Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

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

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)

A well-known org that curses their political opponents? wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That is a real reason. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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"[1]

I am starting to feel that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course you are. WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior which you participate in is not welcome here. wumbolo ^^^ 22:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 have criticized Shapiro's "naked bigotry toward Palestinians and Muslims" as Islamophobia.

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

I don't think it's WP:DUE. If you do add it, be prepared to add to flip side [2] POV.- MrX 🖋 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, and the argument seems flimsy. Don't add it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, and this article needs less op-eds not more. Since Shapiro has requested its retraction [3], his statement needs to be mentioned if this included (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE). wumbolo ^^^ 19:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

So good in fact that the author has slandered someone as a Nazi [4]? wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

who will teach the course has now been cancelled [5]. And for future reference Fox News article about the op-ed. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Though I have feeling this interview might not pass the 10 years test.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• I invite all editors who haven't seen the previous RFC to have a look. It may help to determine WP:WEIGHT or other issues. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

•  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.

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)

• I lean support, considering one of the op-ed author's history of allegations of antisemitism. wumbolo ^^^ 09:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

I cited a source that incorporates the video of Shapiro's remarks and responds to it. Do you want a separate cite for the video? Or are you just throwing up random hurdles as the goalposts shift? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 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.--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.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

• Toa Nidhiki05 there is a video inside the source that shows Ben Shapiro saying that.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) My principal complaint here is wording Cole’s statement in Wiki’s voice. If this is included at all, I’d reword to:

While talking about his book, Shapiro said that the scientific method and experimental science are unique to the West. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle-Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan, described Shapiro's claims as false, saying that sophisticated science was also conducted in other parts of the world and pointing to Hasan Ibn al-Haytham, an Arabic 10th-11th century scholar as among the first to present the scientific method (which Europeans would use centuries later during the Renaissance).

• I’m not sure how this random scholar’s opinion is worthy of inclusion regardless. This is a self-published article on his own personal blog and the author is arguably fringe (boldly staunchly left-wing views, accusing people of dual loyalty to Israel, etc.). Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• The author is a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Michigan and has an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications in top outlets. He's a recognized expert on this issue by any measure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Doesnt this violate BLP? There is no proof that Juan Cole is a fringe and I think he's notable I agree that this might need a secondary source.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• It does not violate BLP; all claims made are on his own Wiki page and sourced. Another editor brought this up earlier and it was ignored. This sourcing Snog wants is from Cole’s own personal blog - not an academic journal - and Cole has faced accusations of lazy research, partisanship, and antisemitism. Not the best source to use here, and that’s disregarding the stuff LedRush brought up. We can do better. Toa Nidhiki05 15:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

He says it, then explains a much more nuanced view of the statement. The statement remains uncited. The statement is directly contradicted by both the video and the op ed. The video does not say that he is talking about his book (unless I missed that part), as the WP article claims. And proper protocol is for after a revert of a bold insertion, we discuss. Why are you continue to revert?LedRush (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

And when did Toa Nidhiki05 discuss this? Why is an editor editwarring without being part of the discussion? I thought that the discussion ended as per Soonganssnoogans edit summary and that Nidhiki05 is just an edit-warrior who just revert without being part of discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve made one revert. I take serious umbrage to you accusing me of edit warring here and I suggest you either strike the claim or report me. Toa Nidhiki05 14:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I was justifying the reason of the revert. Per Soonganssnoogans edit summary the discussion has ended and I didn't see you participating in the discussion so I thought when you reverted that you are editwarring.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Per talk is a weird excuse as there is clearly no consensus to do anything here and no consensus to include, and discussion is ongoing; multiple editors also found issue with the source due to various issues. Snog was not justified in adding this material and making that claim. Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously in connection the book, which devotes substantial space to the uniqueness of science in the West, and which Shapiro released a few weeks ago. But if you want to play obtuse, we can skip explicit reference to the book, and simply say that "Shapiro said X". And no, there's nothing particularly nuanced or clarifying about his subsequent remarks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you, but Shapiro has talked about these things for long before the book came out, so it is not obvious to me. Why not just get a source that talks about what he says in his book rather than what he says on his show? And if you say Shapiro says "X", make sure not to phrase it the way you did before, as that is not a NPOV representation of his views. Also, put it somewhere else in the article and make sure to explain why this specific view (assuming it is accurately stated) is notable.LedRush (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

 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)

I propose adding the following:

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

• 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)
• 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)
• Support Per the above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

References

 Done MrClog (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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".

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)

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)

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?

• Why Doesn’t The New York Times Mention Ben Shapiro’s Islamophobia? - Peter Beinart
• The bloody cost of Islamophobia - Ryan Cooper.

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

Islamaphobia is a islamist race card.72.43.96.132 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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".

