Jump to content

Talk:Ben Shapiro: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 183: Line 183:
:I apologize for the short reply. I am very busy lately, and I will try to get to the other content disputes as soon as a I can, but I don't think it will be today. Just know that my primary concern for many of the disputed edits arise out of the [[WP:BLP]] policy. [[User:HoldingAces|HoldingAces]] ([[User talk:HoldingAces|talk]]) 18:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
:I apologize for the short reply. I am very busy lately, and I will try to get to the other content disputes as soon as a I can, but I don't think it will be today. Just know that my primary concern for many of the disputed edits arise out of the [[WP:BLP]] policy. [[User:HoldingAces|HoldingAces]] ([[User talk:HoldingAces|talk]]) 18:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::I sort of agree. However, ''if'' it is popular in the mainstream media, and is mentioned multiple times, particularly speculations of Shapiro's involvement, it could be briefly mentioned. One of the examples is the page of [[PewDiePie]] mentions that one of the Christchurch mosque shooters mentioned his name, even though there is no clear evidence of the former having any sort of connection (he even condemned on twitter). <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> [[User:ImmortalWizard|''<span style="color:#964B00">Immortal</span>'''''<span style="color:blue">Wizard</span>''']][[User talk:ImmortalWizard|<span style="color:green;">(chat)</span>]] 19:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::I sort of agree. However, ''if'' it is popular in the mainstream media, and is mentioned multiple times, particularly speculations of Shapiro's involvement, it could be briefly mentioned. One of the examples is the page of [[PewDiePie]] mentions that one of the Christchurch mosque shooters mentioned his name, even though there is no clear evidence of the former having any sort of connection (he even condemned on twitter). <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> [[User:ImmortalWizard|''<span style="color:#964B00">Immortal</span>'''''<span style="color:blue">Wizard</span>''']][[User talk:ImmortalWizard|<span style="color:green;">(chat)</span>]] 19:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::To be frank, [[User:ImmortalWizard]], I don't think that should be in [[PewDiePie]]'s article. But (1) I do not have the bandwidth to argue on so many fronts and (2) I think the case for keeping such a reference in [[PewDiePie]]'s article is stronger than the case for including it here. For PewDiePie, the shooter actually uttered his name in that despicable video. Here, in contrast, we are talking only about a scumbag's browsing history. [[User:HoldingAces|HoldingAces]] ([[User talk:HoldingAces|talk]]) 14:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


===General discussion ===
===General discussion ===

Revision as of 14:41, 28 March 2019

Page views for this article over the last 30 days

[1]

Template:Vital article

Edit request on 10 February 2019

Shapiro's views on Islamic radicalism should be addressed. I am not an expert on this and cannot find sources that are reliable enough. But if someone is free to lend a hand, a good place to start is to read Ben Shapiro says a majority of Muslims are radicals, published by PolitiFact. The article consists of the original source (the original YouTube video), and argues against Shapiro. I think it is a great source and follows WP:NPOV. Thanks, and let me know if more explanation is required. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be in the article but was removed by Drmies here. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before requesting a specific wording. I don't have an opinion on this but there is enough back-and-forth that this merits discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Wumbolo and User:ImmortalWizard. I have removed many "opinions" from many articles; in most cases these "opinions" are sourced only to the opinionator, and are not in themselves noteworty--imagine if every opinion by every notable person was deemed worthy of inclusion. Opinions can become noteworthy if secondary sources report on them and devote some significant attention to them. Whether that's the case here can be decided, as you suggest, in a discussion among editors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, User:Drmies I'd like to re-up the inclusion of Ben Shapiro's views on Islam. One can argue that not every opinion from a notable person is worthy of inclusion, but Ben Shapiro was the user that the perpetrator of the Quebec City mosque shooting visited Shapiro's twitter more than anyone else. Seems important. Fordswish (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)fordswish[reply]


If its in Bens book whats the problem? Is drmies a jew who loves ben or a muslim? Surely his bias needs to be taken into account?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apemonkey1 (talk • contribs) 8:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Apemonkey1 please use sources to support your claims and don't personally attack other editors, thanks-SharabSalam (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability discussion

