Talk:Ben Garrison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Far right' in the lead[edit]

Despite several editors repeatedly adding this back, none of the sources provided support applying this label to Garrison. In the cited articles the artist is consistently referred to as "pro-Trump" or "libertarian", and these sources recognise that while his works are popular with alt-right circles the artist himself doesn't necessarily share those views. It's notable that the far right have even edited his works to give the impression of support for them, and the author clearly rejects this. To that end I'm struggling to understand the push for this beyond political agenda-pushing. It should be removed. - BirdZilla (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "alt-right" with some references from reliable sources, I feel that BirdZilla raised a point and this should have been referenced in the article and not just reverted. Greyjoy talk 16:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's an improvement, but from what I can see the second source doesn't actually support the label 'alt-right'. In fact, it looks like the only source labelling Garrison as 'alt-right' is the first NYT link you added. Considering that the other sources here (including #2) almost unanimously use 'pro-Trump' or 'conservative' as their descriptor, should this not be the consensus description which is used in the lead? - BirdZilla (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the second source with one which does support the label, thank you for that correction. We should wait for other editor's to weigh in on the alt-right, conservative, or pro-Trump choice so that a consensus can be reached. Greyjoy talk 05:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, though with so many other sources using other labels, and the Wired piece and others making it clear that his content is being edited to imply support for ideologies which the artist rejects, I worry that the use of 'alt-right' crosses into source cherry-picking. This article provides some comments from Garrison on this. - BirdZilla (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BirdZilla, I think his homoerotic drawings of Trump don't leave a lot of room for doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I'm pretty sure that someone doesn't need to be on the extreme right to support Trump, unless half the US population are suddenly 'alt-right'. Trying to tag anyone remotely right-leaning as such seems more like what you'd expect from RationalWiki - BirdZilla (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BirdZilla, pretty sure they do, you know. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JzG With that kinda of attitude any objectivity goes out of the window. Wikipedia needs to reflect what reliable sources agree on, not your personal politics. - BirdZilla (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, BirdZilla. I am seconding your statement that Wikipedia should not reflect personal politics. 100.16.169.194 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Benjamin R. Garrison (born 1957) is an American alt-right[1][2][3][4] political cartoonist[5] and artist." That is not a lede to an encyclopedia article. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:C884:B510:DE1E:181F (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt-right seems the clear choice here, given the direction of his cartooning and the recency of the "alt-right" sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously want to ignore that the overwhelming majority of the sources on the page use "libertarian" or "pro-Trump", regardless of recency. Your personal opinion of the content does not justify selectively representing sources to inject bias. BirdZilla (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can get a consensus for "libertarian," you're welcome to open an RFC. But there are three editors expressing support for "alt-right," and you are the only person objecting at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to have 3v1 here, yet multiple users have attempted to remove the problem phrase from the lead while users like yourself consistently revert without any real effort to discuss. Indeed, JzG had no argument beyond personal opinion as well. Perhaps an RFC is a good idea. BirdZilla (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Birdzilla is not the only one objecting to this point. I am, too. And if anyone else who is opposed to the alt-right label wants to put their names on this talk page, they are welcome to do so. 100.16.169.194 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfc request: Following the discussion about using "far right", the description of the author has been changed to "alt-right" based on a small subset of sources. However, the majority of sources currently used by the article describe Garrison as either a "libertarian" or "pro-Trump" cartoonist whose work appeals to elements of the alt-right. Much of this is confounded by the fact that the artist's work has been repeatedly edited by third parties to imply support for positions which Garrison publicly rejects (see this piece as well as the author's website). How should Garrison be described in the lead? - BirdZilla (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alt-right - High-quality and the most recent sources such as The New York Times and Time use it - and it's not difficult to see why. Garrison's self-identification notwithstanding, his cartoon output during the Trump administration has very little or nothing to do with "libertarianism" and everything to do with Trump hero worship. This recent cartoon, for example, is the opposite of "libertarian" - a philosophy which generally opposes mob violence and supports strict adherence to the rule of law. Here, Garrison celebrates the lawless Capitol rioters and depicts them as heroic. This recent cartoon, which falsely claims that Trump won the election, similarly has nothing to do with libertarianism and is, instead, Trump cultism. Self-identification is given little or no credence on Wikipedia - instead, we look at what high-quality sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that sources for "alt right" were only dug up once I'd complained about "far right" being unsourced, which is why these are more recent than those used in the rest of the article. Other recent pieces, such as this, this and this still prefer pro-Trump. This piece also makes it clear that his work is still being maliciously edited. I maintain that trying to inject "far right" and "alt right" is an exercise in political cherry-picking. BirdZilla (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far-right/pro-Trump: I think it's pretty clear from just the comics alone that Ben Garrison is far right and extremely pro-Trump. I think the idea that he is a libertarian when the main subject of his comics is hero worship of the (now former) president is pretty laughable. (FWIW I also think the idea that libertarianism can be said to "generally oppose mob violence" is false and the idea that it "supports strict adherence to the rule of law" is extremely false. The main uniting characteristic of libertarians is that they are anti-government and anti-law. Hero-worship of the president, especially an authoritarian like Trump, is not a very libertarian thing to do.) "Alt-right" I'm unsure on: that label is more-or-less a euphemism for "Nazi" and so I want to avoid it unless the sources for it are overwhelming. We do have some really good sources saying he's alt-right (tho I'd discount the NYT one because of WP:HEADLINE: what the NYT says about Garrison in the body of the article is a lot more