Jump to content

Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Propose Merge From: The Ben Shapiro Show

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.
This is a difficult RfC to assess due to levels of disruption and the lack of substantiation in the opinions expressed. Assessing RfC outcomes is not merely a matter of counting noses and the quality of the opinions matters equally, if not more than, the quantity. Closers are instructed to discard ""irrelevant arguments" in determining quality, arguments that: flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Many, if not most, of the opinions expressed below are little more than personal opinion. In particular, any "I like it"/"I don't like it" or "It's popular"/"It's not popular" or bald "It's notable"/"It's not notable" !votes that do not say why the editor thinks that would carry little weight in a deletion discussion and have to be seen as carrying little weight here for identical reasons. Rejecting those !votes completely, however, would lead to an absurd situation. The only reasonably policy-compliant reading of this discussion is that this is a failed RfC due to lack of quality participation and that there is no consensus on whether a merge is successful or not. A better-defined merger proposal may justify a new discussion but until then, WP:NOCONSENSUS in a merge proposal usually results in retaining two separate articles. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the contents of The Ben Shapiro Show be merged into Ben Shapiro?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


I propose a merger from The Ben Shapiro Show and redirecting that article here. Actually the content seems pretty well merged already, the podcast doesn't seem to be independently notable from Shapiro, and it barely rates a paragraph, the content of which is in this article under "Host" and a tiny bit in "Political Positions" anyways. The page for The Ben Shapiro Show appears to have been created as promotional content [1] containing mostly mentions to self-awarded awards and promotional ad copy links (links to Daily Wire, "Westwood One", "iHeartRadio Podcast Awards") from companies involved in producing or transmitting it, which is not allowable under WP:PROMO IHateAccounts (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


