Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Chickenhawk

Despite his views on the Iraq occupation, he chose to enroll in law school immediately after he completed his undergraduate education in 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.137.235 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And what precisely does this comment have to do with Wikipedia? (Not to mention that it is silly on its face, with the assumption that every single person who supports a war ought to be in the army. If you aren't going to fight, the least you can do is support those who are and their cause.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Was he somehow supporting soldiers by promoting the war on Iraq? Talk about an idea that's silly on its face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.183.210.137 (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Why?

I may not be a right winger, but this page is stright forward and vailid. Why is it being considered for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bear199 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Vanity page

should be removed 70.108.210.5 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider Mr. Shapiro to be a quite reprehensible public figure, but he is, unfortunately, noteworthy. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am really tired of people who confuse "noteworthy" with "I agree with it". In fact, this is the topic of Mr. Shapiro's latest book, more or less.Mzk1 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If he were actually noteworthy, he would be identified as more than simply being "an American" in the first sentence. 91.195.79.7 (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD

An AfD notice was added here by an anon who could not create the page needed to finish the AfD. I removed the tag but if someone wants to finish the AfD that's fine. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The subject has a new book, on Hollywood.

Anyone want to write about it.?Mzk1 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You should write about it since you wrote the book. Who better to cite the book than the book's author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.59.176 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Friends of Hamas

I added a section on his "Friends of Hamas" Breitbart.com piece and subsequent events relating to it, as this became a national story and seems noteworthy. I worded it as objectively as possible, but would welcome any edit suggestions.--Btavshan (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America

This section reads like a marketing blurb and should either be rewritten or removed. I'll remove it in a week if no one changes it.206.176.233.188 (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Loopy paranoid

Per WP:BLP, I will remove the accusation by Charles Johnson (of the blog Little Green Footballs) that Shapiro is a "loopy paranoid". For one thing, Little Green Footballs is not a reliable source.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing problem with Zoie Tur incident

This is contentious material, and thus must be scrupulously sourced. In this case we have Breitbart (where Shapiro is an editor), Addicting Info (a partisan blog) and The Advocate (a partisan LGBT interest magazine). NONE of these sources are suitable as sources in a BLP. In addition, while searching for better sources I noted that the regular media has completely ignored the incident. It is of no significance generally, and in particular it is of no significance within the context of Shapiro's career. Eclipsoid (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For a BLP, we need better sourcing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What, praytell, is "the regular media?" Who gets to decide? Yes, The Advocate is an LGBT interest magazine, but what makes it "partisan"?

As of today, both the Dailiy Mail (UK) and the Washington Times are reporting that Shapiro has filed battery charges against Tur over this incident. Shapiro has a history of making provocative statements about the LGBT community. Just as the widely-reported-upon controversy about "Friends of Hamas" is relevant to Shapiro's biography, so is this incident. Branmuffin22 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Height

Someone has been vandalizing this page for a few days.

• Shapiro claims to be 5'9" (https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/687488514259193857).
• This is a picture of Shapiro next to Larry King (http://s3.amazonaws.com/oratv/assets/prod/asset/216374-IMG_9167_mini-0.jpg)
  • Larry King is also 5'9". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEA8:CBF0:E012:D8EF:9C17:72EF (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • Even George Washington doesn't have his height on the his bio page or anyone outside the basketball scene. Stop trolling. It's junior high all over again. Some jocks never grow up.Svanriesen (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • This seems relevant on the basis that he's a public figure, he's made public statements about his height, and the freely available facts (https://twitter.com/ItsTonyNow/status/793887179634335744) contradict his statements. It's notable when a writer who prides themselves on non-fiction objectivity makes false or misleading statements about their personal details. I'm suggesting that we compromise by including the single mention to not give it undue weight. --Emoprog (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That Twitter post is not even close to being a reliable source. We need a reliable source that actually discusses his height, not just him saying his height and someone doing same calculation and posting it on Twitter. -- GB fan 22:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If his height is going to be in the article, it needs to be from an independent, objective source that would have that precise information. A Twitter post, particularly with ambiguous context is not very reliable. Nor is trying to estimate his height based on looking at pictures (unless one has a tape measure in it). Furthermore, I don't think including his height is relevant to the article, feels like somebody is trolling the article Independence21 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The picture with the tape measure from Twitter is both unreliable and a primary source. It should not be there at all. agtx 22:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have also reverted the edit for now because it cites to only Twitter posts, not reliable sources. Per WP:BLP, we need reliable sources here. agtx 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Shapiro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130128164530/http://my.hsj.org:80/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/schoolid/642/articleid/221315/newspaperid/618/Mor_Toledano_3905_first_in_class_to_find_perfect_match.aspx to http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/schoolid/642/articleid/221315/newspaperid/618/Mor_Toledano_3905_first_in_class_to_find_perfect_match.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Book in the lede

Is that book that he wrote when he was 17 years old notable enough to be used in the lede? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that part of what makes the book a particularly notable part of his biography is the fact that he wrote it when he was 17. Safehaven86 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Twitter sources

