reliable, independent source. Articles are based on reliable and independent sources. Your personal interpretation of Benjamin's comments, or Rogan's for that matter, are not usable. This is not a platform for sharing your personal interpretation of sources, because your interpretation of sources is original research. Per WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. If reliable, independent sources discuss Benjamin's views on Nazism, summarize those sources with as little analyzes as possible. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cheers for the assist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Text mdnp (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"Benjamin's podcast is almost never going to be a reliable source" ... really? Text mdnp (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, really. We cannot use unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources to demonstrate importance, or for any information which requires interpretation. Very basic biographical information might be supported by a podcast. This means things like birth year, name of schools attended, country of birth, and not much else. Even then, it is always better to use independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

OK thank'you for the assist. I am reading about reliable third party sources. I non wish to troll here as I understand the guideline's "psi process" to 'anti-semitic' views sub-section staying as is. User talk:Grayfell stated above "We cannot use unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources to demonstrate importance" - as an article about a comedian involved in gate keeper media politics why would the very article subject's direct comedy experience be "unreliable"? This talk page's assist function (non being a OR/"personal opinion"/forum) to clear up the article is touching upon the very feedback issues for his comedy reinforcing persecution tropes - & is why this article needs clearing up regarding the inherent dialectical process comedy has to social issues? That in the "anti-semitic views" section, the listed source "Insider Inc." using the term "White Nationalist" is OK here projects a bending of public psi life where permitted sources seems arbitrarily selective to slyly skew the article which is illkeeping with a objective stance to the article's very existence - & with Wikipedia's de facto mainstream use vs Wikipedia being non permitted in legally binding arenas we have again a feedback loop to the "anti-semitic" views tabloid style sub-section being a travesty to Wikipedia's very existence? Text mdnp (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for discussion on philosophy or rhetoric.

If you have a reliable source discussing the "dialectical process comedy has to social issues" and that source discusses this in relation to Owen Benjamin then you should propose it to this talk page.

Otherwise, please get to the point. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A good Wikipedia article should use archonic language to express the subject - & non use a zeitgiest's tabloid style superficial fleeting terminology & pazuzu'd identity politics? The Anti-semitic sub section features subpar sources & is expressed in a non objective manner as a Wikipedia article should. I am reporting some of those sites as hate-speech to my local authorities. Thank'you. I hope the psi flow of the article/talk remains intact. I will refrain from posting here untill I have drafted a more objective 'views sub-section' text. Text mdnp (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)