Disclaimer: Biased

It's sad to say but I don't see any critics for or against him. He mostly achieved his fame through controversial publicity and politically polarization North America, mostly on the internet. For someone who became infamous due to their opinion should have as many views and critics written about, as possible. I think his views on radical Islamism is quite extreme in this context and should be included. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox caption

Should be "June 2016" or "(June 2016)" but it does not need to state his name. His name is right above the picture, and also the title of the article. For reasons explained in detail inWP:YOUDONTSAY, I think the caption should remove his name (and same for every other article on WP). Leviv ich 23:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting essay. It says "strive to omit obvious details from articles." That would seem to apply here. I find acceptable the present form, reading: At Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly normal practice to include last name. Either the parenthetical for the date or the comma are both fine. Pasadena, California could probably be shortened to just "Pasadena". I don't know that Pasadena is a town that has a fairly common name that needs to be disambiguated. If you're referring to London, Kentucky or London, Ohio, then yeah, you need the state there obviously. GMGtalk 16:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "California" can be eliminated; the internal link would indicate the great state of California. But are you saying "Shapiro" should be in the caption? Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can be. I imagine it might be confusing for someone who has images disabled due to bandwidth issues. GMGtalk 17:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How would I disable images to check this out? Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thewindowsclub.com/disable-images-chrome-firefox-ie GMGtalk 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty interesting. I briefly checked it out. I'll have to look into it at another time. I was thinking it was going to be a preference in Wikipedia. Thanks for the link. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly something for people who have very poor internet access, which is still a group of people we're writing an encyclopedia for. But it's something to keep in mind when writing captions. They should generally stand alone, without the need for an image, and should explain what the image is even if you can't see it. GMGtalk 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do captions still appear when images are disabled? Or are captions also disabled when images are disabled? (I should have just asked that question in the first place.) Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As far as I am aware. Definitely on Chrome. I don't know how it works. I haven't been computer savvy since back in the days when you could buy books on HTML 4 at the bookstore. Presumably it just blocks the most common file types from loading. I don't know if there are some file types that would be so rare as to not be blocked, but still supported by the browser. Presumably no. GMGtalk 18:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even with images disabled, "Ben Shapiro" would still appear above the caption, so it would look like:
Ben Shapiro
At Politicon in Pasadena, June 2016 Leviv ich 18:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is ok, personally I would write it "Shapiro at Politicon in Pasadena, California, 2016" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs)
I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Ben Shapiro because: it is not clear who is that guy. It is hard to understand and assume. Could it his partner, guru, twin, place, or what? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolute b.s., it is more than abundantly clear who the image is of. If you do it again, I will' open an ANI report about your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: threatening is generally discouraged. That being said, if you indeed think this is B.S., why don't try to change it as a norm? I mean look at any other article. Majority of pages have captions with names. Why don't you start a discussion and make it a rule to not have these? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And disruptive editing against consensus is absolutely a violation of policy. You've been warned, not threatened. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am convinced it's not a threat. However, I am not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If it is "B.S" enough I would suggest you to try propose it as an amendment. According to you then, all other articles with captions with names are "B.S." You might think it is B.S., that doesn't mean others think it is B.S. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ANI and edit warring are not substitutes for dispute resolution. I suggest having an RfC with a few options that have already been discussed here. Whichever option has the most support will be the caption. Until then, the status quo version should probably be restored.- MrX 🖋 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX I was about to that. But I did not Wikipedia chooses majority. Are you sure about that? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:IAR and common practice in cases involving editor discretion and multiple choices, for example lead images and captions. - MrX 🖋 22:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to look increasingly appropriate to look at the usefulness of a topic ban from infoboxes. I struggle to remember any time when you participated in a discussion involving them in a way that was productive and helpful. So if we're in the mood for passing out warnings, there's your warning right there. GMGtalk 12:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrX as you suggested, I will start over the RFC again. But it would be appreciated if you could do that and show a demo. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAPLENGTH: "Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox." Leviv ich 00:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to state the year of the picture taken since it is quite significant for the readers. However only "2016" or "(2016)" doesn't work. That is why, I highly recommend "Shapiro in 2016". "At Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016" seems out of context and incomplete, hence "Shapiro at Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016" seems much better. The infoboxes of people I would allow no captions are those like Barack Obama and Donald Trump, when the photo is obviously from their official presidency. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it, as you should have. RfC proposals should not be changed after people have vote, and they should never be changed by other editors without permission from the editor who posted the RfC.- MrX 🖋 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to, but I am afraid BMK would report me at ANI as he could have considered it disruptive. He also has the admin support because of "experience". THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's name is both above and below his picture without any caption. I'll support any ANI report about Wizard's combative editing User:Beyond My Ken. The comment that it is not clear who the photo is of is one of the dumbest things I've seen this week. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for infobox caption

Which caption should be used in the infobox?