How much use of Twitter WP:SELFSOURCE is permissible as a source? As I understand policy primary sources are to be used judiciously in support of 3rd party WP:RS sources. Much of this article seems to be a Twitter repost of Mr. Shapiro's account.--Wlmg (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

We now have a similar problem with Spencer's tweets about Shapiro. Yes, notable people tweet about notable people, places and things. If we start adding everything every notable person tweets about to every article, we'll have a completely worthless list of random tweets on every article. Ed Begley Jr. doesn't like peanut butter, Donald Trump enjoyed Finding Dory, Melissa Rauch likes the sound of rain on a tin roof... the possibilities are as endless as they are pointless. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Willingness to debate audience members

Should we mention Shapiro's "specialty" of cheerfully and willingly engaging in debate with people who disagree with him - as opposed to shutting them down? I've watched dozens of YouTube videos of him entertaining questions - actually long, rambling speeches - from students who argue against him; for some reason, he seems to delight in listening to them, or at least long enough to hear something he can latch on to and then give a rebuttal to them.

I mean, he doesn't just insist on hearing one 30-second question and then giving a lengthy answer. He lets the student interrupt him and he gives the student a considerable amount of time to air their views. Is this just me (as in "original research"), or can we find any quotable secondary sources who have noted the same thing? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Gun control debate section

This section cites:

1) The video of the debate, a primary source. Wikipedia does not generally cite primary sources in this way for a reason. It is entirely too easy to use bits and pieces of something someone said to try to make a point. We do not, for example, create sections on various political figures citing direct statements to build the idea that the politician is pro- or anti- anything. Incidentally, the youtube post in question is apparently a copyright violation.

2) A blog post.[2] WP:SPS applies.

3) A Second Amendment worship site.[3] Whether or not you feel any of these quotes from people in the 18th century are relevant to the debate is immaterial. The source may or may not be "reliable", but it says absolutely nothing about Shapiro, the subject of this article.

4) Breitbart News. If anyone would like to say that Brietbart is a reliable source for anything other than as a source for what Brietbart said, I invite you to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. If, on the other hand, you wish to add what they had to say here, I would point out that it is irrelevant unless independent reliable sources discussed Brietbart's opinion of this debate. I'm sure everyone from Stormfront to Stop Handgun Violence had something to say about the issues here, but we don't randomly quote unreliable sources.

5) Newsbusters. Yes, Newsbusters complained about CNN. They aren't a reliable source and they complain about everything CNN does. Pick a liberal website. Do we quote them complaining about everything Fox News does? No, of course not.

The entire section should be removed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a week without discussion. I'm removing it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that discussion. Here's a link from the Washington Post. Daily Caller Real Clear Politics Costatitanica (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeating myself from below, but just to be sure it isn't missed: That link is to a WP:NEWSBLOG hosted on the Washington Post, not the Washington Post itself. Since blogs like that don't have any fact-checking or editorial control, they don't get any reliability or reputation from their hosts for WP:RS purposes - only the reputation of the author matters. In this case the author clearly isn't well-known enough to let us cite a blog. The Daily Caller is likewise a blog. An incident worth mentioning on someone's article - let alone devoting an entire section to - should have much more mainstream coverage than this... or at least some mainstream coverage that passes WP:RS. If the best you can find is a mention in a blog, it doesn't belong in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should there be a section about Shapiro's gun control debate with Piers Morgan? If yes, what sources can/should be quoted?

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.

Consensus is to mainly exclude the entire material and at most, keep one or two lines about the event.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

---

I restored a section about the debate that had been removed by user SummerPhDv2.0. He/she then removed it again. As you can see here, he/she initiated a discussion that ultimately included only him/herself before originally deleting it. I think that a more sustained discussion is warranted. I also believe that Breitbart should not automatically be excluded. While they are certainly biased, they are not remotely in the same league as, say, Infowars. (It should be obvious that I am not accusing SummerPhDv2.0 of acting in bad faith; I simply think he/she acted a bit rashly.) Best, Costatitanica (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources cited: 1) The video of the debate, a primary source in a BLP, also a copyright violation. 2) A blog post. 3) A Second Amendment worship site (not a RS) which does not so much as mention Shapiro, the subject of this article. 4) Breitbart News. Feel free to take it to the RS noticeboard. Mention it's a BLP issue. 5) Newsbusters. Feel free to take it to the RS noticeboard. Mention it's a BLP issue.

None of those belong here.

Yes, I boldly removed the section. You restored it. I discussed it. You did not. That's WP:BRD.

