Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC: Criticism of Shapiro's assertions about the uniqueness of science in the West

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the article include criticisms by Juan Cole (a professor of Middle-Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan) and Noah Smith (a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan and a former professor at Stony Brook University before he joined Bloomberg as a full-time columnist) about Shapiro's assertions about the uniqueness of Western science?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• In the book and remarks following the release of the book, Shapiro said that basic research and experimental science were unique to the West. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle-Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan, described Shapiro's claims as false, noting that sophisticated science was also conducted in other parts of the world. For example, Hasan Ibn al-Haytham, an Arabic 10th-11th century scholar is considered among the first to present the scientific method (which Europeans would use centuries later during the Renaissance). Economist Noah Smith criticized the book, noting that measures of scientific prowess such as the Nobel prize are flawed, as they are awarded by Swedish scientists who are more likely to be aware of ground-breaking research by Western scholars who publish in familiar languages.

References

Survey

• Support - For a public intellectual, pundit and author, it is commonplace to include attributed opinions from notable figures about the figure's public remarks and written works. Cole is a recognized expert, and Smith is as a Bloomberg columnist notable enough for a WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be a separate paragraph in the Author section, right? wumbolo ^^^ 14:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It should preferably be somewhere in the article in relation to his 2019 book, The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great, where he puts forward his assertions about Western science (Cole and Smith are responding to comments made by Shapiro while he's pushing the book). Whether that's in the 'author' section or in his 'political views' section does not matter to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Of course. If it woren't for POV editors attempting to skew or soften this article, a question such as this would never have to be asked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• It's Complicated. The short version is that no, this information shouldn't be in there, but only because there's already too much about the book in the article; it smacks of both WP:RECENTISM and a bit of a coatrack on which to hang the interview-leaving incident. This stuff fails WP:NOTNEWS, and it should all be removed. If the book is notable enough for its own article, then commentary like this could be added at that article, but not here. This is a biography, not a dissection of every stupid thing the person has said. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Support, but better sources required - Certainly this bit seems controversial and notable enough compared to other content of this page. The only problem is this seems to be WP:SYNTH considering these sources and I couldn't find any connection with the book. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Are you're saying that it's SYNTH, but we should include it anyway? How does that work? That was a good catch, but I also don't know why this seems "controversial and notable enough" to include. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's not SYNTH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Since the criticisms don't mention his book, trying to attach them to a section on the book would by its very definition be WP:SYNTH. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  If A says that up is down, and an expert in gravity says that DOWN is down, it is not required that the expert in gravity specifically mention A in their comment. Not in any way, shape or form SYNTH, just a simple, straightforward correction of a non-fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  False analogy. It's SYNTH because its inclusion makes it sound as if Wikipedia is documenting criticism of the book, when in fact it wouldn't be. This in turn makes it sound more noteworthy than it actually is. None of this really matters, because someone else was already saying SYNTH, but that we should include it anyway, which appears to be problematic, and I was merely trying to figure this out. Derailing the discussion isn't helpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  It is not "derailing the discussion" to discuss why it obviouslyt isn;t sytnth, which you might benefit by re-reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:Pointy WP:COATRACKING by Snoogans. (1) This article is on Shapiro, not the book. WP:Undue for article on Shapiro. (2) juancole.com is definitely not an WP:RS. Loksmythe (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment on the content not the contributor. There is no WP:Pointy or WP:COATRACKING here.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Claiming an action is POINTy might not be advisable as you say, but COATRACKing is about the content, and it's something I'd already mentioned, so yes, there is some of that here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - opposing for now, until criticism from more authoritative sources is provided. Cole is a highly controversial figure, a known anti-Semite bigot and -just like Shapiro- has no real expertise on the History of Science. His blog is not a RS and what he bloviates there should not matter. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• This^ account was created today. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• We should not be using blogs as sources in BLPs. GMG^talk 14:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Cole per WP:BLPSPS. The policy has no exceptions, definitely not for criticism. There are no secondary refs for the Cole opinion, which is required by WP:V. I don't have an opinion for the Bloomberg columnist. wumbolo ^^^ 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• So... you don't have an opinion about the Bloomberg columnist, but you nevertheless oppose adding his stuff to the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. That means I do not support or oppose that stuff. wumbolo ^^^ 13:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I will admit that I didn't see the "Cole" you wrote "Oppose". Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Opposes based on WP:SPS are incorrect and should be discounted. Cole is a subject expert, well-qualified to say whether Shapiro's views within his subject area are factual or not. His views as presented in his personal blog are as relevant and usable as if they had been printed in a newspaper interview. SPS says specifically:

  Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

  Considering this, there is no reason not to use Cole's vuews. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• The reason is, if you are going to cite SPS, you should take the time to read the entire paragraph: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (emphasis in original) That, combined with the fact that BLPSPS, which clearly prohibits the use of such sources, is also a policy. Selectively quoting only the bits that support your personal view does not make for a very compelling argument. GMG^talk 14:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, I didn't see that. I disagree with it, however. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• If you would like to start a global RfC over allowing blogs as sources for BLPs, and amending the two separate policies that independently forbid it, you are of course welcome to do so. I don't hold out great hope that that is not a consummate waste of time, given the giant wall of garbage that these standards hold back. Until then, and regardless of the outcome of this RfC, such content is a BLP violation, and can be removed as such, not subject to 3RR. GMG^talk 01:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, thanks, that would be entirely a waste of time, I prefer to pick and choose my battles. It doesn't stop me from disagreeing with it, however: an expert's an expert, and their expert opinions about questions within their expertise should be usable everywhere and anywhere on Wikipedia. The BLP standards on en.wiki -- like the NFC standards -- are much stricter then they are actually required to be by WMF mandates, but this fish has no desire to try to swim up that stream. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly makes Cole a 'subject expert' here? He studies history and literature on religions -with a focus on Arabic studies & Islamic studies- and has also a history of controversies and anti-Semitic claims. He's not a scholar on the history of science by any stretch of the imagination and -to say he is- is like saying a dentist is an expert on cardiology just because both the dentist and the cardiologist are medics. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Cole, Neutral/weak oppose Smith. Cole's blog is WP:UNDUE and is self-published - while Cole does comment on a very wide range of issues from a very particular angle on his blog, unless this is picked up outside of the blog there's little reason for us to use him. Smith is more usable - though I'd prefer a book-review to an op-ed. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose with current sources. I'd like to see a reliable, independent, non-opinion source describing Shapiro's view before we describe it and open the door to reactions to it. R2 (bleep) 19:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

But the Bloomberg source absolutely is 100% reliable an independent. As for it being an opinion piece--that's not part of the analysis for what makes a particular piece a WP:Reliable source: not only are sources allowed to be opinion pieces, they can be outright WP:BIASED and still entirely appropriate to source a statement about a countervailing view (though probably with attribution):

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." (emphasis added)

So long as the publisher in question has appropriate editorial controls, we can use it as a reliable source. And so long as we don't present it in Wikipedia's voice, we can provide all the counter-argument that is out there that we think is appropriate to convey the span of responses (positive and negative) that the subject receives, be it from fellow media pundits or experts to the fields he has advanced his opinions on. I agree that this is something that could get excessive fast and that eyes ought to be kept on it, but this is a response in a major news outlet, quoting numerous experts who were willing to point out perceived factual flaws to a pretty racially/culturally charged statement; I don't think the content proposed above could really be considered UNDUE, sourcing and context considered. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the Bloomberg Opinion source isn't reliable. Bloomberg apparently doesn't publish its editorial standards, but most news outlets apply different and substantially lower editorial standards for what they mark as "opinion" content versus what they make as "news" content. That's why the community generally treats opinion content as unreliable, regardless of the publisher's reputation. It's why editorials and op-eds in newspapers such as the NYT and the WSJ almost never considered reliable. Sure, like NYT and WSJ editorials and op-eds, the Bloomberg source can be cited for its author's opinion, but that's not what I'm asking for. I'm looking for sources that at least demonstrate the newsworthiness of Shapiro's piece. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"...the community generally treats opinion content as unreliable, regardless of the publisher's reputation. It's why editorials and op-eds in newspapers such as the NYT and the WSJ almost never considered reliable." Where did you get that impression? That's no principle of community consensus that I've seen codified anywhere on the project. In fact, several of our most on-point policies (WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:WEIGHT) directly contemplate "opinion content" as perfectly reliable. Now, as I mention below, if there is some dispute as to whether the source is valid generally or for a particular purpose, WP:RSN is the best space to submit that question to the community, but I'll say bluntly that I don't think there's much chance it would not be found valid to support some variety of statement about the reception/criticism of Shapiro's book (not "piece" unless I'm missing something?) and any public statements amounting to factual assertions he may have made when promoting it. That's all pretty par for the course with BLPs. But if you think the source will not satisfy as an WP:RS for those purposes, again, RSN is the place to hash it out.