I would have to disagree. As this is a broadcasted copyrighted podcast that is also televised, it exists as a separate entity to Ben Shapiro. Many other shows and podcasts are available as separate articles such as the very famous "Joe Rogan Experience" and almost every other televised broadcast. Events that happen on broadcasts should be recorded and made publicly available as a separate entity to a person's biography page. Anon 21:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Noting that the above "Anon" was IP-hopping on US Air Force addresses or proxies, trying to remove this proposal and then leaving the comment as "131.13.100.86" then signing it as "138.163.106.72", and also deleting other comments/proposals and leaving some nasty personal attacks as "131.13.100.66"[2] [3]. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)—Comment struck as IHateAccounts has been blocked for being a sockpuppet [4]
  • Support per nom, seems like the Show is completely based around Shapiro. Vallee01 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC) (Retracted it most certainly fits the notability standards)
  • Oppose. One of the most popular podcasts in the country like The Daily of The New York Times, and a nationally syndicated radio show. Fulfills WP:GNG. Loksmythe (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's been around for awhile now and has been near the top podcasts in the recent future. Has a large audience as well as being nationally syndicated broadcast. Vallee01 The show is not based around Shapiro. There is no evidence that supports this claim. The show is advertised as a political commentary and is not a blog. Even if it was, considering its status it wouldn't even matter. By your logic all shows that center around a single host i.e. "The Michelle Obama Podcast", "The Joe Rogan Experience", "Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend", etc. should be merged. Also, from the looks of it, it appears that all of the awards and other content was removed by IHateAccounts anyways. As the page looks right now, there is no self promotion. Only a link to the website of the podcast which is permissible under WP:PROMO "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article". Yesornooridk (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC) —Comment struck as Yesornooridk (talk • contribs) has been blocked for being a sockpuppet [5]
  • Oppose Articles like Błenna B get an article a small village in the middle of Syria, Ben Shapiro is obviously much more noteworthy then a random Syrian village and it has a large amount of citations of a popular figure (Ben Shapiro) therefor we must conclude the article is noteworthy. Vallee01 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, notability guidelines do vary quite a bit by subject. A small village in the middle of Syria is very much notable as per WP:GEOLAND, even if few know that it exists. Notability for web content is different; Ben Shapiro's popularity does not make The Ben Shapiro Show notable, as the current guidelines do not allow notability to be inherited. There needs to be enough reliable secondary sources specifically about the show to warrant a standalone article, and as it stands, there are not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 09:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Yesornooridk This is a tricky issue it does seem this is notable enough to include of page we certainly include much more obscure articles, Błenna B or Tal al-ward as an example. However does every single talk show deserve it it's own page? I don't really know, I am generally a maximalist on pages however I am conflicted onto this you do make some good points however. Also welcome, I see you are new to Wikipedia be neutral and help contribute. Vallee01 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Alex B4 I agree that this violations stances on promotion but this isn't really something to go off being deleted or merged. Even if we merge the article it doesn't solve the issue of Promotion either way it will need to be copy edited. I state this as a radical leftist it very clearly justifies inclusion. Des Vallee (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Des Vallee I would simply add that I think the article should be merged and the merged section be subsequently copy-edited. Alex (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Alex B4 That would fine I suppose. If the article was more in depth. Overall I am starting to think this could be merged. It meets notability guidelines but the article is so short absolutely no information would be lost. This takes my usual reason for opposing merges however I do believe merging it might have other effects. Des Vallee (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: so you're opposing based on a blocked sockpuppet? [6] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)—Comment struck as IHateAccounts has been blocked for being a sockpuppet [7]
Refactored.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have noted, Ben Shapiro Show is notable in its own right. If there are problems with the content of that entry, they should be addressed. But that is not a reason to merge it out of existence.Jreiss17 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Jreiss17. Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Merge It's obviously a very well-known show, but if the show is notable enough in its own right to be distinct from Ben Shapiro, then why not cover it at The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio? The Podcasting WikiProject uses the WP:WEB standards to determine notability, and I feel that some of the good-faith oppose !votes may want to consider WP:INHERITWEB. Ben Shapiro himself is certainly notable enough, and The Daily Wire itself is certainly covered by quite a lot of sources, but if The Ben Shapiro Show is notable enough in a way that's distinct from either Ben Shapiro or The Daily Wire, then the article should certainly have more than a couple of sources in it. As of right now, there's so little content in the article (with some of that content being quite poor quality) that we certainly wouldn't lose any information about The Ben Shapiro Show on the encyclopedia by merging it into another article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 09:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Ben Shapiro Show is notable by itself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the 4 references currently in the article have not established notability of this topic as its own separate article. --Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've listed this talk section as an RfC in an attempt to get more eyes on the thread and allow for closure if/when a consensus emerges. The original nom was found to be a sockpuppet and is now blocked indefinitely, so for obvious reasons I wasn't able to request that they be the one who lists it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I'm not convinced of the notability of the show in itself and I don't really see it as being important or distinct enough from Shapiro himself for its own page. My biggest gripe, however, is with the fact that this article has been around for two years or so and in that time hasn't grown from being more than a paragraph long. Since it seems like a paragraph is all anyone can say about it, why have a separate page when it would fit better in the main Shapiro article? The "weak" part of my "weak support" means that I'd be ready to change my mind if somebody were to expand the article with enough relevant information and citations proving the notability of the show to warrant its own separate page. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger - the show seems notable on its own and a different category, so if it was removed the WP coverage of podcasts would be deficient. The norm as others mention is for eponymous shows like The Joe Rogan Experience, or The Ramsey Show, or The Johnny Carson Show to be separately described items as it’s just not the person’s life. A biography should be more WP:BLP about describing what they do in daily living or prolonged activity, events that altered their life, or life decisions that made a difference to them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    ^This user is " topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed" per the arbitration enforcement log.[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. If it can be incorporated into the main article without causing size problems or making the main article too in-the-weeds, then yes, it should be merged. I oppose the existence of all these tiny forks for aspects of an individual's life and career. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not convinced that the show is independently notable except in that it's related to Shapiro or the Daily Wire. See both WP:INHERENTWEB (listener/viewer counts are not relevant here) and WP:INHERITWEB (just because Shapiro is famous doesn't make this show notable). The show's article has existed for years and not been expanded beyond a single paragraph. The reason for that is that it hasn't been extensively covered by independent RS's. It ought to be merged into either Daily Wire § Podcasts and radio or Ben Shapiro § Host. Srey Srostalk 17:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Show seems notable on it's own and not seeing a need to merge. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The show should be merged, it's not notable to stand on it's own, a section should be added.Sea Ane (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I moved this comment, it was below the edit request. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Independent notability. A separate article also helps us build the article in a proper summary style. ~ HAL333 01:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, with the proviso that The Daily Wire -- another ShapiroSphere article of fairly modest length, in the context of the concerns about WP:SS and WP:AS -- might be the preferable redirect target. The third article says very little (it's not a show, but it does have Ben Shapiro in it), has said very little for quite some time now, has continued to say very little through the course of this long-running RFC, and almost necessarily can ever say very little. Has all the signs of being a permastub. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two separate things that should stand in their own right as individual articles. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the show is a separate subject from Ben Shapiro and there is enough news coverage of the podcast that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That being said, the article needs a lot of work and I have no interest in contributing to it. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Don't see the need to merge, seeing as the show is notable on its own. Idealigic (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope I'm not posting too many comments on this thread, but I think some of the oppose !votes that speak of the show's independent notability or substantial news coverage would benefit from citing a few of those sources. The show's article has only four sources, and only one of those sources could be described as just being about the show rather than being about Shapiro. It may very well be possible that this news coverage is out there waiting to be found, but as of right now I'd go as far as to say that the article's sources don't even demonstrate enough notability to survive a deletion discussion, much less a merge discussion. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that more sources will be identified, but it's a little jarring seeing so many comments from even experienced editors simply stating that they think the show is notable enough on its own, but not really trying to explain how. I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone believes The Ben Shapiro Show passes WP:WEB, or even WP:GNG.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I feel that it would be considerably faster to merge this to the Ben Shapiro article. It would also be difficult to find more unbiased information about a political podcast, not only for content, but for sources. While I understand that this is a podcast of importance (I'm a listener myself), I honestly believe that the best way to save this article from being a stub is to merge it to the Ben Shapiro article. Also, I'm new to Wikipedia, it's nice to meet you all. NylonAcme2006 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Nylon Acme
  • Oppose - It is very notable and well sourced. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment At this point I'm considering self-closing and just starting a new discussion, because I've been on this website for half a decade and never have I seen a discussion this bizarre. An article with four sources, most of them about Shapiro and not about his show, is a "very notable and well sourced article?" How could a closer even begin to assess a discussion where half the people just said it's independently notable without even trying to explain why or how? I don't want to make any accusations against anyone here, but I really get the impression that something odd is going on. I don't know if it's canvassing, or just a bunch of editors amicable towards Shapiro who for some reason believe that redirecting the non-article that is The Ben Shapiro Show is somehow bad for him, but I truly can't imagine anyone would, in good faith, call that article "well-sourced" and just leave it at that. A lot of these !votes are from young accounts, but a startling number aren't. This discussion was poisoned by sockpuppets on both sides from the start, but it seems starting an RfC didn't help anything, so I might retry at AfD. I'm not saying that I want to keep trying until I get the outcome I want, I'd be perfectly happy with a discussion closing with a consensus that the article can stay, I just want someone - anyone - to even attempt to explain how the article passes WP:WEB. I feel like I'm losing my mind here seeing all polling and no discussion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The fact that there aren't many sources isn't an immediate call for deletion per WP:BEFORE, specifically section C. I haven't done a thorough review of sources, but I'm not convinced the article can't be improved to the point where a standalone article isn't questioned. Also regarding the drive-by !votes - the merge banner has been tagged on the top of Shapiro's article for over four months now, and given the article gets a lot of traffic, many of which are probably his fans, I'm actually surprised there aren't more of those types of !votes. Regardless, those types of !votes would be ignored per WP:NOTVOTE when closed anyway. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons many others have covered -- both the person and the show are notable in their own right, for different reasons. I would alternatively support merging The Ben Shapiro Show into The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio, as User:Vanilla Wizard seems to suggest as a possibility above, as that merger at least would distinguish "articles about notable people" from "articles about notable media properties." Regardless, the two concepts should be sufficiently linked to one another in each article (see also, etc.) as they are closely related. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

