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 348: Line 348:
::The article doesn't say that Shapiro said this on his show (which is still not what the video says), it says his book says it. His book doesn't say it, he doesn't say it, and even the op ed admits that Shapiro uses hedging language, not the absolutist language you've written. Please don't call me a liar - everything I've said is factual. Virtually nothing you've written is.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
::The article doesn't say that Shapiro said this on his show (which is still not what the video says), it says his book says it. His book doesn't say it, he doesn't say it, and even the op ed admits that Shapiro uses hedging language, not the absolutist language you've written. Please don't call me a liar - everything I've said is factual. Virtually nothing you've written is.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
::: I presume then that you'd be fine with saying "While talking about his book, Shapiro said X". And again, the hedging language ("Indians did some inventions in the 1st century") is per the reviews a rhetorical technique, and the review clearly points out that the crux of the argument (that the practice of science was uniquely Western) is false. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 13:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
::: I presume then that you'd be fine with saying "While talking about his book, Shapiro said X". And again, the hedging language ("Indians did some inventions in the 1st century") is per the reviews a rhetorical technique, and the review clearly points out that the crux of the argument (that the practice of science was uniquely Western) is false. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 13:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
::::You presume incorrectly. I don't know that Shapiro was talking about his book, and you are citing an op ed, not a Youtube video. This remains inaccurate, incorrectly cited, and a BLP violation. And you've boldly added something and should now discuss, not edit war, after the revert.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 14:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Agree with what LedRush said. But Soonganssnoogans didn't call you a liar, Soonganssnoogans said you lied about something. When you said "Virtually nothing you have written is" factual, is just the same as what Soonganssnoogans said.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharabSalam]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 13:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
:::Agree with what LedRush said. But Soonganssnoogans didn't call you a liar, Soonganssnoogans said you lied about something. When you said "Virtually nothing you have written is" factual, is just the same as what Soonganssnoogans said.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharabSalam]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 13:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
::::There is a difference between saying that someone is lying and that someone made factual errors, but whatever.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
::::There is a difference between saying that someone is lying and that someone made factual errors, but whatever.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:21, 3 June 2019

Template:Vital article

Edit request on 10 February 2019

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

  • For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
  • If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
  • If the page is protected, use one of the following:
    • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
    • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
    • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
    • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
    • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. 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]
  • FYI, BMK cut the status quo here in the RFC thread without any reasons specified, which has been made apparent by MrX. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:01, 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]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus among editors that the infobox should read "Shapiro at Politicon in 2016". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 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)
  • F, E, A, B, G, D, C – Date and location are useful, and F is better than E in its presentation. Name is redundant and should not be repeated, so C and D last. Leviv ich 02:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, D, G, E, F, A, B - If a caption exist, there should be name of the subject to make it clearer. Otherwise, no caption. E and F without name is ok in other places, not the infobox because it needs precise information. A and B with only year doesn't make sense. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 03:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: I would like to modify my support for C as "Shapiro at Politicon in 2016". THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ImmortalWizard, I don't mean to argue with your !vote but I would be interested in your thoughts about why "Ben Shapiro" appearing above the picture in the infobox doesn't fulfill the same purpose as putting "Ben Shapiro" in the caption below the picture? In other words, why isn't his name at the top "enough" in your opinion? (Same question for anyone else who feels the same way.) Leviv ich 03:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I only supporting "Shapiro", not "Ben Shapiro". I haven't seen any guideline that supports the leverage of omitting the subject's name in the infobox caption, if it has other details as well. Even in the essay (WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS) some are referring to, it doesn't suggest anything like "Last name at location in year". If the location and year are not required (e.g. Donald Trump and Barack Obama) then the whole caption shouldn't exist, which is also supported by the essay mentioned here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • E, F, B The RfC is next to useless because no mechanism has been specified for determining consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, that's the closer's problem :-D Leviv ich 04:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, "Shapiro at Politicon 2016", "Shapiro at Politicon in 2016", "Shapiro at Politicon 2016 in Pasadena, California", G, D, E, F, A, B. Per MOS:CAPTION. wumbolo ^^^ 09:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C but without the state name. Also, are we really threatening to take people to ANI and using angrily formatted text over a caption? C'm on folks. It's really not going to break the internet if we don't have a marginally better caption. GMGtalk 12:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, "Shapiro at Politicon in 2016", D, E, F, G, A, B per we shouldn't need style guides and essays to write a simple caption.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • I concur with Bus stop. As the suggested caption would not be a sentence, and "at" is not a proper noun, there is no need for the "a" to be capitalized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Bus stop and BMK; if E is the choice, "at" is better than "At". Leviv ich 17:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CAPFRAG - Whether we should capitalize the first word of a caption is not up for debate, and if it were, you should be having it on the talk page for WP:CAP. GMGtalk 17:24, 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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

