Talk:Nicholas F. Benton

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

Bio[edit]

Nicholas F. Benton is an important political and social figure in Northern Virginia by virtue of the influence of his newspaper far beyond just Falls Church, and its history of strong, intelligent stands on issues. His bio reflects this in the awards and recognition that he has received (there are many more not listed there). Also, he is a former White House correspondent who also remains active in the life of the overall Washington, D.C., scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nfbenton (talk • contribs).

But has he done anything that meets WP:BIO? Daniel Case 04:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche[edit]

It seems to me that the second 3rd of Mr. Benton"s 68 odd years of life were in close association with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. He was a not only a correspondent for Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), a publication founded by Mr. LaRouche, by he was also LaRouche's trusted representative in Washington and a member of the National Committee of the National Caucus of the Labor Committees, the founding "seed" organization of the various LaRouche organizations. As a member of the National Committee, he was a trusted friend and associate of Mr. LaRouche. It seems that Mr. Benton has never adequately explained his departure from trusted leader, to unflagging adversary.

Mr. Benton must have been doing something before 1980-82 that the readers of WIKIPEDIA might find useful in understanding what went into the making of Mr. Benton. I particularly appreciated the "Eyes, rear and throat" joke, but it did smack of homophobia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.195.34 (talk • contribs).

On June 28, 2007, Benton was the first U.S. ex-follower of LaRouche to publish his own biographical story about his experiences with LaRouche in a forum other than the Internet. Here is the story:
Nicholas F. Benton: How I Explain LaRouche
..Copyvio omitted
22043bsr 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[By the way, Nicholas Benton is not 68 years old, he was born in 1944.]22043bsr
Response to 207.172.195.34:
Since your IP address seems to be connected to Upper Darby where Larouche has his Pennsylvania offices, you must excuse me for thinking that your post was written by a LaRouche follower who is trying to either embarrass Mr. Benton, or threaten him. Either way, the article by Mr. Benton posted here seems to answer your question as why "it seems that Mr. Benton has never adequately explained his departure from trusted leader, to unflagging adversary" as well as your remark "Mr. Benton must have been doing something before 1980-82 that the readers of WIKIPEDIA might find useful in understanding what went into the making of Mr. Benton." Hopefully, Mr. Benton will provide further enlightenment into LaRouche's responsibilty for the deaths of Kenneth Kronberg and Jeremiah Duggan. Wordmiser 23:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dukakis question[edit]

  • Benton asked the famous question of Ronald Reagan, as to whether Michael Dukakis ought to make his health records public, to which Reagan replied, "I'm not going to pick on an invalid."[1]

Why was this sourced material removed? It is perhaps the act of the subject which has been the most widely reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::The same editor just removed all references to Benton's activity in the LaRouche organzation. I restored them. I would also like to know if there is a source for the material on "Century News Service" which was inserted by the same editor (whose contribution history only shows edits to this article.) An anonymous editor 207.172.195.34 says above on this talk page that Benton was an officer in the LaRouche organization. Is there any source for this info? --Marvin Diode 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information appears to have been removed because the editor believed it was inacurate. Mr. Benton wrote for several news services while he was a White House Correspondent. Please re-check your sources. In addition, if EIR News Service is owned by Lyndon LaRouche, that should have been reported to both the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Was this done?

Since Wikepedia does not allow inacurate information to posted, it is important to check all sources. In addition, please define what an "officer" in the LaRouche organization is, and why you believe that Benton was working solely for the EIR News Service when he asked Reagan that question.