Cardi B and WAP?

Surprised that WAP is not mentioned in this article, as that appears to be one of the most high-publicity moments in his career. Should it be mentioned? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive 4#Music. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of Shapiro's comparison of transgender people to so called "transageists"

So, under the "LGBT Issues" section, there is the phrase "has compared such changes to the notion of changing one's age." which, to me, seems unclear, as ones age is constantly increasing, and is not static. I know that this bit in the article is talking about how Shapiro believes transgender people's identities are invalid, and has compared the change in gender presentation to "transageists", but I feel the phrasing is unclear. Is it just me or is it unclear?

If it seems unclear to others aside from myself, I'm sure there's a way to rephrase it to be clearer, perhaps with adding a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Pan_syndrome, though I currently can't think of any that flow well I'll come back to it if others agree that it is unclear. Thanks, Cassandra Prime (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

I believe that the first sentence should state that he is a lawyer because that is a profession.

Change: "Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) is an American conservative political commentator and media host. At age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States."

to: "Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984)[1] is an American conservative political commentator, lawyer, and media host. At age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States." Speakingthetruth78 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Expansion

I think the section "Gun ownership" can be expanded. It talks about the mentally ill owning guns, but it should also talk about criminals owning guns.

The other thing, I'd like to discuss. Ben talks alot about Greta thunberg and renewable energy; there's no mention of this in the article.103.246.39.121 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that talk about any of that? SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Some stuff I found regarding Ben Shapiro's comments on "gun ownership of criminals": Good Gun Policy Starts With Reality, SHAPIRO: Debunking Gun Control, Data suggest guns do in fact kill people. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 18:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This video is about Greta.. Now, I don't obviously agree with everything that Ben says, but this is something him and I agree on:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8RVooYlyl20 103.246.39.121 (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOCIALNETWORK. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

In the last paragraph of the section "Columnist", the last sentence reads: "... more than 100 Politico staffers signed onto a letter..." This should be "on to". (jkgree - not logged in)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.255.67 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Yes, I think that's right. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

New book

He has written another book[1] so we need to update the statement that his most recent book is How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps. However, I'm unsure what the total number of books he has written is now. TWM03 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-authoritarian-moment-ben-shapiro?variant=33063496810530

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Gay

Does this count as coming out? https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1521490118770675713?s=20&t=cRSWUVivUAO-XWfBEUkfXQ Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No, he's referring to the gay man in Anna's tweet. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Official Website

The link to the official website appears to be illegitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.43.84 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Views on race

The section describes Shapiro's views on racism related topics but fails to mention that they're fringe, as it's done in other sections where he espouses fringe viewpoints. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Placing the word "fringe" into the article is inappropriate, as it would introduce questionable editorializing on Wikipedia's part. This would be the same as describing someone else as "mainstream" or "widely accepted". These are statements of opinion. It is better to state his views as they are, cite the source, and leave it at that. BGoldwater (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
No, wikipedia can and does describe things as “fringe” and/or “widely accepted. See WP:UNDUE Dronebogus (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

Been going back and forth a bit on this sentence:

"He has also stated a belief that immigrants from Islamic countries degrade the United States."

@Royce Rufer thinks the statement "He has also argued that immigrants from Islamic countries degrade the United States" is more neutral.

I think the word "argued" implies an endorsement of Shapiro's belief.

Thoughts? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking WP:SAY is the default. I also believe we should make it clear when we are quoting opinions rather than an expert, so "stated the belief" or "expressed the belief" seems fine to me. That said, none of these seem like problems. "Argued" is what the source says, and I don't really think that it endorses the argument at all. (If anything, part of my problem with blindly going for "said" or "stated" without the clarification that it is an opinion is that it carries the implication that the speaker has some basis for what they're saying and makes it ambiguous whether they are being cited for an opinion or as an expert for facts; "argued", to me, does not have that problem. Certainly the cited source, which uses that language, is not endorsing Shapiro's argument.) That said, if you're worried that the language might come across as endorsing Shapiro's beliefs, another option is to include more context from the source - here is the full paragraph: Immigration was not a large part of the discussion on The Daily Standard podcast, but The Ben Shapiro Show did share some replacement rhetoric with the far right podcasts. Shapiro was critical of cultural changes in the United States and Europe, arguing that immigrants from Islamic and Central American countries degraded the United States and shifted the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage and culture. He saw a “replacement” of traditional American values at the hands of some immigrants. He never used the phrase “white genocide,” but his rhetoric (if not his tone) was similar to conversations on Alt-Right Politics and the Stormfront podcast. The fact that an academic expert compared his rhetoric on that point to Stormfront seems relevant; and pulling his opinion out without including the context of that comparison (which, to me, is the point of the paragraph) might be misusing the source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the bigger question is why doesn't the article actually contain that parallel? The discussion here should be about including the part that directly compares Shapiro's replacement rethoric with that of Stormfront, not about whether or not "stated" or "argued" is the better alternative. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
That is a good point. The paper is currently mentioned in more detail elsewhere in the article, so I added it there. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
To be honest I don’t think readers really notice or care. This is textual minutiae. Just leave it as whatever it is now. Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