Islamaphobia is a islamist race card.72.43.96.132 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 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]
True. As long as the investigation were able to see a clear connection with strong and valid evidence, and it seems to have enough coverage, the argument for keeping will be strengthened. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:58, 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]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Source number 92 is an opinion piece and in no way verifiable by fact. It should be removed because it provides the illusion of validity to a statement that cannot be prpven true without evidence. 2601:191:200:2468:C890:D30D:DFD1:E1B7 (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looking at the current source no. 92 http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/05/ben-shapiros-messy-breakup-with-breitbart.html?gtm=top&gtm=top it says "As the Daily Wire noted, Shapiro was hit with a wave of vicious anti-Semitic abuse, including multiple Holocaust references and requests that Shapiro and his family be sent to the ovens." I think it is best that a discussion takes place here regarding the source if any editor thinks it should be removed. Sam Sailor 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning and ending don't match

I just read through this article. The top of the article says that he has written a certain number of books. The bottom of the article lists the books he has written.

The number of books written as listed at the bottom doesn't match the number of books mentioned at the top.

This needs to be fixed, but I am afraid that making any change to this page is like stepping on a land mine.Not Wilkins (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Not Wilkins[reply]

 Done THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

As Shapiro self identfies as a Libertarian and Wikipedia's policy with other individuals is the lead as how they identify, why not with him?72.43.96.132 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many conservatives hold some libertarian views, but Ben Shapiro is more of a social conservative/ Republican than a libertarian. He identifies as libertarian on social issues such as gay marriage and drugs but he does advocate that society should have an interest in preserving western culture and the family unit, and those ideas are strongly associated with the conservative movement in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know the context of this old discussion but self-identifying source is like self-published source which are not reliable sources. Therefore we need secondary sources that identify Ben Shapiro as Libertarian.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We only prioritize self-identification for race, gender, and ethnicity, since the personal nature of such designations means that misidentifications are more likely to cause harm to the subject. When discussing someone's politics or past positions, we go with what reliable sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-voice needs WP:SECONDARY WP:NEWSORG characterization, not whatever Shapiro self-identifies as, or the constant labelling of him by op-eds alternating between "radical conservative" and "far-right". wumbolo ^^^ 19:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Notre-Dame de Paris fire

The Washington Post, which is considered a reliable source, claims that Ben Shapiro is using the Notre-Dame de Paris fire to evoke the specter of a war between Islam and the West. Should it be included in the Views/Muslims section? Don't wanna add it without consultation since the subject is controversial. Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's WP:DUE. If you do add it, be prepared to add to flip side [1] POV.- MrX 🖋 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an op-ed, and the argument seems flimsy. Don't add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an op-ed, and this article needs less op-eds not more. Since Shapiro has requested its retraction [2], his statement needs to be mentioned if this included (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE). wumbolo ^^^ 19:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems that Shapiro's dog whistling (and ass-kissing) backfired on him and now turned into a full-blown controversy. Talia Lavin, who wrote the piece, is a NYU journalism professor who will teach a course called "Reporting on the Far Right". So as sources go, this is as good as it gets. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So good in fact that the author has slandered someone as a Nazi [3]? wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
who will teach the course has now been cancelled [4]. And for future reference Fox News article about the op-ed. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removing media matters ref

