Talk:Ben Shapiro

“Erroneous” claim

I realise this is a minor issue, and probably goes to the heart of wiki policies (rather than just this page), but I disagree with the current wording of the section on race where it states “he erroneously stated that Floyd died of drugs” (or words to that effect). I see my edits have been reverted a couple times, so in good faith I am posting this on the talk page. If a convicted killer maintains their innocence, I doubt their wiki page would say “he erroneously claims to be innocent”. Whilst we know Shapiro’s claim that drugs caused Floyd’s death is highly doubtable, we also know that drugs were found in Floyd’s system. But apparently, on the basis that an expert says x, and jury of 12 people say x, and a reliable media source reports both those things, wiki is comfortable with throwing nuance out the window and basically presenting something as unquestionable truth. My preference would be the way I had written it, noting Shapiro’s views and then the corresponding (significantly stronger) opposing view. If the consensus is that if a reliable source parrots the findings of a jury trial (as flawed as we know that process can ultimately be), that is fine, but to me it is a sad state of affairs and exactly why Wikipedia’s reputation amongst those on the right (which isn’t myself) is being avoidably eroded Cbe46 (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Due to lack of interest in this topic, I have reverted the section to the way I had edited it. Before people change it back, please feel free to post under this Talk Topic as to why it should be reverted, and responding to my points above Cbe46 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The edit has been reverted and "erroneous" is still on the page. In agreement with Cbe46, I am going to remove it. Given that George Floyd's death was reportedly due to Chauvin's actions, but multiple sources state that Floyd's toxicology report had a "fatal" amount of fentanyl in his system, one could agree that at the very least the "erroneous" adjective is not necessary when describing Shapiro's conclusion of the events, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. AstralNomad (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you AstralNomad. There is clearly enough interest in this specific point that it is disappointing people aren’t engaging with it on this talk page, instead just reverting it. The question is this: does including the word “erroneous” improve or worsen the paragraph? On the basis that the same thing can be said without an inflammatory word, I would say it overwhelmingly worsens it. That is the nice way of saying my point. The not so nice way is, stop hiding behind this “we only report what RS say on a topic”. That is not licence to disregard editorial tact and discretion in an encyclopaedia. That reliable source simply quotes one of the trial witnesses who dismissed the drug overdose death theory. So what? The reason this rarks me up, is not because I’m some big Ben Shapiro fanboy who would just love to see his conspiracy theory about Floyd’s death made more palatable (as if a single word on wiki would do that). The reason this rarks me up is because some editors just cannot or will not see how this type of needlessly inflammatory language undermines the hard won reputation of Wikipedia. End rant, and with that, I am changing it back, feel free to engage with this discussion before reverting Cbe46 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it’s been a blast editing these last few years, best of luck with your Encyclopedia Cbe46 (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Nationally syndicated column at 17

Where did he write this column? Also, what was his column about? The rest of his career makes me assume it was some sort of political commentary, but given as he was also musically inclined at a young age it could also have been something related to that. Finally, how long did it last? Did he keep writing it through college and onto adulthood, or did the luster wear off when he was no longer a child? If the column is notable enough to be mentioned, surely all of the above is relevant. As it stands it kind of reads like resumé puffery, like the inclusion of all his self-published and fringe press books which is a conversation for another day. Cheers. IrishStephen (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Former attorney?

"Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984)[1] is an American columnist, author, conservative political commentator, media personality, attorney, and businessman."

He is marked inactive since 1/11/2021 in the California State Bar and cannot practice law there, and has no record in the Florida State Bar (where he reportedly lives) or in the Tennessee State Bar (where his business is based). Not sure of another way to search nationally for a law license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasimmonsv (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

wikilink issue

The reference to Shapiro's father links erroneously to the article about talk show host Charlie Rose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.107.130 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Ben Shapiro is specifically mentioned on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as one of the promoters because he uses the term “Cultural Marxism” in criticizing the left. I propose that Cultural Marxism should have its own page, aligning with the OED definition, rather than automatically redirecting to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which primarily focuses on the antisemitic uses of the term. Please review my argument on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and feel free to contribute. XMcan (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)