On the COVID-19 vaccine section, Change Favour to Favor, as the Article is written in American English. BMW M5-cs (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Gibberish sentence

The last sentence in the section titled "Facebook" is gibberish. YeshayaRoth (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

minus Removed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This page reads a little too much like a fan page

So I fixed the problem by adding a couple of links documenting Ben Shapiro's views from 2016. I hope that these links will not be deleted. Thanks! Myatrrcc (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while but do you explaining how the page read a little too much like a fan page? I've read it and it didn't come across like that to me? -- Python Drink (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Editor emeritus"

I take issue with how this label is said. I'm not sure if it's meant to poke fun at academic titles ("professor emeritus"), as Shapiro is a noted critic of the goings-on of academia, or if it's just generally for fun. The Daily Wire is relatively small, personnel-wise, as far as I know, and it's not like a committee of independent editors bestowed the title...the whole operation is run by Shapiro et al. Anyway, it just reads weirdly, as it's stated un-ironically, without quotes. Then again, any attempt to rectify this issue could unintentionally mock the label, which is not my intention either. Perhaps we could just say he is "the editor" or "editor". It's more neutral, it means the same thing, and avoids confusion for readers, who may not be in on the inside joke (academic titles or internal title inflation, as the CEO is apparently called "God King"). CAPTAIN KOOKY (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN KOOKY: As the article emeritus explains, this adjective simply indicates a job that the person previously held, and is generally a sign that they are held in high esteem for having done it. It's how the COO described his current role, and it was not done jokingly. It's not particularly common for former editors to get that title, but it doesn't sound weird to me. I'll add a link to the article for anyone who is unfamiliar. -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro seems to write for the Epoch Times

As shown from this link, Ben Shapiro seems to write for the Epoch Times. Whether the Epoch Times uses his articles from other news sources or Shapiro writes them for the epoch times I'm not sure?

Link here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-ben-shapiro Opok2021 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Fact in First Paragraph

The first paragraph states, "At age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States." This is incorrect. This New York Times article from 1983 mentions an 11-year old syndicated columnist in the United States. As 11 is younger than 17, I suggest editing the article to remove the words, "the youngest" and replace them with the word "a."

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/12/weekinreview/headliners-microcritic-at-large.html

Or mentioning this in the article as an incorrect fact that he often states. Milliniumman (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Shapiro is a conspiracy theorist

Hey guys, since Wikipedia allows Media Matters as a source, shouldn't the article state in the opening that he is a conspiracy theorist? "Daily Wire pundit Ben Shapiro appeared on Pool’s show in April. Shapiro is an anti-LGBTQ dogmatist and conspiracy theorist." If not, why? Isn't MM trustworthy and credible?

https://www.mediamatters.org/tim-pool/extremists-bigots-and-conspiracy-theorists-youtuber-tim-pools-2022-guests-review 69.157.77.228 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Media Matters, a politically opinionated source, is only considered "marginally reliable". See [9]. It therefore would be a poor source to use in a bio, especially on its own, to call Shapiro a "conspiracy theorist". Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
MM is not a trustworthy source. It's marginally reliable and must be attributed (see WP:RSP). So MM calling Shapiro a conspiracy theorist absolutely does not warrant the contentious label being crammed in the first sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Attorney?

Is Ben Shapiro a practicing attorney? The sources don't seem to indicate that. If he's not, shouldn't he be noted as a former attorney in the lead? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Shapiro is not an attorney. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
He is an attorney and a member/former member of the California Bar. That he's not a "practicing attorney" is a trivial and unnecessary distinction. If you can find a reference stating he is a former attorney, feel free to add/update. Buffs (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Shapiro a libertarian conservative

This is even in the self-description. Add conservative and libertarian conservative. I don't see much counterarguments Kedamomo999 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You don’t see “much” counter arguments because nobody has even discussed this. Dronebogus (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Attorney" in lede

Not sure why "attorney" was listed first and foremost in the lede. I changed this. He barely practiced law as far as I can tell. His membership in the California State Bar is inactive as of 2021. Does he practice law anywhere? Schierbecker (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

Original: "He has also said immigrants from Islamic countries "degrade" the United States.[74]" - perhaps this should be under "foreign policy" and not "religion".