Wumbolo Hi, Since this is a BLP article I will open this discussion. There is no RS that says media matters is anti-semitic and the screenshot from Ben Shapiro twitter account does not say/prove that media matters is anti-semitic. Media matters is a well-known org and this accusation needs a better source also this discussion could expand here--SharabSalam (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known org that curses their political opponents? wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said they are anti semites and hate Ben Shapiro because he is Jewish. Non of this is true. The tweet from Media matters is actually shocking but there is no consensus that media matters is an unreliable source also thats just a tweet I dont think that its going to damage the reliability of Media matters. Also well-known org does not contradict the fact that they cursed their political opponent --SharabSalam (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds

@SharabSalam: it's not "well sourced" if it's sourced to op-eds. See WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. It's definitely not newsworthy as it says nothing about Ben Shapiro. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn how to write an edit summary. Don't just say "completely useless paragraph" and remove. Put a real rationale why you think that paragraph should be removed--SharabSalam (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a real reason. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo "completely useless paragraph" is a real reason? thats your opinion that is definitely irrelevant. I am actually done with your disruptive edits in this article
Today "rm completely useless paragraph"
20 days "rm anti-Semitic website which hates Shapiro because he is a Jew"[5]
I am starting to feel that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are. WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior which you participate in is not welcome here. wumbolo ^^^ 22:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Im just gonna give you an advice: Stop writing disruptive edit summaries. This is the second time I catch a disruptive edit summary by you. You should explain why you think something should be removed with a better explanation or dont explain at all thats in my opinion is much better than your edit summaries because at least I can assume good faith and try to search for the reason of the removal.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be its own issue

@SharabSalam: @Wumbolo: Before you guys continue to revert each others' edits, please discuss the notability of the statements you're putting in. Thanks.


Peter Beinart and others[1][2][3] have criticized Shapiro's "naked bigotry toward Palestinians and Muslims" as Islamophobia.[4]

My apologies if you guys made your own discussion elsewhere, this talk page is a bit cluttered and I think that this conversation should be squared off regardless before it becomes an editwar. puggo (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have self-reverted myself after I realised what was the problem obviously I couldnt have realised what was the problem with an edit summary like "rm useless paragraph"-SharabSalam (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The bloody cost of Islamophobia". theweek.com. 15 March 2019.
  2. ^ Hasan, Mehdi (15 March 2019). "Don't Just Condemn the New Zealand Attacks — Politicians and Pundits Must Stop Their Anti-Muslim Rhetoric". The Intercept.
  3. ^ "Fox's Chris Wallace ignores Ben Shapiro's history of bigotry and misinformation". Media Matters for America. 10 December 2017.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Beinart was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

After just learning about this person...

He apparently walked out of a BBC interview, so this is the first time I have heard of him.

So I come here and read the article, but I am confused, no where in this article does it state he's patently an [blp violation removed]; which is policy according to WP:SPADE, thought?

Why is this? What am I missing here? 81.159.165.223 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, SPADE is an essay not a policy. Second, Wikipedia is not written to cater to your views. If you want your voice to be heard, starting working for a newspaper. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Neil interview