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:ImmortalWizard and User:HoldingAces, I think it's important to return to this point. First of all, it is mentioned in the 2017-Congressional-baseball article that the shooter was in fact a volunteer on Bernie Sanders' campaign. Second, Alexandre Bissonnette acted on the fears that Shapiro directly festered in his "Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" video. See Vic Berger's video for reference. Fordswish (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fordswish: Your first point is not truly equivalent since we are talking about BLP articles and it still isn't mentioned in Bernie Sanders. However, your second point could be substantiated if you could provide a much credible source. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

I want to archive references with IABot. But I don't have edit right. NMW03 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, can you take a look please? --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 09:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. MrClog (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Referring to women who have abortion as "baby-killers"

Shapiro has referred women who have abortion as "baby-killers", and it was agreed upon via a RfC that this should be included in the Wikipedia article. However, despite the fact that this was agreed upon via a RfC, two editors have edit-warred to remove this from the article[7][8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there can be another RfC since there was no discussion about Shapiro's actual view on the criminality. It is in fact a BLP violation to cherry pick one thing he said when there is available RS stating his actual position. wumbolo ^^^ 23:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

[redacted - Shapiro's statement about settlement statement]

Off-topic speculation about Shapiro's "nefarious" motives behind his tweets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In 2010, Shapiro stated, "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock." In his subsequent clarifications at the time, Shapiro stated, "Not all Arabs like open sewage and blowing things up. Just Pals and their allies". So, in short, "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" was clarified at the time into "Not all Arabs like open sewage and blowing things up. Just Pals and their allies". However, the Wikipedia article currently contains Shapiro's deceptive 2018 re-framing of what he said, where he falsely claims the tweet was taken out of context and that he was solely referring to the Palestinian governments. There's a reason why we don't just insert subjects' self-published ramblings, in particular subjects who have a history of lies and fringe views. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC) The fact that there might have been 8 years in between the two events doesn't mean that we should WP:CENSOR. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC) We use RS to provide the full context behind people's views. We don't let people say things (as reported in RS), and then add the subjects' own deceptive re-framing of what was actually said (cited to self-published sources). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC) We can certainly cover Shapiro's response if someone can find one or two independent sources. We can't use his blog (The Daily Wire) per WP:ABOUTSELF #1. - MrX 🖋 20:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans per WP:BLPTALK do not speculate whether someone is deceptive. A BLP subject's explanation can always be given (WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:PUBLICFIGURE), and WP:Original research about someone's motivations is forbidden. wumbolo ^^^ 00:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

Wasn’t the person arrested for threatening Shapiro this year a white supremacist? If so, that might be helpful to add. Or maybe he was alt-right (pretty similar) Biasbalancer1 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Biasbalancer1:Any reliable sources you could provide? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Biasbalancer1: I can't find any reference for that statement. Let's use WP:Verifiability not the left-wing logic "criticism = incitement". wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, left-wing logic is fine as long as it is WP:Neutral and reported in the WP:RSs. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"left-wing logic "criticism = incitement"." Also WP:NOTFORUM. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

SunCrow please explain how is that giving undue weight either in the edit summary or in the |reason= parameter. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, please see the discussion under "SPLC quote" above. SunCrow (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SPLC quote

As far as I know, the SPLC has repeatedly been found to be a good source for opinions and responses on the topic of discrimination; and they were used with an in-line citation here, making it clear whose opinion was being summarized rather than stating it as fact. That being the case, I don't understand the rationale for this removal - there is perhaps some room to argue over WP:DUE grounds (although I think it's worth the sentence devoted to it), but removing it on WP:RS grounds doesn't make sense. --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I contest the notion that the SPLC is a reliable source. More importantly, there is no notability. If reliable third-party sources referenced the SPLC's opinion, you would have a stronger argument. But this is the SPLC itself being cited for the SPLC's opinion, which makes it undue. The sentence should be removed. SunCrow (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SunCrow and understand the rationality behind the removal. I just think that the article has an inherent problem with it's style which is in the form of debate from primary sources as opposed to summary of well defined critics. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether SPLC is a reliable source has been discussed numerous times at WP:RSN, and it has always been found to be reliable. A local discussion such as this one does not undo that finding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Putting aside the unfortunate consensus on the reliability of SPLC, I will restate what I said above: More importantly, there is no notability. If reliable third-party sources referenced the SPLC's opinion, you would have a stronger argument. But this is the SPLC itself being cited for the SPLC's opinion, which makes it undue. The sentence should be removed. SunCrow (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Since SPLC is a reliable source, there is no need for others to quote its evaluation, and more that we'd need the Washdington Post to quote a New York Times article before we could use it. If you disagree, open a discussion at WP:RSN, where the outcome will be the same as it always has been, I am certain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the SPLC would be a primary source" only for its opinions about itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just because it is deemed reliable does not necessarily make it notable. SunCrow (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering that you never mentioned "notability" before, just "reliability", that's simply moving the goalposts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems notable per it's article in Wikipedia Southern Poverty Law Center.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Just because the SPLC is deemed reliable does not mean a piece written on its website is necessarily notable for purposes of this article. SunCrow (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to note first that the text is attributed. I also want to make my position in this argument clear. I don't disagree or agree with you. I basically have no opinion about this issue. However, I think if the source is notable let's say... HRW organisation or any notable, reliable organisation, we don't need the reports from these notable reliable sources to be notable themselves. Based on your argument I can remove a lot of things from Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Abortion prosecution