Thank you. Wordmiser 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If Benton asked the question that's what's important here, since this is his bio. Which news service he was workin for at the time is less important. If his emnplyer at the time isn't verifiable we can leave that part out.
Also, here is an interview with Benton printed August 5, 2007, which can be used as a source for this article. "Citizen Nick: Nicholas F. Benton's gay-friendly, progressive paper grows in Falls Church". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mr. Benton discusses his White House years, that seems to be acceptable. Thank you. Wordmiser 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Under Wikipedia policy, we do not add or delete material based on the belief of an editor that the material is accurate or inaccurate. The criterion is whether there is a published source. The policy is laid out in WP:RS. The only source we have at present is Dennis King's book, which admittedly leaves something to be desired, but it is a source. King refers to Benton as correspondent for Executive Intelligence Review. Benton's connection to the LaRouche organization is not a matter of dispute, because Benton makes this clear in "How I explain LaRouche." The "Century News Service" assertion should be either sourced or removed. --Marvin Diode 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Diode is correct about WP policy. We have no way of knowing, as editors or readers, what is "true" or "accurate". All we know is what is "verifiable".
"Century News Service" (CNS) is mentioned in the above referenced interview. Benton is the sole contributor to CNS, if I read it correctly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::The interview does shed light on "Century News Service." However, I don't see any evidence that Benton was a White House Correspondent for that service. The interview seems to reinforce King's contention that Benton's White House job was for EIR, so I'm changing it back to that in the article. --Marvin Diode 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that interpretation is not entirely correct. In the interview Benton says:
  • Next thing you know, I'm getting a hard pass to the White House and going to all the briefings, both under Reagan and subsequently under Bush senior. By 1987, I'd completely had my fill of these people I'd been working with and I started my own press service, Century News Service, which I subsequently changed to Benton Communications.
So he appears to be saying that he'd left EIR by or during 1987. Yet the famous question re: Dukaksi was asked on August 3, 1988. That means that he was still a White House Correspondent. I think we should list both news services, and indicate the time line. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To complicate matters, news reports from 1988 refer to Benton as a "reporter associated with Mr. LaRouche" (WSJ) and:
  • But when the President of the United States chose to recognize a LaRouche acolyte at a Washington news media briefing last week, the nation's attention was focused on the group. President Reagan's attention was focused on former Houston mayoral and congressional candidate Nick Benton, now a Washington correspondent for LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. After Benton asked a long question noting that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis had not made his medical records public, Reagan smiled and replied that he didn't wish to "pick on an invalid." Reagan's remark brought from whispers to front-page news an unsubstantiated and consistently denied rumor that Dukakis sought counseling for mental depression after the death of his brother in 1973 and after his loss of the governor's office in 1978. The LaRouche followers noted the rumor was not of their making, but they did their best to spread it with crudely copied fliers that papered press areas at the Democratic National Convention last month in Atlanta. Harley Schlanger, another long-time local LaRouche activist, conceded there was is no evidence to substantiate the rumor, which was denied by Dukakis and his doctor. "We merely suggested people should take a look at these things," Schlanger said. "LaRouche gets exposure again", NENE FOXHALL, Houston Chronicle Aug 7, 1988
We should include Benton's campaigns. But it's not clear that Benton was out of the LaRouche camp as of August 1988. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::There doesn't seem to be much in the way of independent verification for the existence of "Century News." One thing is clear, and that is that Benton is being a bit ambiguous about the timetable for his leaving the LaRouche organization. We've seen accounts on when he left that range from "early 80s" to "late 80s" to "1990." Also, the Wikipedia user who wrote the first version of this article chose a username very similar to Nicholas Benton -- we don't know whether it's the actual guy, or a poseur -- and he left the LaRouche relationship out altogether. --Marvin Diode 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much verification we require, but if you search Google for "Century News Service" is obvious that it exists and belongs to Benton. Benton's recent press release contains additional biographical info, including his alma mater. Press reports from the early to mid-1980s refer to Benton as an "aide" to LaRouche or as a "spokesman" for him or the EIR. I'm not sure when he ran for office in Houston, but we should be able to find that info. The dates of his entry and exit from the movement will probably have to be left vague. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edits by a sock of a banned had have been struck.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1978 profile[edit]

  • "Labor Party Candidate Seeks GOP Aid" RICHARD BERGHOLZ, Los Angeles Times Mar 14, 1978; pg. C2

The candidate in question is Benton. It's a few hundred words long and covers Benton's early life. This is just a note to remind myself to add some info from it.   Will Beback  talk  10:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a mess...I'll do what I can...[edit]