I agree that what was posted is factually true, but is it noteworthy to have Ben Shapiro's BBC interview listed on the page just because he embarrassed himself? He has done many interesting interviews in the past on CNN, FOX, etc etc and those arent worth mentioning. @Snooganssnoogans: Dy3o2 (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take: Shapiro is notable for being "a political commentator, public speaker, author, and lawyer." His inability to respond to perceived contradictions between what he says as a commentator and what he writes as an author, therefore, is quite significant. Orville1974 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is not just any interview it has got significant amount of coverage in independent reliable sources you just need to Google it and you will find the amount of coverage it has gotten. It's not just an interview in FOX News. I don't think that "his inability to respond" is a good reason for inclusion but again it's significantly covered in reliable sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though I have feeling this interview might not pass the 10 years test.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It wasn't a major thing, but both context and sources indicate this was slightly significant. Wait a minute... he's notable for being a lawyer? He's notable, and he was practicing law at one point, but is he notable for this? Do reliable sources treat this as a defining trait? Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyer part is in the lede, and hidden away in early life (even though he is still running a legal consulting firm for media clients); however, I don't see any WP:RS calling it a defining trait. It doesn't change my argument regarding his inability to respond to perceived conflicts between what he says and what he writes. The awkward non-response to the question drove the significant media coverage, which makes the incident significant. Orville1974 (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get that. I hadn't noticed until you quoted the lede that we define him as a lawyer, which seems odd to me. There's no rush and a new section could be started to discuss this. I could've made this clearer, at least. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that people are excited to see Ben Shapiro fail, but I think including it displays the bias of the people doing the gatekeeping. it definitely seems like it won't be notable long-term, its more like a flavor of month thing to add to the wiki. many celebrities have walked out of interviews for various reasons and they are not notable enough to be listed on their wiki pages. many people get owned during interviews, like chris wallace got owned by bill clinton before and that's not mentioned on his wiki. so it seems a little bit like recentism to want to include it. Dy3o2 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wallace and Bill Clinton are still miles ahead of Shapiro in terms of documented encyclopedic significance. We work with what we have. Consensus seems to be that there are enough sources to include a sentence or two on it. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Obviously you and I have our disagreements politically, but at least we should be able to stay consistent when it comes to what is determined to be relevant. You pick and choose what to leave in and what to take in, not based on any Wiki guideline but based on your political beliefs. You say its notable to leave in the BBC interview, okay, but why did you take out the FBI arrest of the person who made a death threat against Shapiro? it is apparent you are guided by your political beliefs more than you think. As I asked you earlier, why do you think its okay for April Ryan to have a mention of a death threat that had no arrests, and had one source (msn) where she reported the incident herself, and Ben Shapiro's threat is irrelevant? Even though we disagree, I think its a fair question for the sake of consistency Dy3o2 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ping me again, ever. I am watching this page, and I will respond, or not, at my own schedule when I think it's worth responding to.
I remind you that you have already been warned multiple times against WP:EW and WP:POINT, so I will also add Wikipedia:No personal attacks to your reading assignment. Comment on content or specific behavior, and do not speculate on editors' personal motives. I know full-well I am "guided by my political beliefs" and I trust that you do, too.
I hope you have noticed that this article isn't about April Ryan, so sources which discuss April Ryan's activities of not of interest to us here. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and ignoring that will harm the project. If you think half a sentence on a separate article about a different person is a persuasive precedent, you are mistaken.
Do not edit war. Propose sources on the talk page, make sure they are WP:RS, and know that copies of the same article pushed by a news agency are not separate sources. Read WP:BLPCRIME also. Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much useful. This interview seems to be more significantly covered. There are even sources that analysis the interview. However, I think it could be compromised to 1–3 lines. I am not supportive of this idea but I just wanted to say it.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's my reading of this too. There was quite a lot of coverage of the Andrew Neil interview at the time, so the current three sentences seem fine. If there is little retrospective coverage in the future, Shapiro's quotes should be condensed into a single sentence. wumbolo ^^^ 18:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add a mention of death threats to Ben Shapiro

I believe it is worth noting that Ben Shapiro has had a death threat made against him that ended up with someone being arrested in Washington state. he has had death threats before but they were of less consequence because nothing ever materialized, but there is actually something that happened here (an arrest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 June 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.  Spintendo  09:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding the following:

In 2019, the FBI arrested a man from Washington for making death threats against Shapiro and his family. [1] Dy3o2 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The threats appear credible as the FBI acted on them and arrested a suspect. As for WP:RSUW, the arrest was widely reported in the media, and the incident aligns with a lot of the article's content (Shapiro is controversial). Orville1974 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A better ref would be The Jerusalem Post perhaps. This is WP:DUE for the article, but per WP:NOTGOSSIP we must not speculate what this is about (as Orville1974 meant by "Shapiro is controversial") since little is known about the death threat. wumbolo ^^^ 18:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per the above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can someone add the the death threat into the article? Not sure if it should be in its own section or under personal life. Here is the JPOST reference [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The above unsigned request and follow up after discussion to include the incident using the Jerusalem Post article was made by Dy3o2 / Talk page. As it seems we've reached consensus, I've reopened the edit request. As I've been involved in the discussion, I'd prefer not to make the edit myself. Orville1974 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not oppose adding this, but these two news blurbs source are not enough to justify an entire subsection for a single short sentence. The JPost link is less than a dozen sentences in four paragraphs, and appears to be entirely derived from a TMZ source. That's underwhelming. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will a disinterested editor please add the following and close this out? - Insert into the personal life section using the citations below: In 2019, the FBI arrested a man from Washington for making death threats against Shapiro and his family. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ben Shapiro received 'serious' death threats; 1 arrested: report". Fox. 2019-05-01. Retrieved 2019-06-01.
  2. ^ LIPHSHIZ, CNAAN (2019-05-05). "BEN SHAPIRO RECEIVES DEATH THREATS, FBI MAKES ARREST". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2019-05-06. Retrieved 2019-06-02. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Proposed removal of "Right Side of History" Book extraneous commentary

There's a lot of undue weight placed on Ben Shapiro's last book, and the commentary by the two reviewers cited by Snooganssnoogans. I haven't read the book, but from looking around the web it does seem he did make the claim that scientific research was unique to the west, so what was added was factual, however I think critiques to Ben's book would be better placed on its own wikipedia page as there is so much content on that one book listed on his main wiki now.

Dy3o2 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this page does not suffer from size constraints. Reviews of his books belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, why is it ok for you to add directly to the article without running it by Talk first when my mention of shapiro’s death threat got deleted? Dy3o2 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:BRD circle. You can boldly add anything to the article but when you get reverted for a valid reason you should go to the talk page to discuss the issue. Also some pages are protected and editors who have less than 500 edits can't edit them.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the use of a conflict of interest template was an mistake, unless you are personally or financially associated with Shapiro. Either way, discuss, gain consensus, then use a template if necessary.
Consensus is built on agreement, not permission.
I suspect the book may qualify for its own article ("...instead of contending with great ideas, it deploys them as if they were toy soldiers or characters in a video game."[6]) but that hasn't happened yet. For now, background on Shapiro's various activities belongs in the article on Shapiro. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first review is not a review as much as an op ed. It is used to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice about Shapiro's arguments in the book, but the statement is contradicted by the op ed piece itself (as well as being factually inaccurate. For some reason the edito is now engaged in an edit war rather than accepting that his bold efforts have been reverted, and it's time to discuss.LedRush (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review links to a video where Shapiro literally says that the scientific method and experiments are unique to the West. If you're lying in your edit summaries and there's no other policy-based reasoning for your edit, I revert them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say that Shapiro said this on his show (which is still not what the video says), it says his book says it. His book doesn't say it, he doesn't say it, and even the op ed admits that Shapiro uses hedging language, not the absolutist language you've written. Please don't call me a liar - everything I've said is factual. Virtually nothing you've written is.LedRush (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume then that you'd be fine with saying "While talking about his book, Shapiro said X". And again, the hedging language ("Indians did some inventions in the 1st century") is per the reviews a rhetorical technique, and the review clearly points out that the crux of the argument (that the practice of science was uniquely Western) is false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You presume incorrectly. I don't know that Shapiro was talking about his book, and you are citing an op ed, not a Youtube video. This remains inaccurate, incorrectly cited, and a BLP violation. And you've boldly added something and should now discuss, not edit war, after the revert.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what LedRush said. But Soonganssnoogans didn't call you a liar, Soonganssnoogans said you lied about something. When you said "Virtually nothing you have written is" factual, is just the same as what Soonganssnoogans said.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between saying that someone is lying and that someone made factual errors, but whatever.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that the criticism is one-sided. I googled "shapiro right side of history reviews" and there are three mixed reviews (the first being the most negative, attacking Shapiro's reliance on religion) and 2 are aggregated reader reviewers which are positive. So why are we only citing negative reviews (really, one negative review and one op ed on Shapiro himself, not the book)?LedRush (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Shapiro&oldid=900111414"