Furthermore, I searched for his use of the word "degrade" and couldn't find it (the wiki currently doesn't reference where he used it), so it shouldn't be in quotation marks. I read the article cited. The passage should be changed to: "A study shows that Shapiro's rhetoric suggests that immigrants from Islamic countries degrade the United States. [74]" Bondonk (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I updated the wording to reflect that it's not a direct quote, but the source does attribute that specific argument to him. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

Change "founded" to "co-founded" for the Daily Wire in the first section. Thanks! Adam El-Sawaf (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: AnnaMankad (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

Fix location of birth

Section: Early life and education

"Shapiro was born in Los Angeles, California"

to

"Shapiro was born and raised in Burbank, CA"

Sources:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2qRGhnmP8&t=20s

- https://www.google.com/search?q=Where+was+Ben+Shapiro+born Cybergenik (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done A google search result doesn't really count as a source. In the video you link to, he says he grew up in Burbank, not that he was born there. Granted, the sources currently cited are less than stellar. The Times also says he grew up in, not born in Los Angeles. The other sources is a Tweet that is archived by doesn't load. We do need to get a better source here. But we need a little more to work with. GMGtalk 10:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Blatant bias in bio should be removed.

The following “ In July 2015, Shapiro and transgender rightsactivist Zoey Tur were on Dr. Drew On Call to discuss Caitlyn Jenner's receipt of the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. After Shapiro referred to Tur, who is a trans woman, as "sir" and questioned her genetics, she placed her hand on the back of his neck and threatened on air to send him "home in an ambulance". Shapiro replied, "That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion." Later, Shapiro filed a police report charging Tur with battery and stated that he intended to press charges to teach the left a lesson. Tur said the report was Shapiro's attempt to keep the story in the news.” Should be removed from the bio as it is blatantly bias. One of the argument during that debate with Tur was whether or not people should be forced to use Tur’s preferred pronoun. By referring to Tur as a “she” Wikipedia is taking a biased stance on this topic. This snippet should be removed entirely or gender neutral terms should be used when referring to Tur. 2600:4040:7A20:5B00:DC15:208C:9B78:BE2A (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would refer you to policy on WP:BLP. Agree or not, that's the policy. Buffs (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, “rightsactivist”? Is this german? Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Dear " 2600:4040:7A20:5B00:DC15:208C:9B78:BE2A " , maybe wikipedia is not for you. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

Remove the word "erroneously" from this: "Shapiro stated that Chauvin should not have been found guilty of murder, and instead erroneously suggested that Floyd died of a drug overdose rather than as a result of Chauvin's actions." It is beyond the bounds of an encyclopedia to give an opinion on this matter. Basedchild (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Shapiro's opinion about the Murder of George Floyd (something that is well beyond his field of expertise) is irrelevant and erroneous. M.Bitton (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: Taking an official autopsy and criminal trial result to be accurate is not "an opinion", but rather giving the extremely prominent view in reliable sources the appropriate weight as compared to fringe views. See WP:WEIGHT. Tollens (talk) 05:36, 28 July 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)

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)

“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)

Far-right

Shapiro has been repeatedly referred to as far-right in recent years. I think this deserves mention in the lede.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

The American left invariably refers to nearly everyone who disagrees with them as "far-right". Buffs (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not the issue here. We are supposed to regurgitate mainstream sources. Our personal feelings shouldn't matter here. He's getting called "far-right" by mainstream sources. This deserves to be in the lede.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
While some sources may comment on his links and influences re. the far-right, we need sources that explicitly describe him as a far-right commentator - and so on. Those sources are scarce here. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Shapiro is in the center, mainstream of the American Republican party and conservative movenent. He does not hold "far-right" views like supporting false 2020 election fraud claims or racial/gender intolerance. The Alt-right perceives him as an enemy due to his philosemitism and calls for color-blindness. Frankly, I find very few mainstream sources, even left-wing ones, that openly represent him as anything other than a standard Republican, including how he was depicted in a New York Times article. 68.234.168.25 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Why has he been changed to being called far-right in the lead? ? 2600:1008:A101:72AC:2821:494B:21C1:F15D (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted it now. @MagicatthemovieS you made this change without consensus. Zilch-nada (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Discography