But it sounds to me that what you want to advance has nothing to do with the availability of the source, so much as a question of the WP:WEIGHT of the overarching topic (the book itself). But given that book probably has enough WP:Notability to qualify for its own article, and certainly will qualify to at least be mentioned in this article, I don't think that argument is going to stick either. And to the extent that it is mentioned, a one-sentence reference to this criticism does not seem out of proportion or inconsistent with WP:DUE. Again, it should be fully and properly attributed though, and kept to the point. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support--but make it brief, and attribute clearly. - At least one of the sources passes every test for an WP:RS--anybody is free to take it to WP:RSN if they have doubts, but I don't see it being rejected, either as a general matter (it's Bloomberg afterall), nor for the statement it is being proffered to support, insofar as I am imagining a very brief and fully attributed statement. Nor am convinced by the WP:SYNTH argument. Perhaps I misread the foregoing discussion, and the SYNTH charge was only being leveled at the Cole piece (which does not seem to qualify as RS and thus should not be used). If the SYNTH argument is leveled at the Bloomberg source, I can't say as it holds water: the source makes it very clear that the author and the quoted experts were responding directly to Shapiro.

That they didn't mention the book is a collateral issue that does not introduce any significant misrepresentation into our coverage of the comments or the response--and to the extent it might, the matter can be addressed by nuancing the language of the statement to clarify exactly which comment they were responding to. The point is, there are experts who have expressed criticism of these particular arguments the man has advanced (both in the book and outside of it). Presenting some criticism is a necessary part of constructing a neutral article on any remotely controversial topic (political media commentators certainly included), and this particular piece doesn't seem like it UNDUE--provided it is drafted with some restraint and an eye towards brevity and not introducing any of our own editorial tilt. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - As some already mentioned, the decision to include criticism of the book would have never been dragged along so far if this article was on almost anybody else. We have two sources for this criticism, one of which is solid (Smith) and one that's so - so (Cole), being a comment made by a scholar on a topic that is tangential to his area of expertise and on his blog. I personally don't think that to be an issues, but if enough people think that it is, then just include the Smith source, which almost everybody agrees is fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Deacon Vorbis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Deacon Vorbis, Icewhiz, and R2. UberVegan🌾 23:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per User:Snow Rise. Shapiro has made these assertions several times in many venues. This is not a mere passing reference. It is important to include solid cited refutations of these claims. Gerntrash (talk)

• Oppose - not significant to his life - seems WP:COATRACK to a topic not important for his biography of a couple opposing rants that are REALLY unimportant to his biography. I doubt that this particular view of his is even worth a mention, but certainly not favoring turning this BLP into a mud-wrestling of not-qualified people spouting casually. This seems two opinion pieces of no particular WEIGHT by people not qualified in the area versus another opinion of no particular WEIGHT by him not qualified in the area. That they really disliked what he said about a couple months ago just is not worth covering. Unless the 'western science' becomes a core part of Shapiro's life for a few more years, it hardly seems worth covering to any amount of detail, and unless these two people do more than just one rant back, it seems insignificant to his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support Including criticism of an author's works is standard for a biography. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support If his book is significant enough to mention at all, and it appears that it is, why shouldn't we reflect what reliable sources say about it? If an article about the book is written (such as Draft:The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great), this info could be summarized here and moved to that article. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 25 July 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.

Libertarian

Ben Shapiro calls himself a libertarian in the talk on Black Lives Matter. I think he should be labelled as a libertarian and not as a conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.164.207 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Ben Shapiro is conservative on most social and religious issues, openly so and identifies as a conservative. When he has described himself as libertarian he is usually referring to his approach to economics and government. I managed to find a video of him saying just that. A.Tagril (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Last name

Do you really think people have a hard time pronouncing SHAPIRO? A name like that does not need a sound spelling. Get rid of it!--67.86.56.85 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed pronunciation guide. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT rights

The section title of "LGBT rights" is not accurate w.r.t the contents. Shapiro is advocating the same rights for all - rights, in Shapiro's view are god given to individual human beings, and Shapiro does not advocate discrimination or right differentiation. Shapiro draws a sharp distinction between political view points, and his moral opinions, which is evident from the quote in this section that he believes homosexuality to be wrong (a sin) but believes people should be free to engage in it. The term "rights" are very much in the political sphere, but this section presents many of his moral objections which then seem to imply his opposition to LGBT people having the same rights as other people - which is not true. Presenting his moral opinions in a section on a political concept (rights) is misleading, thus the title might be better formulated.

