Jump to content

Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"Views" paragraph contains obvious bias.

There are irrelevant addenda in the two pieces of text:

"Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity", in contrast to the scientific consensus."

and

"During an interview with Dan Harris of ABC's Nightline in September 2017, Shapiro said that transgenderism "is a psychological disorder. So that's not an insult to people who suffer from psychological disorders…you are not doing a service to people who are suffering from a mental disorder to humor them by suggesting that their mental disorder is reflected in objective reality."[31][32] Harris went on to note that the American Psychological Association does not define being transgender as a mental illness"

Bringing up whether he is right or wrong is clearly outside the scope of the paragraph. --Danielg00 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it is within the scope of the paragraph, because this is an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia doesn't validate WP:FRINGE perspectives, and when people are wrong about science or medicine, we do not pretend they are right for their convenience. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing about stating someone's ideas on a topic entails the need for validation. The notion of valid or invalid, as I said, should be extraneous under a topic describing one's opinions. If you are to be thorough with your idea on what the section should entail, I one would expect addenda validating/invalidating his ideas for all paragraphs or one could accuse one of selectivity- a manifestation of bias. --Danielg00 (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Shapiro is not an expert on these topics, so the only reason reliable sources are even mentioning his "ideas" is because they are controversial. Wikipedia summarizes sources, so this is also the only reason Wikipedia mentions them. The sources for both paragraphs specifically state that Shapiro's opinions are at odds with the scientific and medical consensus. Wikipedia does, unapologetically, have a mainstream "bias" in that we reflect the mainstream consensus of experts. Shapiro is not an expert on climate change or gender, and since reliable sources note this, so do we. If you know of reliable sources which directly comment on the accuracy of any of Shapiro's numerous other opinions, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Philosopher?

Source, pls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The background here is these two edits by Reaganomics88 (talk · contribs) changing the lede to say Mr Shapiro is "is an American conservative political philosopher, writer, and lawyer" instead of "political commentator, writer, and lawyer".
At present, it seems to me that "political commentator, writer and lawyer" is an excellent summary of Mr Shapiro's professional life. Even though he has a well-developed political philosophy as the basis of much of his commentary, he is still more of a commentator than a philosopher IMO. But I could be wrong ... cheers, CWC 08:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Ben Shapiro is actually a brilliant philosopher. Like Burke and Oakeshott before him, Shapiro spends his time using REASON to DESTROY libs. Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
/s just to be clear Reaganomics88 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

climate change

This is a biography. Why are we positing opinions not supported by sources? There is no source saying Shapiro's views differ from scientific consensus. But we have edits such as this and this. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverts of my two deletions in "Views" section

Two reversions were made by editor Grayfell (his talk page is worth perusing!) to my deletions of two irrelevant clauses contained in the "Views" section of this article. In neither revert did Graylogic bother to directly respond to my detailed reasoning for deleting two inappropriate retorts to two of Shapiro's "Views". He simply responded, in a hilariously pompous manner, "As an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to refute factual errors" and "Wikipedia doesn't propagate FRINGE theories or pseudoscience through pedantry."

What exactly is the point of a section entitled "Views" in a biographical article on a living person? In the case of Ben Shapiro, it appears to be nothing more than a dumping ground for editors (who clearly detest the subject) to post arbitrary statements of that subject so that he or she may then refute those opinions. A section entitled "Views" -- if it is to exist at all -- should be just that: a simple delineation of the subjects "Views" (which by definition are the subject's opinions). Any editorial retort to those opinions is wholly inappropriate (and particularly so when they are misleading -- see "climate change" post just above). This is the case EVEN if a particular stated "View" is factually wrong -- otherwise editors are simply setting up straw men.

Why not change the section title to "Controversial views and public response." At least that would be intellectually honest. But of course all this is academic. Wikipedia loses again. Christian B Martin (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You sure seem proud of that nickname you've cooked up for me, but if you keep up the personal insults you will be blocked from editing.
Consensus on Wikipedia is to avoid criticism sections for a variety or reasons.
There are two issues here. First, just like everything else on Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources, and we have a strong preference for independent sources. This is especially true here, because we are not a platform for him to advertise his own opinions. It's not like he doesn't have plenty of those already, anyway. With that in mind, if a reliable independent source comments on his views, we can use that source to explain Shapiro's positions. What we should not do is ignore the context of those sources. If sources mention that his comments about trans people are factually wrong, we should not ignore the parts of the source we don't agree with.
This ties in with the second issue, which is that Wikipedia has a specific approach for fringe topics, such as climate change denial. Wikipedia is, believe it or not, an academic work, and as a tertiary source articles should reflect the academic consensus on scientific topics. If Shapiro casts doubt on the academic consensus of a scientific topic, Wikipedia articles will use sources to refute this.
If you have additional sources you'd like to propose, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Lord... My points, made over and over again, have nothing to do with climate change denial or other "FRINGE" topics. This is like debating with a brick wall. Rebutting an argument I haven't made (as you do above) is called fallacious argument. If you are going to be the ultimate arbiter of this (and god forbid) other articles, perhaps you could bone up on your elementary logic. Christian B Martin (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: how to characterize Ben Shaprio's views on climate change