measured than the headline outright calling him alt-right). But I think the balance of sources say that his comics are popular with the alt-right and not that he's alt-right himself. Loki (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invited by the bot. I'm not going to weigh in on the specific question. In general I favor leaving out characterizations by political opponents, including when that political opponent is a "source" because such characterizations are merely characterizations by political opponents rather than information. And doubly so when they are not directly about the topic of the article,. (e.g. "these type of people like his stuff"). BTW, the common form of libertarianism in the US (the type which about 25% of US citizens identify as) was mis-characterized above. A much closer description woulf be "prioritizing smaller and less intrusive government in all decisions"). North8000 (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt-right - It's clear from sources (the wired piece for example in the RFC) that he's made a living off publishing in alt-right spaces and the content of his cartoons align with the politics of those spaces. Actions rather than self ascription are more important when determining political positions. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. AlanStalk 02:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt right, and look for sources for past libertarian views: Pre-Trump, Garrison made a lot of cartoons against the two main parties, state surveillance, "big government" etc. Those could be qualified as libertarian, though he was hardly ever the subject of sources then, apart from when he was addressing the far-right troll edits of those pieces. There's no doubt that since Trump, his cartoons are completely in line with the alt right. Here are some old ones which are clearly not as authoritarian or partisan [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated comment to clarify consensus: Alt-right. Far-right would also be acceptible. This is common in recent news sources. Looking in Google Books, I also found these:
  • Griffith, R. Marie (May 4, 2021). Making the World Over: Confronting Racism, Misogyny, and Xenophobia in U.S. History. University of Virginia Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-8139-4635-1. Retrieved March 11, 2021. The alt-right claimed that such caravans were funded by George Soros, as seen in this nativist cartoon by the libertarian cartoonist Ben Garrison, long a favorite of alt-right provocateurs such as Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, and Milo Yiannopoulos.
  • Krulos, Tea (August 25, 2020). American Madness: The Story of the Phantom Patriot and How Conspiracy Theories Hijacked American Consciousness. Feral House. ISBN 978-1-62731-108-3. Retrieved 11 March 2021. Alt-right cartoonist Ben Garrison had his invitation rescinded after misogynistic and anti-Semitic cartoons surfaced
  • Malice, Michael (May 19, 2019). The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-250-15467-5. After being discovered by the worst of the web, Ben Garrison ended up embracing his bad luck. He began to draw cartoons with New Right ideas, earning him acclaim and acceptance.
This last one is helpful context, because it supports that we cannot accurately rely on his opposition to the labeled in 2015. His views have changed, and so have sources.
It appears there are other sources available as well. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • meh I think he has the bad luck to have had a lot of beliefs before the rise of the alt-right that ended up adopted by the alt-right. He is a classic anti central bank, borderline conspiracy theorist libertarian, but the abundance of sources will refer to him as alt right or new right. I'd prefer to see language more like "conservative libertarian," or "right wing libertarian" which matches his self identification and is used in sources as well, but on the balance I think the sources will keep this as alt-right and I don't think the label matters overmuch because there's a huge amount of overlap in the labeling of right wing figures. I almost feel bad for the guy, he's like the right wing, anti central banking, anti government hipster. He was doing it before it was cool. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt-right, certainly well supported by sources, as discussed above. Here is another one, from a 2019 article in the Washington Examiner (a source not exactly known for using such adjectives lightly), said: Garrison, who is often referred to as "alt-right," Not sure about "far-right" for the moment, that would probably require more sources. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt-right Just as we should ignore Ben Garrison's opinion that he is not racist or anti-semitic, a simple google search disproves this, we would also be safe to ignore he pleas to not be associated with the alt-right or far-right. I address this because it's the only reason anyone has presented to oppose the the label. Inund8 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have settled on the "Conservative" label. X-Editor (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@X-Editor: No, that was changed by a brand new account Generikuser on 5 February 2022, reverted, re-added on 16 February 2022 by an IP editor. The sources clearly say alt-right and the consensus here was for alt-right. I am restoring the consensus term as an admin action. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's the consensus, and don't have any bones with that, but is editing the label actually an admin action? Does that mean if another admin changed it, and you changed it back again that would be wheel warring? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP, another single purpose account, was topic banned from recent American Politics and stopped editing, at least under that account. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like a newer editor tried to go through the motions to fix this article, yet was promptly pushed out and quit Wikipedia altogether. That's not a good look. 205.143.237.8 (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

There's some material in the lead that's not in the body and that probably should be moved there (some may still have a summary in the lead of course per WP:LEAD). —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covid Diagnosis[edit]

Ben Garrison has been diagnosed with covid-19. Should this information be added? Is it considered notable or relevant? Is there a Wikipedia policy on this issue?

https://gizmodo.com/anti-vaccine-cartoonist-ben-garrison-says-hes-got-covid-1847749901

Gizmodo isn’t a great source. I just read about him on the sorryantivax website. Him having Covid is relevant. But let’s keep that info off the page until there are better reliable sources. I’m sure it will only be a day or so before bigger media picks up the story and reports on it. Wikipedia has rules and rushing to get the content on the page isn’t one of them. Thanks for the post. Sgerbic (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Garrison is not alt-right lmao[edit]

What a ridiculous and outright blatant lie to put in an article about something. Alt-right means neonazi, Ben Garrison is an eccentric Libretarian. KingPingPing (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article calls him conservative now, which is more accurate. X-Editor (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100 hours trying to fight "libel"[edit]

Why should we take Garrison's claims of libel at face value? 2604:CA00:1E9:CBC2:0:0:1261:7C6B (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Garrison&oldid=1212659551"