Also in the same section, concerning the threats made by Zoey Tur, Tur is referred to as "she", which is loaded considering the threats were made precisely because Shapiro does not agree that Tur is a woman. Presenting the facts of the case (reporting on the incident), while implying that Shapiro's political view in the case is wrong (be referring to Tur as 'she') is biassed. Rather, the sentence would be neutral for both parties if 'she' is replaced with 'Tur'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.140.254 (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The section title seems, to me, like an adequate summary of the section because the section is framed around Shapiro's political views on LGBT issues. For instance, the section accurately describes Shapiro as being in favour of gay relationships being legal while opposing them personally. It also describes Shapiro opposing Beto O'Rourke's proposal on removing tax-exempt status from religious institutions opposing gay marriage. These constitute political views on LGBT rights vis-à-vis how far they extend and how far would be, in Shapiro's view, a governmental overreach. The section title does not necessarily imply that Shapiro opposes LGBT rights.

The use of the feminine pronoun in the section is based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on gender pronouns. Consensus or a good editorial reason would be needed to override the Manual of Style. Jancarcu (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Not Voting?

The article describes Ben Shapiro as "not voting in 2016" yet the source for that information, an article in The Federalist never once asserts that claim. It mentions based on what Ben Shapiro himself has said that he voted for neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. That is hardly the same thing. Casting a spoiled ballot, voting for a write-in candidate or voting Independent would all qualify as voting for neither to the same extent that anything else would. Also, I read an article, I don't recall precisely where, asserting that Shapiro voted for a write-in candidate. I would attempt to find said article and fix the error myself but unfortunately (albeit understandably) the protected status of the Shapiro page prevents me from so doing. Thank you. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.115.29 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Ok, I changed it DarthFlappy (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing children from 2 to 3

Ben shapiro recently had another addition to his family, a baby girl was born! Hope you can change this! MrBunny2025 (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed he has had another baby, Thank G-d. See here: https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1235269571650543617?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.170.245 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

Under the section "Personal life", perhaps it would be helpful to add that the person who was arrested for threatening Shapiro last year was a white supremacist. Source: mynorthwest.com/1372833/kent-man-arrest-shapiro-trump-threats/? According to paragraphs 7 and 8 of this source, the man (whom I will not name here) made specifically anti-Semitic threats and also had in his possession white supremacist paraphernalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasbalancer1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Arabism

POV editor PackMecEng is removing the category "Anti-Arabism", despite it being suspported in the article, where Shapiro is quotred as saying " "The ideology of the Palestinian population is indistinguishable from that of the terrorist leadership." The Palestinians are Arbs, and that is clearly an Ant-Arab statement For that reason the category should be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

POV editor PackMecEng here, if you check my edit summary it should explain everything.[1] Category:Anti-Arabism states It must not include articles about living individuals or existent groups that are allegedly anti-Arab. If you follow the linked discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories you will note the close saying Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations. So yeah, it is not a category that is to be used for BLP articles. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That 10 years old RfC has never been applied. I agree that we should remove these categories but not just one category and leave the others. This is the same reason why Category:Antisemitic organizations was removed. If you started a proposal to remove all value-laden libels in WP:VPP I would support your proposal. I am also against including that category in this article, however, don't remove it from other articles because of that old RfC. If you are going to do a mass removal then you should make a proposal. I might make a proposal to remove all organisations or individuals from these categories.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Also the category description is actually wrong. The RfC outcome was to not include any current organisation or living individual inside these categories. It has nothing to do with "allegedly".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is what the RFC outcome says "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations". This applies to all other categories like Antisemitism, racism, facism etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

*I agree with PackMecEng. Shapiro said various things. Shapiro also changed past positions. Adding category based on editors thoguhts on what Sharpio said wrong. You need good sources labelling him so.--KasiaNL (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet - [2]) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Change Ben Shapiro’s latest book from “The Right Side of History” to “How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps” 2001:569:7CA6:E700:8C85:7F1D:C01A:B516 (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: The book is not slated for release until July 21 [3]. Loksmythe (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Neil

The description of Neil as a 'prominent conservative journalist' is slightly inaccurate. Whilst Neil edited The Sunday Times in his past, he maintains an impartial approach in his broadcast journalism. Anyone who regularly watches Neil on TV can see he tests both sides of the argument equally. His position as Chairman of the Spectator does not give him any editorial control over the magazine, even though it generally supports the right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:13B:B900:48CC:8CA4:32B2:8BF9 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sister subject to anti-Semitic trolling?

