Talk:Owen Benjamin

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Owen Benjamin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Addition of descriptions that may not be NPOV?[change source]

Hiya @Gotanda:. Just saw your recent changes in this article. Let me preface that I know nothing about the subject until I saw the changes from an IP in the New Changes. My edits were aimed at tightening the language and simplify it. Your edits, however, appear to be controversial in nature. I understand you may not have intended for it to be that way.. so would you mind taking another look whether these are neutral in nature?

- Changing the description in the lede from ‘controversial’ to ‘offensive’ is a bit editorialising and potentially not within a neutral point of view.

- Same with the addition of “He believes in racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories.” — Infogapp1 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Offensive" is in the description in the EnWP article. It seems he is offensive on purpose, so it is descriptive and neutral. Racist and antisemitic are short, one word summaries of what follows in the article under politics and views on race sections. He is an offensive racist antisemite. That's his strategy as a comedian. There is no way to sugar coat that. --Gotanda (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda:Hi again, I see. I can see they describe his comedy style being offensive way further down in the article, in reference to his comedic style. But here's what I'm currently seeing in the lede: "Owen Benjamin Smith (born May 24, 1980) is an American comedian, actor, and alt-right[1][2][3], political commentator." Shouldn't we consider a simpler version of those? — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple writing gets directly to the point. The mission of this wiki is for learners of English and younger students. Shorter is often easier to read. There is no need to start with vague generalities. Neutral POV does not mean denatured. I think the current version is accurate and specific. I do not see a clear reason to change. --Gotanda (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to respectfully disagree. Direct to the point does not mean editorialising. In its current form, it already tells the user what to think about the subject. We should let the readers do that judgment themselves by presenting neutral sourceable information. I suggest we add NPOV tag as the neutrality of the article is currently questionable. If you think that's not the case, we can let others help chime in Simple Talk to help find WP:CONS. More heads are always better to help get consensus. --Infogapp1 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]