There appears to be a dispute towards how to characterize Ben Shapiro's position on climate change. It's an issue he clearly talks about a lot as seen in the numerous articles and videos on Google that come up when you search his position on it. There seems to be a point of contention over the line: " in contrast to the scientific consensus." Snooganssnoogans, Bus stop, how should we square with this? "Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950," according to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Should we keep the "in contrast..." part but find another way to say it?--The lorax (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The source provided says For his part, Shapiro acknowledges climate change is occurring, but says he has questions including "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity."[1] And this source says Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures. So my conclusion is that our article should say "Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity". Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps one compromise is linking the second half of his statement to Attribution of recent climate change; then at least people who are interested in that topic can see what scientists think is causing it and why.--The lorax (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is a flawed compromise. We have to agree on why we are including this in the first place. Without context, quoting his line about "percentages" implies he has some expertise on the science, but that is not the reason the source is quoting him. Pundits like Shapiro are not scientists, so their opinion is only relevant when contextualized as their opinion. If we remove the explanation of the science, we've removed the context and have made this yet another opportunity for him to share his non-opinion. The current source says that the party's full acceptance of the science is still far off...[2] (emphasis mine). "The science" here, is the scientific opinion on climate change, and the attribution of recent climate change is very clear that humans are primarily responsible. Shapiro's questions are his own business, but his acceptance of the science is still far off, and we should not ignore that. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I just showed you a source which said "Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures." Does that mean 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% or 100%? Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Not the point, and that source proves nothing either way. Accuracy is not the same as precision. An imprecise BBC pop-sci article which doesn't mention Shapiro at all is of limited value.
The single word "percentage" is misleading. Shapiro introduced that word into the conversation himself, and nobody else is making this about percentages. Even he isn't making this about specific percentages. He is not qualified to explain the science of climate change either way. So again, why is Shapiro's statement being included at all? Why, according to the source are Shapiro's vague questions about the "percentages" even being mentioned? From my reading, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's 51% or 100%. Right now, the source we have is specifically mentioning his opinion in the context that he's qualified to explain Republican opinions and motivations. From what he's saying, Republicans effectively deny climate change because they don't like it when Democrats call them climate change deniers. Sad, if true, but I dunno. Regardless, Buzzfeed was asking him because he is noteworthy political personality, not because he is qualified to explain climate change science. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up poorly sourced content in 'Campus lectures' section

A lot of the content in the 'Campus lectures' section is poorly sourced. We should try to re-write the section on the basis of what's reported in RS, and remove inaccurate, misleading and trivial content sourced to non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed all non-RS content from the article and summarized the relevant content in one section which was just three large quotes.[3] My entire series of edits were then promptly reverted by the editor FreedomGonzo.[4] The editor did not undertake a single tweak, but just mass-reverted everything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
One of my three big edits was restored by Drmies. The other two should also be restored. One of those edits concisely summarized how Shapiro had been the subject of anti-Semitic attacks[5] whereas the old version of the article included three large block quotes. The second edit was the removal of an entire section sourced solely to 'Heat Street' (a conspiracy website republished by Fox News) and a Chicago Tribune op-ed.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Statements

I've removed his statements as I think they haven't been reported widely enough for us to be able to quote them directly. Also we should be summarizing sources; if they list 20 terrible or divisive things Shapiro's said (without commenting on them), we don't go and pick the two or three that are the worst. While this article needs improvement in several places, this is quite a serious issue. Should the statements be included in the article? wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand, choosing which quotes to repeat and which to ignore is potentially arbitrary; even the source says it's "hardly an exhaustive list". On the other, if we cannot summarize why he's polarizing, the sentence is just evasive filler. Virtually everyone who's been described as polarizing has been described that way "largely in part because of their past statements". Plus, he's a pundit, not an athlete or policy-maker or anything, so he's only noteworthy for his statements, and why else would he be polarizing? The Vox article uses the term "reprehensible" and then gives a list of examples of reprehensible things he's said, and the author's opinions on why they should not be dismissed or treated lightly. The challenge is to summarize the substance of the source, not necessarily to pick examples from it. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Shapiro's views on abortion and homosexuality