I don’t see any concrete evidence of that in the linked article. Donignacio (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reinserting primary sources and SPS into a BLP

Beyond My Ken Reinserted primary sourced and non-RS SPS back into the article with this revert. It should obviously be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they should not. You removed them as unsourced "interpretations" of primary sources, whereas they are not "interpretations" of any kind, They are merely reporting what a primary source says about its own actions, and otherwise reporting reliably sourced facts which occurred before those actions. The other material removed, written by Ben Shapiro himself, is obviously suitable for the artricle for giving the subject's self-expressed opinions. There is no policy-based reason for the removal of this amterial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You are mistaken. The recently added primary sources do indeed have editor interpretation, we are interpreting the meaning of these primary sources and expanding on what they say. For example with the creators.com he wrote a lot of crap there any to cherry pick what we feel is important and ignore anything else is a BLP vio. Same goes for citing a tweet, what RS say that tweet is important or has weight to be in the article other then editor OR? Also why did you restore the recently added stuff to popular.info and in doing so reinsert a BLP violation? NOTHING cited here has been sourced to a RS. Full Stop. PackMecEng (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if editorial consensus agrees with you before we put the final coat of paint on that Full Stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I want to note that PME was so completely and utterlty certain that he would prevail in a discussion on this talk page, that he left no time for one to develop, and instead immediately opened a thread about this on WP:BLPN, where, so far, he has been told that his "Full Stop" is not at all what it seems to be. [4] In short, PME's interpretation of BLP seems to be, um, wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Removed facebook content sourced to Popular Information per WP:BLPRS. fiveby(zero) 14:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please point me to the consensus discussion in which Popular Information has been determinbed not to be a reliable source. Until then... Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• From their about page Popular Information is written by me, Judd Legum.[5] There are no editors or other writers. Classic SPS. PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, didn't see that, thanks. That removal's fine, then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• There were two authors listed, but still no editorial oversight. BLP seems less strictly applied now vs. how it has been in the past, or maybe different within AP2 and i am out of date? fiveby(zero) 00:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• True, the first instance here has two authors and the second instance here only has one. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Daily Beast and MSN have covered it, as has the Guardian. It's not just an SPS anymore. There is still a potential argument that Shapiro hasn't been explicitly blamed for it, though that would mean the material belongs at the article on Daily Wire instead of here. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Political ideology

Hi there, in the section 'Political ideology', Shapiros ideology is first described by some of his political opponents (he criticizes all mentioned parties), after which his ideology is described by himself:

The New Yorker, Haaretz and Vox have described Shapiro as "right-wing".[82][97][107] Shapiro's views have been described by The New York Times as "extremely conservative".[8] In 2016, Shapiro described himself as "basically a libertarian".[89]

It might be more fair to first place his own opinion about his ideology, and after that the opinions of the other parties. It brings some more focus to Shapiro himself, instead of what his opponents think of him.

As a side note (not related to SPER), maybe his own opinion deserves some more attention, because just stating 'basically a libertarian' does little justice to all nuances in his ideology.

 Done, sentences reordered. @Pyrite Pro: you may open another edit request if you would like to expand on the "basically a libertarian" quote. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

Update the number of books he has written and the most recent one.

On July 21, 2020, his eleventh book came out: How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps. Please update the book count and most recent book. Thank you. (Source: It is mentioned on his podcast, sorry for the bad source Wilhelm von Hindenburger (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Claims about third parties

Hello all,

Clearly, I am not a seasoned editor, just someone who's removed obvious vandalism when I've seen it. It occurs to me that the claim that Shapiro's spouse is a doctor could use a citation that wasn't authored by Shapiro himself, as the veracity of this claim is the subject of some internet rumors. Something told me that these citations may not be up to WP's standards, but I defer to your judgment. Perhaps WP:Verifiability#Self-published_sources #2: "does not involve claims about third parties"(in the case of the tweet) is relevant. Thank you for your commitment. Rachel Knight (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellville (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Safe spaces