I'm going to start wikifying this page. After that we'll see what needs to be fixed substantively. The citations are going to be very labor intensive to fix. I'm going one para at a time. HAJ1300 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started, but the wiki-bots kicked in and started deleting things wantonly. Knock yourselves out! HAJ1300 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the new version, added 20:42, October 2, 2008, is unfixable, but thanks for trying. I've reverted to the previous version. Future revisions should evolve from the existing text rather replacing it with poorly formatted and cited text.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback...I put a lot of time into wikifying this entry. Where I left off is better than where it began. For you to undo weeks of work would be vandalism. If you are going to justify changes to all the sources I made, you're welcome to do so, but please do so within Wikipedia guidelines rather than deleting whole portions of text and weeks of work. Thanks and kind regards, HAJ1300 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd thrown in the towel. If you follow the history of the article, we had a perfectly good article before someone, likely the subject, replaced it with the mess you've been courageously working on. It'd be a simple matter to merge in the text you fixed if you like.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with going back to an older version. The one that was on the page was referenced to an unpublished manuscript, an eyewitness account of something, and lots of primary sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to make clear that there's no animosity on my part towards the subject. It's true that I have an interestin topics related to Lyndon LaRouche, and I'm sure that lens affects my view of this article. However I've worked on hundreds, if not thousands, of biographies on Wikipedia, so I have a broad background in dealing with articles of this type. Biographies should focus on the matters that have made the subjects notable. If this were about a pop star, we'd focus on their concerts and albums, not their pets or college degrees. If this were about a professor, we'd focus on the college degrees and writings, not which songs they like. Benton appears to have had three significant stages in his life: as an early gay rights activist, as a LaRouche activist, and as a newspaper owner/editor. Many of the sources for the first period, as listed in the 2008 revision, appear to be obscure periodicals that can probably only be found in the siubject's scrapbook, but at least one book[2] seems to mention him explicitly, according to both Google and the quotation provided:

  • “Loving Women, Loving Men: Gay Liberation and the Church,” San Francisco, Glide Publications, 1974, p. 69, reads: “Two United Church of Christ students at the Pacific School of Religion – Nick Benton, a graduate student, and Bill Johnson, a senior – identified with the Gay Seminarians. Nick Benton, highly qualified academically, had openly affirmed his gayness while seeking ordination in the United Church of Christ from the Golden Gate Association of the Northern California Conference UCC. The request, complicated by the candidate’s militant political posture, sparked considerable debate. Ignorance and irrational fears surfaced. Opposition to the request intensified and the debate ground to a halt when Nick Benton withdrew his request as well as his membership in the UCC, declaring the denomination hopelessly sexist.”

There seem to be some other mentions in books that establish his career in writing for early gay publications in California. But most mentions of Benton in mainstream media appear to be related to his involvement with LaRouche. There are the numerous campaigns for office, some of which involved disruptive behavior. There are occasions when he was quoted as an aide or spokesman. Most of all there is the Dukakis question, which briefly became a major topic in that election and which has been used as an example of how the media handles rumors. It's even been credited with leading Bush to sign the Americans with Disabilites Act, which he reportedly considers his greatest achivement. Next, there is Benton's career as a publisher and civic leader. Unfortunately, none of that makes it into major newspapers. He has laudable achievements, and we should mention those which we can reliably source, but we should keep in mind that if those were his only achievements he probably wouldn't have a WP biography. Further, let's remember that all articles should be based mainly on reliable, published 3rd-party sources that are verifiable. Citations like "Archives of an array of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas newspapers" or "A copy of the letter from Benton’s attorney to the NCLC is on file at the Falls Church News-Press" are not suitable. Finally, it's hard to escape the conclusion that several single-purpose accounts who've had a hand in writing or re-writing this article are really the subject himself. There's nothing more natural than a biography subject wanting to improve the article, but when they do so it usually leads to problems. If Benton is still following this article I iencourage him to use this page to discuss errors and omissions, but to avoid editing the article himself, per WP:AUTO.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous attempts to provide to this entry detailed citations from published works, including books, recounting Benton's role in the early days of gay liberation. They have routinely been stripped out. The changes to the bio made earlier this month were not by the subject, but by someone clearly hostile to him. It replaced a balanced and well-cited earlier bio with a smear job that sought to do nothing but make Benton seem like a career stooge of LaRouche, despite his 20 years of significant achievements since leaving LaRouche. One would think that Wikipedia would be more interested in the truth than what some wonk can cite from some discolored old news clips. Will sworn affidavits help? How about Benton's own columns in his own newspaper? How come only one column out of 12 years worth of his weekly columns is cited in his bio, the one related to LaRouche? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal5646 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some hard bound citations that were included but stripped from earlier versions of this bio:

      • Teal, Don, The Gay Militants, New York, Stein and Day, 1971. On page 81, Benton is identified as the author of the editorial in the first edition of the Gay Sunshine newspaper. It states, "In the initial Gay Sunshine, a radical newspaper out of Berkeley -- and "free to all prisoners" -- Nick Benton asked, 'What is the value of a gay newspaper? I mean, is the mere instance of homosexuality enough of a common purpose around which to create a newspaper? If homosexuality is really nothing different than something like lefthandedness, then the creation of a paper for homosexuals makes no sense than a newspaper for lefthanders.'" The book goes on to say, "Acknowledging, however, that 'a gay newspaper would be a powerful tool inthe homosexual fight for equal rights, as it would be a catalyst that would call forth political potential,' he criticized existing gay newspapers for appealing to a limited audience. Gay Sunshine would be 'a newspaper that will represent those who understand themselves as oppressed -- politically oppressed by an oppressor that not only is down on homosexuality, but equally down on all things that are not white, straight, middle class, pro-establishment...It should harken to a greater cause -- the cause of human liberation, of which homosexual liberation is just one aspect -- and on that level make its stand." Benton is also quoted extensively elsewhere in the book, which was reprinted in paperback in the mid-1990s.
        • Richmond, Len and Noguera, Gary, "The Gay Liberation Book," San Francisco, Ramparts Press, 1973. This anthology of essays includes three entries by Benton (more than by any other author) that are included as reprints of articles he wrote for the Berkeley Barb. They are entitled, "The Same Old Game," "David," and "Don't Call Me Brother."
        • Fitzwater, Marlin, "Call the Briefing: Reagan and Bush, Sam and Helen, A Decade with Presidents and the Press," New York, Random House, 1995. The former White House Press Secretary Fitzwater includes a section devoted to Benton on Page 209 and following. In the section, he quotes Benton grilling him on what Fitzwater had to concede was a lie, pertaining to U.S. military actions in Panama in October 1989. Fitzwater credits Benton with trapping him in a lie, the "only time in my six years as a White House press secretary that this happened." Now, this is important news.
        • There are original copies of the Berkeley Barb in my possession that include extensive writings by Benton from the early 1970s. These are a credible as sources as news clips cited from Benton's period of association with LaRouche.
        • There are interviews with Benton that appear in such credible third-party institutions such as the "Out Front Blog" and Bay Area Reporter newspaper. Are this less valid than some news clips about Benton's ties to LaRouche?
        • These are 19 years of unbroken publication of Benton's newspaper, the Falls Church News-Press, that include editorials written by him in each one of over 900 cumulative editions since 1991, and a weekly national affairs column that he has written that have been published in that newspaper weekly since 1997. Are these less valid as source materials than a few news clips from the 1980s during his association with LaRouche?

Are you getting my drift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal5646 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wanton deletions and additions.[edit]

An earlier bio with detailed citations was posted on this subject in 2008 vetted through the executive director of the Falls Church Chamber of Commerce, who posted it, and others for its accuracy. Much of that was simply deleted by someone and only random newspaper clips and other references to LaRouche were retained and magnified. All references, for example, to his gay liberation associations were stripped out. This smells of what has happened identicially to other entries on Wikipedia involving former associates of LaRouche. Someone, either associated with LaRouche or so obsessed with him as to be willing to so bespoil representations in Wikipedia as to constitute in total a gross misrepresentations of individuals, seems to be responsible for this. This subject's case is akin that of David Brock, now of Media Matters, who chronicled in his book, "Blinded by the Right," his pilgrimage from right-wing causes to his current work as a respected media watchdog. It is very unlikely and unsuitable that his bio in Wikipedia be overwhelmingly dominated by his work PRIOR to his personal transformation. Such is the case here, a subject that has built a 20 year track record of achievement in Northern Virginia through his newspaper, Democratic Party and gay activist circles. To characterize him as little more than a LaRouche lieutenant is a gross misrepresentation. The earlier citations were as accurate and credible as the newspaper clips cited about his LaRouche activities, and his original bio should be reinstated and locked in place except for new material that arises as he continues his career.