Shapiro opposes abortion, opposes the Supreme Court ruling that prohibited bans on same-sex marriage, considers homosexual activity a sin and described discrimination against gays as trivial. Wumbolo removed these political views. They should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources you added are remotely enough for including these statements. The SPLC source is debatable, and if it's included it should be presented as WP:INTEXT. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Really? Slate is perfectly good WP:RS to my knowledge; not sure what standard is not met here for including those statements. The addition does not include any commentary from SPLC; only uses it for citing what Shapiro has said, so not sure how one would even attribute anything nor do I see the necessity there of doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say that none of the sources are reliable; I said that their quoting of Shapiro is not enough per WP:NPOV to justify inclusion in the article. The Slate article is lengthy, and we can't devout thousands upon thousands of characters of article text to Shapiro's opinion on this court decision and on that court decision. With regards to SPLC, if nothing has to be attributed, nothing should even be included. Snooganssnoogans, you recently removed lengthy quotes from the antisemitism section; those are at least reliable WP:SECONDARY commentary, while your recent cites are merely quotes of Shapiro himself. wumbolo ^^^ 12:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The notion that we should have three lengthy block quotes for text that can be written up in two to three short sentences is absurd. And it's beyond me what that has to do with this with Shapiro's views on social issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It's beyond me too, but you added a couple of sources which merely quote Shapiro claiming to have some of these views and presented is as a significant fact. wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I added content on Shapiro's views to the 'views' section on his Wikipedia page. Outrageous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

More content that I will add once Wumbolo stops being a veto player: Shapiro referring to women who have abortions as "baby killers" and saying "a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child than two men or two women".[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Doesn't criminalizing abortion imply labelling it as killing? I will stop "being a veto player" once you stop adding irrelevant quotes from random articles. wumbolo ^^^ 13:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The quotes are obviously not irrelevant, as they delineate where Shapiro, a pundit, stands on important policy debates, as reported by secondary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
as reported by secondary sources nope, if secondary sources don't bother explaining how they are relevant and how they act with other views of his, they are probably not significant. We do not need one paragraph about him saying he wants to criminalize abortions, another paragraph about him saying which abortions he would criminalize exactly, and a third paragraph describing his opinion of women wanting abortions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, then it's great that no one has proposed creating three separate paragraphs on that. On the other hand, this is what should be added: "Shapiro supports the criminalization of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. He has referred to women who have abortions as "baby killers"". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, that's what we would include if there were reliable sources saying that, and not quoting him saying it. wumbolo ^^^ 14:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
No RS, not NPOV, and the number of paragraphs doesn't really matter here either way. No good rationale for inclusion of that. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Abortion and LGBT rights

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.
(non-admin closure) The decision is to Accept with caveats the proposed text.
No RfC participant suggested that the text describes falsely the subject's views; the objections to the inclusion of the proposed text are based on (a) the ostensible lack of reliable sources, and (b) the perceived violation of Wikipedia neutrality. One editor opposed the inclusion of the proposed text because "it does not read as unbiased and could violate the neutral point of view policy" even though the editor acknowledged that "much of [that text] is technically correct."
As regards neutrality, presenting a politician's views in a "technically correct" manner, which always means properly verified and accurately, cannot ever be denoted as "biased." The truth is never "biased," but, of course, our presentation of it can be. So, it all comes down to how Shapiro's views are presented. In this, editors opposing the inclusion have made eminently reasonable remarks that clearly improve the proposed text. Although the wording of every article is a matter of subjective preferences, those remarks should be followed if the proposed text is to make it into the article.
The reliability of the sources in the proposed text has been questioned. In this, Wikipedia's guidelines are, as ever, to be followed: The information attributed to the SPLC and MMA should be properly attributed in the text, per WP:RSP, and so should info provided by Slate to ensure neutrality in such a controversial issue. The other sources, e.g. RS, NYT, are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable.
Remains only the issue of encyclopaedic interest. There has been no suggestion to eliminate the section about the politician's views. It has been established, even if implicitly, that Wikipedia shall provide information about politicians' views. (This, after all, is standard, uncontested practice in all articles on politicians.) Therefore, editors are supposed to work towards providing such information. But even if the information about these specific views is neutrally presented and, according to sources, correct, does this by itself make the proposed text worthy of inclusion? In response, we see that the text concerns Shapiro's views (moreover, in his own words) on subjects that are evidently important and notable in politics, so there is no question of undue weight here. Editors would actually be doing a disservice to Wikipedia's users by omitting them from his biographical article.
There has been one objection based on repetition but in the proposed text there is no repetition: A politician may be opposing abortion rights without calling women "baby killers"; the women could, for instance, be "misguided". The view held and expressed by that politician that they are "baby killers" places explicitly the onus of homicide on the women. It is quite evident that this constitutes an important position for a politician to adopt and, therefore, it is acceptable to be presented, as proposed. The Gnome (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the following text be added to the "Views" sub-section?:

  • Shapiro supports a ban on abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.[1][2] He has referred to women who have abortions as "baby killers".[3] Shapiro opposed the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court ruling that deemed bans of same-sex marriage unconstitutional.[4][5][6] He has described homosexual activity as a sin,[1] and said that "a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child than two men or two women".[7] In 2014, Shapiro said that the United States "is not a country that discriminates against homosexuals" and that "there is a vastly minute amount of discrimination against gays in this country."[8]

References

  1. ^ a b Stevenson, Seth. "Whose Side Is Ben Shapiro Really On?". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  2. ^ Tavernise, Sabrina (November 23, 2017). "Ben Shapiro, A Provocative 'Gladiator,' Battles to Win Young Conservatives". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  3. ^ "Ben Shapiro takes stage at UC Berkeley under extraordinary security". SFGate. 2017-09-15. Retrieved 2018-10-03.
  4. ^ Marcotte, Amanda (2015-06-29). "5 Conservative Freakouts About Last Week's SCOTUS Rulings". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  5. ^ "Right-Wing Media Respond To Nationwide Marriage Equality: "We Should Weep For Our Country"". Media Matters for America. 2015-06-26. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  6. ^ Larimore, Rachael (2015-06-26). "Conservative Reaction to Marriage Ruling Is Mixed". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  7. ^ "Ben Shapiro takes stage at UC Berkeley under extraordinary security". SFGate. 2017-09-15. Retrieved 2018-10-03.
  8. ^ "Breitbart Editor Ben Shapiro Says LGBT Community Does Not Really Face Discrimination". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2018-10-02.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose the second, the third, and the fourth sentence per reasons in previous discussion. SPLC might not have to be cited WP:INTEXT as it is a reliable source for facts. In the first sentence, "even" should be replaced with "including" per NPOV. The rest is fine (support) and should be properly incorporated into the rest of the section, to avoid WP:SYNTH. Also, "Views" is a section, not a sub-section as the RfC says. wumbolo ^^^ 16:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Thoroughly sourced, and is mostly just Shapiro's own quotes. As a prominent pundit, his views on these big issues, are noteworthy, as substantiated by the RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft support with the understanding that there is room for adjustment. Judged as a whole, these sources are sufficient. Also: "vastly minute." is he cramming for the SATs or something? Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral. (Summoned by bot) I don't trust some of the participants' motivations. I'll support the proposal as it is if more content is added (to the section) that discusses his positions on political issues that aren't cultural issues. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The presentation could probably be somewhat more neutral. For example, the "vastly minute" bit is a little out-of-context without the "about the same number of attacks on Jews" bit. And I mean the guy's Jewish, so that's a noticeable oversight if you're trying to cover the statements in context. Similarly with abortion. The Slate source does indicate he is in favor of exceptions in the case of suicidal ideation of the mother. That might be a comparatively shallow bit of nuance, but it's not "ban on abortion without exception", which is what the proposed text implies. GMGtalk 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree that anything is taken out of context. We can include his views on Judaism in a separate paragraph, but there's no need to editorialize. wumbolo ^^^ 21:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's just the context of the quote in the source. If we don't like the context of the source, then we should be finding a different source. GMGtalk 22:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft Oppose mostly to avoid adding more the views section. At least in my view, it is hard to keep such a section consistent with neutral POV, especially since people do change their views over time. If we do include this I think it needs some wording changes, but that is a separate matter we can work on later. zchrykng (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Anything here that uses "Slate Magazine" and "Media Matters" as sources as I would not think these qualify as enough to support these statements. Everything else I would think should be fine to include. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, well-sourced, with sufficient sourcing to establish WP:DUE for a reasonably small paragraph like this. Unclear what the objection to Slate is, but it easily passes WP:RS. (If someone really thinks otherwise, they can take it to WP:RSN, but it's obvious enough that it would likely be a waste of time.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment according to WP:RSP, Media Matters for America's statements should be properly attributed. I did not check whether the Rolling Stone and Slate source are sufficient in sourcing the statement, but if they are, MMFA should probably be removed as a source. feminist (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while much of what is put into this section is technically correct, it does not read as unbiased and could violate the neutral point of view policy. RedBear2040 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2018 (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.