Although "ironic" (at first thought) UC Berkeley's spending on security is not relevant to the safe space section. Safe spaces are not places where one is literally physically safe from violence. WP has an article on safe spaces if anyone would like to disagree. The addition of UC Berkeley's security spending is ideologically motivated to undermine his position on safe spaces and to make the reader think he's a hypocrite. It should be removed. 2600:6C54:7900:D4D:C0C7:F619:ECFC:BF31 (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)T

Agreed, while I do think the amount of money spent on safety is notable, I think the way its phrased does seem really odd for the section, (it does appear that who ever wrote that edit wasnt quite sure about what the term "safe spaces" refers to). I will change it if I can think of a way to change the wording.MaximusEditor (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 DoneMaximusEditor (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Parents

Never says who his parents are. Looked in the Early Life section, and it mentions a father, but not what his name was. LegioV (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of a Controversy section

Ben Shapiro is no stranger to controversy. In a sense, he has built his career on it. If you're not a Shapiro fan, you'll see this as him being a hateful right-wing personality. If you are a Shapiro fan, you'll see it as him exposing the left's outrage culture with facts. In any case, it's undeniable that Shapiro is controversial. I would therefore not argue that all of his controversial views should be listed under Controversy, but there are three in particular that I think should be under consideration for that. One is his comments about Middle-Easterners living in open sewage and the like, which were widely deemed offensive and which Shapiro has since apologized for. The other two are interwoven, and those are his claim that the majority of Muslims are actually radicalized, and alongside this his support of killing the families of terrorists. When President Donald Trump made comments along these lines, his page immediately lit up with controversy, but Shapiro's lacks this. I am not a believer that a Controversy section should be a biased thing, nor that it should suddenly be filled every time someone doesn't like something Shapiro says. What I am saying is that it should exist to denote controversies primarily of a racial or possibly prejudiced nature. Jokes about Shapiro's reaction to the song WAP? Not a controversy. Comments about killing the families of terrorists? Controversy. I therefore propose a Controversy section on Shapiro's page, which I think is long overdue. What are everyone's thoughts? PickleG13 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Controversy sections? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've read the page. I think we should implement what PickleG13 suggests but to be more creative and specific with regards to what to call the section. Don't merely call it "Controversy". Call it something more creative like "Controversial Political Activisms and Stunts" Im not afraid (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

He also said that hip hop is not music. - Dark Lord Thomas Pie

It isn't. 86.5.158.68 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Music section

This section needs some work. It's focusing on a minor detail in the broad umbrella of Ben Shapiro's musical taste. Also, is his taste in music relevant to encyclopedic coverage? Maybe so, maybe not. If so, this section ought to be a bit more comprehensive. Also, the mentioned tweet is almost certainly meant as a joke. Shapiro's sense of humor relies heavily on sarcasm and mockery. This isn't stated in the cited article. On another note, a better citation would be nice if possible; the Mary Sue article cited is pretty clearly primarily aimed at mocking Shapiro and not trying to make meaningful commentary on his views (mockery against mockery! I love American politics...) Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Simply change it from "conservative" political commentator to right-wing political commentator XXXNerdSlayerXXX (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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

LGBT Section Shapiro/Tur interaction is mischaracterized.

In the LGBT rights section the following sentence is misleading.

"After Shapiro repeatedly referred to Tur, who is a trans woman, with male pronouns, she placed her hands around his neck and threatened on air to send him "home in an ambulance".

It should read:

"After Shapiro repeatedly referred to Tur, who is a trans woman, with male pronouns, she placed a hand on the back of his neck and threatened on air to send him "home in an ambulance".

The original sentence makes it sound like she was threatening to choke him. You can watch the interaction on YouTube. She placed one hand on the back of his neck and made the statement after he called her "sir".