Hi Wumbolo. Your source states Shapiro believes doctors should be prosecuted; it doesn't state that he's opposed to prosecuting women who have abortions. Orville^talk 13:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this editor blatantly misrepresents sources. I've warned him of this on prior occasions.[9][10] It's extremely tiresome to waste one's time sifting through the sources that this editor brings to bear, waste time debating him about what a source obviously says / does not say, and then also have to deal with the edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:SOURGRAPES and Snooganssnoogans was the one misrepresenting sources in those cases anyway. wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It does implies that. If he believed women should be prosecuted, the article would state "Shapiro believes doctors and women should be prosecuted". But I'll look for another source anyway. wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't imply it at all. That's atrocious reading comprehension. Under the same logic that you bring up, if he believed only doctors should be prosecuted, the article would have stated, "Shapiro does not believe women should be prosecuted". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would; your point? Killing is a prosecuted offense. FWIW, I can't find any other reliable sources supporting the content, I only found RedState, The Federalist and a Haaretz op-ed which you'd also reject as "doesn't imply it at all". wumbolo ^^^ 13:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding other sources (non-RS) that state different things is a separate discussion. The source that is actually in the article does not state that he only favors prosecuting doctors. As for adding non-RS, that's a no-no and creates a situation where anything in non-RS is game for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wumbolo, please stick to the source to ensure "each statement in the article [is] attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly". Orville^talk 14:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source saying Shapiro doesn't believe women should be prosecuted for abortions. Dy3o2 (talk)

I'd avoid The Federalist [11] but it seems unreliable sources are part and parcel of this article. wumbolo ^^^ 22:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist is a highly unreliable and biased publication, which is essentially a journal of paleo-conservative opinion. It should never be used anywhere except to cite the opinions of the authors of its articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

I am reluctant to venture into this fray, as I mainly follow this page just for the entertainment value provided by the warring editors, all of which appear to have a bias. But I must ask, what makes The Federalist highly unreliable? Being conservative or being liberal or being progressive shouldn't make a source reliable. If it did no source would be reliable. Not Wilkins (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins

Not Wilkins, a good point. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist is unreliable because if doesn't check the boxes at [[WP:RS}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

Replace bens current picture witha more flattering one. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Ben_Shapiro_june_26_2016_cropped_retouched.jpg Wags bf21 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The subject might not care, but there are other reasons to still follow WP:BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 19:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Especially WP:BLPBALANCE. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

Also the section takes a tweet out of context when he mentioned Arabs liking to "bomb crap." He clarified his views in the immediate following tweets "There are many, many Christian and Muslim Arabs who are wonderful people Just not the ones who oppose Israel in Israel/Arab conflict", " I think it has much more to do with the fact that Palestinian leadership supported by Pal population uses millions for terror", and "I should have been more specific Arabs who actively seek Israel's destruction and who aren't wealthy oil barons". I think it is disingenuous and counter-productive not to include the subject's own response along side the original tweet. All these tweets can be located through the source used on this page made by the subject, the so called big list of stupid things he's said. Bgrus22 (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro's views on abortion.

The article states "Shapiro supports a ban on abortion, including in cases of rape, incest, likely damaged fetus and danger to women's health.". However in the article on slate.com seems clear that he doesn't support a ban on abortion in cases of the women's mental health. No mention is given to as to his opinion on physical health in the article.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.192.101 (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done I have added that Shapiro would allow abortion in the case of "actual imminent suicide" - not generally for "mental health" reasons, as you imply. Since the article clearly says that is the only exception he would make, it follows that he makes no exceptions for the woman's physical health. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Abigail Shapiro

Shouldn’t Abigail Shapiro be added to the “family” section in the info box? Ben Shapiro confirmed her as his sister in a tweet he made, and other news sites called her his sister. YoureAGhostBaby (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Citations, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are some: Forward.com, Shapiro's Tweet, mrctv.org--YoureAGhostBaby (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)