  • A: 2016
  • B: (2016)
  • C: Shapiro in 2016 (staus quo version)
  • D: Shapiro at Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016
  • E: At Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016
  • F: June 2016, Politicon, Pasadena, California
  • G: no caption
!vote in order of preference. 01:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A little misunderstanding. wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, D I think his name should be mentioned in the caption--SharabSalam (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • E: At Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016. Except that I would lowercase "at". No period at the end of the caption means it is not a sentence. And it need not be a sentence. So, in keeping with it not being a sentence, the first letter (a) can be in lowercase. Thus I favor "at Politicon in Pasadena, California, June 2016". Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Captions normally start with a capital letter." (emphasis mine) That does leave room for debate. wumbolo ^^^ 17:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the caption needs more emojis. GMGtalk 17:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS is a guideline and Wikipedia has no firm rules. Leviv ich 17:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

There are quotations linked to the article that are supposedly by Ben Shapiro but are not linked to a source. There are quotes that are linked to a secondary source but no primary source. If the quotes are not linked to a primary source they should be removed. 2600:8804:8080:5220:D04D:F312:60B4:C9D4 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection Edit RequestClean up parts in Heading

"he has written seven books, the first being 2004's Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth; Shapiro began writing this book at age 17. Also at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States."

A) Why is name of the first he wrote included in the lead paragraph ? B). I wish to change "Shapiro began writing this book at age 17. Also at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States." to "While Ben Shapiro was writing the book at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. C.) Those are the changes I would to make Cheers Baldr The Brave (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relys too much on Vox

The writer seems to think that Vox is reliable and relies very heavily on it. Just something I noticed. CheersBaldr The Brave (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Out of the 99 sources only one of them in of Vox (source link). It is in-cited three times:
  • The New Yorker, Haaretz and Vox have described Shapiro as "right-wing." - critics by multiple outlets.
  • Shapiro later described President Barack Obama as a "philosophical fascist." - a fact.
  • Vox describes Shapiro as a polarizing figure, in part due to statements such as "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." (2010). - critic and well supported by the quoting the subject.
This proves that Vox isn't heavily relied on as you mentioned. Otherwise, feel free to argue on the source's credibility. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Townhall's article

HoldingAces removed the paragraph below

In 2016, Shapiro personally promoted an article written on the website he edits, The Daily Wire, which described the Muslim presence in Europe a "disease" and Muslim men "uncivilized".[1]

He claimed that Townhall's reliability is questionable. There's been a mix up I think. The content above has no connection to Townhall. Whereas the statements on Afghan civilians come from Townhall. Peter Beinart's article on forward.com is a reliable source. Source interpretation on the other hand is WP:OR. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalusi, I would prefer that you do not categorize my edits as deceptive when you should assume good faith. I would also prefer that you follow WP:BRD before reinstating your edits, but I see that is something you're not interested in.
I will respond to the substance of your comments tomorrow. HoldingAces (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Islamophobia

HoldingAces says "Why is Beinart's opinion so noteworthy?"

I ask why is Beinart's opinion not so noteworthy? And where do you get the idea that such opinion is on the fringe?