• Shapiro was transphobic when he mis-gendered her. Shapiro provoked Tur. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B5FF:3DC9:3472:B157 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done -ink&fables «talk» 10:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I made an edit to the same section. Shapiro referred to Jenner with male pronouns, not to Tur. The heated exchange between Shapiro and Tur began when he referred to Tur as "sir". The cited sources say the exact same thing so I did not modify the sources. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

“far-right... Breitbart News”

Whilst the use of this descriptor is also present in the article for Breitbart, its use here is also worth discussing separately. The source seems somewhat dubious, as a quick Google search will reveal sources tend to describe the site as right-wing. The contention of this phrase is not worth importing into this article; readers can and ought to click on the hyperlink to find out more about the outlet. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam: Hello. There have been long discussions of this at the Breitbart TP (something like 10 RfCs). The consensus is that Breitbart is considered a "far-right" news source. However, I completely agree with your sentiments that the descriptor is not relevant in the lead of this BLP. You're correct; users can easily click on the wikilink to learn about Breitbart. This article is not about Breitbart--it's about Shapiro. Why do you think we don't label Ami Magazine as an Orthodox Jewish publication or label Daily Wire as a right-wing source in this article? There's no dispute that those labels are not accurate, however this article is not about Ami Magazine or Daily Wire, so it's not necessary to add those extraneous qualifiers. Some logic should apply to the Breitbart descriptor. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I agree entirely; well said.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Add Abigail Shapiro to relatives because she’s a sister of Ben. 142.122.9.111 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

She is already mentioned in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

typo

"In 2018, An Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) document presented" => a Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 Done: Nice catch, thank you! Also, it's generally good practice to sign your posts with ~~~~ so people know who wrote it. Srey Sros^talk 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Under the abortion section, someone wrote that Ben actively calls mothers in support of abortion "baby killers", something he's never done, and then sourced a completely irrelevant article that's topic was to do with Berkely security while mentioning nothing about the claim sourced. That's EXTREMELY dishonest and needs to he removed Jw17sta (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. According to this source, he has. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Quotes

One editor has included duplicate quotes in the article. We basically already have these quotes under the Israeli-Palestine section: "Vox describes Shapiro as a polarizing figure, in part due to tweets such as "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" (2010)...In 2007, Shapiro wrote an article in which he described the "Palestinian Arab population" as "rotten to the core"". Additionally, the editor had previously attempted to include this quote under a new, non-neutral section: [6], [7]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Music

Will the editor who broke 1RR please self-revert and discuss on the talk page? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What's the use in talking if one is only willing to repeat themselves over and over? --Jamirowikee (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly removed this section three weeks ago after it was amplified by Jamirowikee on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It was stable. This section is beyond trivial for someone who is a political commentator. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You erred in removing this section for the reasons given. The issue cannot be described as trivial for a political commentator if said political commentator criticises something for political reasons. It was said political commentator who raised the issue of the "feminist movement" in relation to the song he offered an opinion on. Furthermore this section comes under said political commentators "Views". This section merely provides information on the subject's views on music generally and the relationship between politics and music. To contend that this section is "beyond trivial" alone is insufficient to justify in unilateral removal; one must elucidate as to why. As of yet no good reason has been offered. --Jamirowikee (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Not every single opinion this individual has is noteworthy. If we included all those opinions, then this article would be thousands of pages long. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Shapiro disliking a particular song is very trivial. This has almost nothing to do with politics. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jamirowikee You do realize that the "Music" section is now longer than the section on Religion, Western Civilization, the Alt-Right, and Gun Ownership? Do you honestly believe this article should have more weight on Shapiro's opinions on music than on his opinions in the other sections? Shapiro isn't notable due to his views on music. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You'll note that not every single opinion this individual has has been added to his page, thus this assertion is valueless. No one has requested that all opinions be included resulting in the article being thousands of pages long thus this again is valueless. Shapiro didn't simply dislike a particular song, but asserted that the song represents "what the feminist movement is all about". Thus it cannot be reasonably asserted that this opinion has nothing to do with politics, but in fact has everything to do with politics, as he criticised it due to it representing the "feminist movement" which is a political movement. It is astounding that one can actually claim the criticism has "almost nothing to do with politics" taking this into account. Next, the assertion that the "music" section is "longer" than others is not a reason for it to be removed. It can only be said that the other sections are bare and more information on Shapiro's views ought to be added, or that Shapiro has more noteworthy opinions on music and the relationship between music and politics than than the other issues. Either one of these being the case is, once more, not a reason for the music section to be removed. I honestly believe that the section on the article for Shapiro's views should contain exactly that, which the music section does in every way. His views on music are available for all to see here. The assertion that "Shapiro isn't notable due to his views on music" is groundless. In reality you have no evidence or proof as to why one person may know who he is and what his views are over the next. His views on the song "WAP" were widely shared on social media, therefore it can be inferred that a significant number of people who otherwise would have had no idea who he is now do because of his noteworthy opinions. Finally, there still hasn't been any argument or explanation as to why this section can be considered "beyond trivial". Assertions must be backed up by explanation, alone they are worthless. As of yet no explanations have been offered, only assertions. --Jamirowikee (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

I believe Ben is European-American 140.88.199.237 (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Baby killers" under abortion

What idiot wrote that Ben calls mothers baby killers, and then links an article that only talks about how Antifa threats required Berkeley to boost security?