Hi Royal, you're removing well-sourced material and replacing it with unsourced. Some of the material that you added can perhaps be kept, but you shouldn't remove material already there, unless it has no source, or a poor one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced material??" You mean a few news clips? Then why were published books cited in my revisions deleted from source materials? One way to balance this bio would be to include extensive citations from the subject's own columns on national affairs written every week since 1997. Otherwise, the bio as it stands remains a discredit to Wikipedia for a lack of balance that is tantamount to character assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal5646 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Royal, could you find some secondary sources for the material you want to add (i.e. sources other than Benton himself)? We're allowed to use the subject as a source, but only within reason, and some of the material you're adding isn't obviously notable e.g. that he's written an editorial in every edition of his own newspaper. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin, the sources cited in the latest material you deleted are newspapers, even if they are ones that he owns. i reiterate, the reason material is being added about his accomplishments the last 20 years is because a thorough, earlier version of that submitted to this site by the Falls Church Chamber of Commerce was deleted whole cloth some time back by A PERSON HOSTILE TO BENTON! This person replaced it with minutia about a period of Benton's life in the 1980s, and it is very frustrating to have Wikipedia editors like yourself insist that an obscure news clipping from the 1980s is worthy of inclusion, but NO SIGNIFICANT REFERENCE TO WHAT BENTON HAS DONE SINCE 1990 CAN STAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As it is now, this bio represents a gross misrepresentation of Benton that could be hurtful to his business, in which case Wikipedia could be liable. I cannot fathom how citations from a legitimate newspaper, recognized as such by the State of Virginia, the Virginia Press Association and others, are not considered valid on their merit. Furthermore, there are citations in the 1980s section of this bio that are more about LaRouche than Benton, and should be deleted. But attempts to do that have failed. Secondly, why remove the reference to the Benton Communications website? Please explain. Much of the material in Metro Weekly article could be cited to fill out the last 20 years, will that do? What you have now is simply an abomination. Have you no interest in the truth? Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal5646 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bury the LaRouche material, but let's make sure that the other periods of the subjec'ts life also receive their due. The best way to proceed with writing articles is to start with the sources. The Metro Weekly interview would be a great source for the subject's views of his own life, and I don't see a problem with using it as a principle source. The Toporek bio also appears to be a usable source, and it's more objective. Are there any other specific sources we can use that meet Wikipedia requirements (See WP:V and WP:BLP for those standards).   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another area of dispute seems to concern material about the Falls Church News-Press. Since that topic has an article of its own we shouldn't put much about it here. Only issues that are directly related to the subject, Benton, should go in this article. For example, the lead has the newspaper was named CityPaper's "Best Remnant of the Liberal Media" for 2008.[1] That doesn't belong here, but it does belong on the FCNP article where it currently isn't mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, a reference is made to something in the article being libellous. Could whoever wrote that say exactly what is libellous? Please be specific so that we can act on it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benton request for removal of this page[edit]

Mr. Benton has requested that this biographical entry be removed from Wikipedia. Kitzer1200 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the deletion of Nicholas F. Benton's page is not "wanton deletion" or "vandalism." This was done at Mr. Benton's request. Wikipedia may have been a good idea at one time, but it appears to have lost its vision and become a defacto blog for those who believe their version of history is the correct one. I repeat, the portions of Mr. Benton's biography that were vandalized by others were portions already verified by Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Please respect Mr. Benton's wishes and shut down this page --Kitzer1200 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edit history, it appears that Benton created this page.[3] There's a discussion above on how to make sure that the biography is complete, fair, and properly sourced, without any libellous material. Please join in that discussion. Simply blanking the page is vandalism, and will result in the account being blocked.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he seems to be a well-known figure. If so, he is notable, & the request of the subject is irrelevant. Asking for one's bio to be taken down because some parts of it were vandalised is not justifiable, but based on the contents, I think it more likely that the actual request is because he does not want to further publicize some well sourced parts of his career. If his career was public, I do not think it's up to him. Even if he were a private notable person, we are not required to honour such a request. I've removed the prod. The article can, of course, be taken to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not comfortable with anecdotal reports that the principals of our biographical articles want those articles deleted. Such anecdotal reports may be hoaxes, stemming from the principal's real world critics. Those repeating those anecdotal reports may be the innocent dupes of the principal's real world critics. Personally, I would prefer that we respond to such anecdotal reports by requesting the principal initiate a ticket in our OTRS. If the principal doesn't respond to the request to initiate an OTRS request I think we treat the anecdotal report as a hoax. Geo Swan (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the subject isn't sure what he wants. I've been corresponding with him and asked if he'd like for the article to be deleted. He replied that he prefered that the article be kept and improved. The sticking point concerns what improvements he wants. But until he makes it clear that he wants it deleted I won't initiate a deletion procedure.   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To remain encyclopedic...[edit]

I don't think we need to catalog every interview Mr. Benton has given. For that reason I'm cutting the “Berkeley and the Fight for an Effeminist, Socially Transformative Gay Identity” portion of the entry. I would welcome further discussion on this topic and certainly would entertain the idea of restoring it. Regards, SlimmerVirgin (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicholas F. Benton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write of entry: Benton is more than a gay rights activist, though he is that[edit]

A regular reader of Benton's paper, I have prepared a new entry on | my sandbox page with more information and a slight new emphasis. After 32 years of publishing this paper, with much general civic involvement--regular reporting on local schools, leader in the Chamber of Commerce--Benton is more a journalist/publisher than a more one-dimensional gay rights activist, though that is an undeniable part of his past. Feedback welcome. Tomc50 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicholas_F._Benton&oldid=1216433196"