Should the “Discography” section be removed? I had originally included a short sentence under Personal Life (Here) about how Ben was involved in this song and was in the music video. However the Discography addition (Here) seems excessive to me. Can we get your thoughts @Cannolis? Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, a discography section with 1 entry adds nothing IMO. Cannolis (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

Please also include that Ben Shapiro is a rapper in the intro for example:

Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) is an American lawyer, columnist, rapper, author, and conservative political commentator. 2603:9001:2700:6FCF:604F:4354:570F:AF1 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:ROLEBIO Cannolis (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that this is not a noteworthy role. Shapiro’s bio on X shows that he defines himself as a rapper. A person initially learning about Ben Shapiro and viewing his X profile will initially read that he is, indeed, a rapper. 2601:405:4400:C780:815C:7329:C477:D928 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Which secondary reliable sources indicate his music is notable to his biography? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro as a rapper

The definition of a rapper, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "One who performed rap music." Rap music is defined as "A form of popular music emphasizing spoken rhymes over heavy rhythmic backing tracks." Using this definition, Ben Shapiro can be objectively classified as a rapper by definition, due to his performance in Tom MacDonald's new music video "Facts."

https://spectator.org/ben-shapiro-a-chart-topping-rapper/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kGpohEpuTE

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapper

https://www.wordnik.com/words/rap%20music UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Shapiro has paricipated in one, count 'em, one rap video. As far as I know, he has never performed as a rapper in public or toured as a rapper. No awards as a rapper. That is an avocation or a side hustle or a hobby. Shapiro is not notable as a rapper, and it simply does not belong in the lead at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Are we still doing this? Thanks Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Now we're done. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
See MOS:ROLEBIO. Ben Shapiro is not notable for being a rapper as he has only been featured one song very recently. His other professions largely overshadow this. We do mention rap feature, However we don’t mention it in the lead for this reason. SKAG123 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a nice mention of his rap debut in the body of the article. I agree that that is sufficient.--FeralOink (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and assessment

I removed invalid parameters for Wikiproject Politics. (There is no "fascism" subcategory in the template!) Not sure why he is a member of so many Wikiprojects. Ben Shapiro is NOT of "mid importance" to the United States! As a member of that project and of the Internet culture project, I am downgrading him to low importance. As for Judaism, we don't include every person who is Jewish and has a BLP or biographical article in that project, but rather, in the category. (He is in several varieties of Jewish people categories.) He is definitely not of mid importance to southern California. I do believe that the article is better than merely C class, and should be upgraded to B class. I have not made any changes to quality assessment.--FeralOink (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Neil Controversy?

I get that he's a contentious guy and wikipedia has to maintain some semblance of balance but I'm surprised there's no subsection for controversies and even more surprised that there's absolutely no mention of his fairly unflattering Andrew Neil Interview since this is what he's most famous for in the UK 2A00:23C6:740D:A401:38A2:1444:4B0:A97B (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, he isn't really famous in the UK at all so the Neil interview doesn't count for that much in the grand scheme of things. We try to avoid "controversy" sections anyway, including the controversies in the main flow of the article instead. The interview might be worth mentioning but only very briefly. I think one sentence backed by a couple of good independent sources might be OK. DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the IP user means "most notable" as opposed to "most famous." I've known Shapiro for almost a decade thanks to the internet but most in the UK had no idea who he was before the infamous interview. I am surprised it's not mentioned anywhere in the article as it was a pretty significant event in coverage of him and was widely covered internationally. It was an absolute disaster and showed him to be completely out of his league. I disagree about not having criticism sections, as they can be useful in summarising content about individuals, especially as these are usually popular parts of articles. Far too much weight in this article has been given to his views, which is very unusual for an non-politician. At this point, the interview is vital to be included, even if it's given merely a sentence; where it would be placed, however, is difficult to say. UaMaol (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The IP OP supplies no links, so I'll guess it's about a BBC interview in 2019. If so, I'd put it on a level with an event in 2019 where [insert sports team here] played poorly and was ridiculed for a while, but the team plays many times per year and it had no lasting significance. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
haha, yes perfect! UaMaol (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Shapiro/Archive_5&oldid=1248278820"