And yall wonder why Wikipedia isn't a reliable source smfh Jw17sta (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A ctrl+f on that source for "baby killers" does in fact confirm that this is a true statement. If you'd like to, you could suggest that the part where Ben Shapiro called women who have abortions baby killers was only a passing mention, and that the Wikipedia article's mention of it should be revised to reflect this, but this comment reads as an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You're right to say that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but for the wrong reasons.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added two more sources to verify this statement and demonstrate its notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how these can be classed as reliable sources. The SFGate and SFChronicle sources do not indicate when these 'comments' were made and are conveyed as an extremely vague personality overview, and are both written by the same author. The CourthouseNews article also does not reference when and where these comments were made, and again is a character reference with no apparent evidence or reference. From my perspective this element doesn't meet neutrality or reliability standards. JimboBaggend2 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the better question is how any of them are not reliable sources. I don't want to WP:BITE the newcomers here, and it does appear that you are very new, but we use WP:RS to determine whether a statement is both verifiable and notable. The context in which all of the sources mention this quote is to give the reader a general overview of his ideology, which is what the Wikipedia article's ideology section intends to do. The fact that several sources listed this comment when describing his ideology demonstrates that it is not only verifiable, but also noteworthy. The wording in the Wikipedia article reads very straightforwardly (simply stating that he has used the term), and the sources do not contradict this information.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I will add a comment here because I do agree with what the original commenter said even if I may not like the way they approached the topic. A couple of months ago I actually removed that claim from the article. My reason for doing so is that I am a frequent listener of his podcast and vividly remember him saying in multiple occasions that his stance matches what he referred to as the mainstream pro-life stance, which is that the criminality of abortions is not on the patient but instead on the doctor performing the abortion. He went further with this statement and mentioned how Donald Trump was initially ignorant of this fact, and made what he referred to as an outrageous statement on how abortion patients should be tried for murder. I am willing to find at least one instance in his past podcast episodes if that means that we can get this sentence removed from the article, because objectively speaking I believe that this sentence does not represent Ben Shapiro's views accurately. I would appreciate some further opinions on this. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can find verifiable primary or secondary sources that support this, that'd be good and probably worth inclusion. Regrettably, unless it's the overwhelming consensus opinion on what Shapiro's stance on the matter is, the final sentence will probably be something like "Some journalists have reported that Shapiro has called women who have abortions 'baby killers' on his programs, though Shapiro has denied that this characterizes his viewpoint or that he has ever said those particular words." It's hard just because it's so difficult to prove a negative; unless you have a source that went through the thousands of hours of programming and found he never said it even once, it's a "A said, B said" problem. My understanding of reconciling WP:NPOV and WP:BLP is that we have to avoid libel and spurious sources, but we also ought to present significant viewpoints and reporting so long as it is verifiable that people hold them.

Given how contentious this particular issue is, I would personally support adding the word "allegedly" to the sentence in question, though I will note that the three cited sources--which are generally considered reliable on WP afaik--make that statement as if it is a widely-known fact, not something that any particular person is claiming. As it is, there appears to be far more evidence that Shapiro has said this than that he did not. I guess what I'm saying is find me some evidence that he has not said this and then we can present both views. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We stick to what RS say. And no, we do not add "allegedly" in front of RS content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This article already says "He also believes that doctors who perform abortions should be prosecuted." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Mathmitch said "If you can find verifiable primary or secondary sources that support this". There is already one there that supports what zaiisao said. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

He called mothers who do abortions baby killers and called for doctors who do abortions to be prosecuted. That's both in RS. I'm unclear what the dispute is over. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Zaiisao, there are already several secondary sources stating that Shapiro has said this. We don't cite segments of The Ben Shapiro Show because primary sources do not demonstrate notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Plank of wood

Should Shapiro’s plank of wood controversy be mentioned in the article or is it a bit too recent? [8]X-Editor (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:NOTNEWS. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. X-Editor (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)