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Quebec mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonnette

Regarding the removal of this:

An RCMP document presented at sentencing hearing of Quebec mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonnette showed that the murderer checked in on the Twitter feed of Shapiro 93 times in the month leading up to the shooting. Shapiro condemned the attack and called Bissonnette "evil piece of human crap".[2][3][4]

@HoldingAces: At first, you objected to the inclusion of accusations of incitement, because you say they came from Twitter users. But now that the accusation has been removed and the above paragraph was restored, you are now claiming that it is not worthy of being mentioned. If the Canadian RCMP thought that this was worthy of being investigated and raised it in the shooter's sentence hearing, what makes you think that it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia entry? And btw, there are multiple articles on this. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalusi, sorry for the late response. True, the Canadian RCMP thought this was worthy of mention. But that does not mean it is worthy of mention here. If there is any place the fact should be placed, it should be in the Quebec City mosque shooting article, not here. Yes, there are multiple articles on this, but those articles discuss the shooter's computer activity, they do not focus on BS. I think it is inappropriate for inclusion here for the same reason I would say it would be inappropriate to put in Bernie Sanders' article that the 2017-Congressional-baseball shooter was a member of his political campaign: Because doing so improperly suggests that Bernie Sanders (or in this case, BS) incited or otherwise encouraged the shooter. See for example WaPO, Newsweek, and Sun.
I apologize for the short reply. I am very busy lately, and I will try to get to the other content disputes as soon as a I can, but I don't think it will be today. Just know that my primary concern for many of the disputed edits arise out of the WP:BLP policy. HoldingAces (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree. However, if it is popular in the mainstream media, and is mentioned multiple times, particularly speculations of Shapiro's involvement, it could be briefly mentioned. One of the examples is the page of PewDiePie mentions that one of the Christchurch mosque shooters mentioned his name, even though there is no clear evidence of the former having any sort of connection (he even condemned on twitter). THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, User:ImmortalWizard, I don't think that should be in PewDiePie's article. But (1) I do not have the bandwidth to argue on so many fronts and (2) I think the case for keeping such a reference in PewDiePie's article is stronger than the case for including it here. For PewDiePie, the shooter actually uttered his name in that despicable video. Here, in contrast, we are talking only about a scumbag's browsing history. HoldingAces (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Both parties, calm down for a second. I will try my best to assess the situation. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies within that HoldingAces is removing some of the content, claiming that they are poorly sourced and have WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. As of yet, Al-Andalusi has convinced me that they are indeed properly sourced and notable enough. I also agree with HoldingAces regarding UNDUEWEIGHT. The best solution I see is a compromise. Cheers! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The problem is that WP:PRIMARY columns are cited as fact. There are plenty of secondary sources that can be used to determine WP:WEIGHT, instead of the innumerable opinions by Shapiro or about Shapiro. wumbolo ^^^ 11:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ BeinartNovember 30, Peter; Image, Peter. "Why Doesn't The New York Times Mention Ben Shapiro's Islamophobia?". The Forward.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Riga, y; May 4, Montreal Gazette Updated: (5 May 2018). "I didn't incite mosque shooter, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro insists | Montreal Gazette".{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "Canada mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonnette obsessively checked these Twitter accounts before the attack". April 18, 2018.
  4. ^ Visser, Josh; Lamoureux, Mack; Berman, Sarah (16 April 2018). "Here Are the Far-Right Conspiracists the Quebec City Mosque Shooter Followed". Vice.

Section on Palestinian-Arabs

I do not know whether this was done intentionally but the phrasing used "citing precedents from World War II" seems likely to give people the impression that Shapiro defended various Nazi acts of ethnic cleansing, which would be er...odd given his background. In his article he was clearly referring to the post-war expulsion of the Germans by the Soviet Union and various Eastern European gov'ts, with the support of the Western Allies. The section should clarify this. Also the phraseology that Shapiro, a quite young American citizen holding no elected office in his own country and writing in English language media "demanded" anything of the Israeli gov't is quite strange and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.56.224 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's notable enough, properly sourced and verifiable, it should be kept. Other than that, his background doesn't matter that much considering the one so against identity politics themselves. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't know about the source's credibility, but it is clearly mentioned there. It wouldn't hurt that much to the subject since Shapiro apologized and claimed his remarks to be "inhumane". THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject might not care, but there are other reasons to still follow WP:BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 19:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Especially WP:BLPBALANCE. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the section should be scrapped, it is notable, and the article Shapiro wrote "Transfer is Not a Dirty Word" is still easily available online. I think it should be rewritten in a less tendentious manner. This is a small thing but the credibility of anything depends on the small things, which add up to a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.56.224 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Shapiro&oldid=889874668"