"transgenderism"

"transgenderism" is not a term. the headline ought to be "trans rights" or something along those lines instead. Mx-Spoon (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I would merge the last five sections into "Social views" or "Social policies". Or, "LGBT issues" or "LGBT rights" at the very least. There is really no need for an entire section about trans people, because his view can be explained in a couple of words – Shapiro has been critical of transgender transitioning, and has called gender dysphoria a psychological disorder. wumbolo ^^^ 19:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    Furthermore, some of the stuff seems like WP:Coatrack. I don't see any obvious reason to mention the APA's definition of gender dysphoria, at least not put forward by the two sources cited. wumbolo ^^^ 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    That sentence gives context, and the information is included in the reliable source specifically as for such context. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think that's context. Shapiro didn't mention the APA, and the APA didn't mention Shapiro. The only connection is that ABC published the positions of both of them, but APA's position is irrelevant to the article about Shapiro. The source doesn't even compare them. wumbolo ^^^ 14:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've provided a little more context here. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 15:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the material pertaining to the APA should be removed. I think that the inclusion of the APA reference is out of place. As concerns the term "transgenderism" I agree it sounds ridiculous but the NY Times uses it. Also you may be making a good suggestion concerning the merging of certain sections, but I will withhold judgement on that at this time. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, for what it's worth, I agree that the material relating to the APA should be removed; readers who are interested in this issue can click through to the main page on "transgender" which has a section dedicated to the issue of mental healthcare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono1011 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Ben Shapiro "far right"?

WP:POINT behavior. wumbolo ^^^ 10:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I notice that Ben Shapiro is labelled as conservative in the lead. Should this be changed to far right similar to Lauren Southern who holds similar views? Thanks. Dig deeper talk 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to us, Wikipedia editors, to evaluate and compare views. Our job is to report what reliable sources say. Southern is commonly described in reliable sources as far right. If you can prove that Shapiro is too, go ahead and improve the article. Surtsicna (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely! Strange that I couldn't find any sources though. Very similar opinions, yet one labeled by journalists as "far right", while the other (more well known and perhaps more provocative) labelled as "conservative". Makes me wonder if journalists are simply using Wikipedia to determine this.Dig deeper talk 02:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite aside from the sourcing issue, generally labels like "far right" are often intended to disparage someone as an extremist. Likewise with far left. So I would resist the use of such labels where possible. —Approaching (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro's political views on leftists versus liberals

In the article section titled "Political ideology", the following is stated:

He accuses contemporary liberals of creating an imaginary "hierarchy of victimhood" and glorifying perceived victims, leading to identity politics;

The source (NYT article source) doesn't say that. It says “The left believes in a hierarchy of victimhood,” he said in Utah." The problem is, Shapiro appears to be talking about different groups when he discusses "the left" versus "liberals". (Cf. his tweet). Accordingly, I've tagged the claim as dubious.

—Approaching (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The article says "contemporary liberals", not just "liberals". wumbolo ^^^ 08:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

Remove incorrectly from the line "Shapiro described being transgender as a mental disorder and incorrectly equated it with gender dysphoria." or rephrase it, as is now you make it sound as if he was ignorant and talking about two completely different issues, when it was a totally valid equation. Dysphoria is a symptom of being transgender. Tzukishiro (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The text in the article accurately reflects the sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add that Ben Shapiro's advertisers have pulled out following his remarks about "Baby Hitler" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaki Naggar (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

The first picture of ben shapiro needs changed because it is not him. It is a picture of Lil Pump 150.243.197.181 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Nonsense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

I was thinking about adding the 'Conservatism Series' Infobox on Steven Crowder's page, as he is in said series. Austinusa (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC for infobox caption

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus among editors that the infobox should read "Shapiro at Politicon in 2016". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Which caption should be used in the infobox?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

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

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

Infobox caption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 10 February 2019

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

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


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


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

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

Notability discussion

Disclaimer: Biased

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

Semi Protection Edit RequestClean up parts in Heading

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

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

Relys too much on Vox

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

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

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looking at the current source no. 92 http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/05/ben-shapiros-messy-breakup-with-breitbart.html?gtm=top&gtm=top it says "As the Daily Wire noted, Shapiro was hit with a wave of vicious anti-Semitic abuse, including multiple Holocaust references and requests that Shapiro and his family be sent to the ovens." I think it is best that a discussion takes place here regarding the source if any editor thinks it should be removed. Sam Sailor 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Shapiro/Archive_2&oldid=1164972644"