This is a WP:BLP question as well. A neutral notice at the BLP board to draw their attention to this discussion would probably be a good idea as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As I noted, you "discussed it" with yourself. Also, You did not address the links I posted. I left them up up for 2 weeks (besides for the comment I left on your talk page) before restoring the article. Best, Costatitanica (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I discussed it with myself because you slept on your rights. No one disagreed, so I moved forward. In reference to the links, are you referring to the copyright violation, the blog, the off-topic source or the biased, unreliable sources used in a BLP? I asked you about all five of them and you responded by ignoring me and restoring them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. Not encyclopedic, and apparently not even newsworthy. I have scoured Google News and found a grand total of zero reliable independent secondary sources covering the debate. The closest I could find was an opinion piece by Washington Post columnist Erik Wemple. As for Costatitanica's comment about Breitbart not being like InfoWars, it doesn't matter. There's a very broad and longstanding consensus all over Wikipedia that Breitbart is not a reliable source. And aside from that, Breitbart isn't independent either. . Of course Breitbart would promote a debate involving one of its own writers. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether it was reported at the time or not, it clearly became notable. This Atlantic article mentions that "As for Morgan's replacement, some conservatives suggested people like Ben Shapiro, the editor at large at Breitbart, who had explosive fights with Morgan. Last month Shapiro appeared on Morgan's show and accused him of bullying the right on guns by "standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook." That's aside from outlets like Mediaite who absolutely did report on it at the time. Costatitanica (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The Atlantic source is something, but only a passing reference. Mediaite isn't reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And a follow-up note to Costatitanica: You might not have known this previously, but RfCs Statement should be neutral and brief|are supposed to be neutrally worded. This means, do not include arguments, simply lay out the question at issue so as not to attract or repel uninvolved editors who might agree or disagree with you. Save your arguments for your !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I (mis)read that to mean that the section title be worded neutrally. I'll know for the future.Costatitanica (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Notable, desirable to have in article and can definitely include, but optional. The Ben Shapiro vs. Piers Morgan debate was a classic exchange/debate on gun control. For various reasons that I need not get into, there is a shortage of public debates on various public issues of the day such as gun control, abortion, etc. Most formal debates with a wide audience as far as politics are between politicians who do not focus much on any particular issue. Morgan wasn’t well-prepared for the debate. This is because it is a settled issue in the UK where he is from. So Morgan did very poorly in the exchange. So most of the press on the incident are from right-wing press outlets. If you Google “Ben shapiro and Piers Morgan” you will see that Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Newsbusters, Glenn Beck cover the exchange, but so does the Washington Post which is on the left side of the political aisle.. [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2013/01/10/cnns-morgan-slams-down-constitution-calls-it-your-little-book/ ][4][5][6][7] The exchange was like watching a poodle get mauled by an attack dog. Breitbart and The Washington Post are notable sources. So you can definitely include the exchange in the article. But the exchange is not on the caliber of a William Jennings Bryan vs. Clarence Darrow debate or the Lincoln-Douglass debates in terms of its notability.desmay (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from its reliability problems, Breitbart is hardly independent. Of course Breitbart would promote a debate involving one of its writers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your second point completely. I think the article should say something along the lines of 'Breitbart, Shapiro's employer at the time said....' That way anyone reading the article can give whatever credence they choose to it. For that matter, I think the article should include this from Piers Morgan/CNN likewise labeled as coming from one of the participants. Costatitanica (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That sort of he-said-she-said is unencyclopedic in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is also a cite to a blog, which likewise can't be used. And given that Breitbart fails WP:RS, we would need a compelling reason why their opinion is relevant here - I'm not seeing it. Why should anyone care that his employer liked a debate he got into, or be interested in their take on it? Not everything that happens is relevant - if the only people who took notice of this were a few blogs and the like, it's not worth even a sentence in the article, let alone an entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned this below, but the Washington Post did not cover it. That is a link to a Washington Post blog; the Washington Post exerts no editorial control or fact-checking over those, and in this case the author is not particularly notable, so it doesn't pass WP:RS. It can't be used in the article - in practice, it's barely more credible than citing a Reddit post. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude or limit The article is on the person not the debate. If it was a sentence or two stating he went on the show and debated gun control it would seem to fit. To put a few paragraphs that go into detail on the debate and what was said and done. Well it shifts the focus to much away from the person and more towards the event. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude If included, should not be so big. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. My feeling about sources like Breitbart is that while they can in theory be used to illustrate the opinion of one of their writers when it's clearly relevant, you need a source that passes WP:RS to show relevance and to serve as the core skeleton of the section. Breitbart clearly doesn't pass WP:RS - they have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and a lengthy reputation for exaggerating stories or getting them wrong when it suits their perspective. When they're the best source in a section, the section needs to be killed. (Note that the WaPo source is to one of their WP:NEWSBLOGs; those blogs have no editorial controls, and the author here isn't particularly noteworthy, so it also fails WP:RS.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Aquillion, while I agree with you on the unreliability of the WaPo source, I think your analysis overreaches a bit. The idea behind WP:NEWSBLOG is that many reputable newspapers, WaPo included, publish news on pages they call blogs, i.e. "news blogs." These are usually fact-checked and reliable and are often cited by our articles. However the Wemple source is not a news blog; rather, it's an opinion blog. (See how Wemple is listed by WaPo as an "Opinion Writer.") Wemple probably has the freedom to write about whatever he wants, and it's unclear how much fact checking is done by his editors. (At a minimum the source is almost surely copyedited, so it's incorrect to say there is no editorial control at all.) But, the end result is the same: the WaPo source is probably unreliable and is not an indication of the debate's noteworthiness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude or limit Summoned by a bot. If consent can't be met to remove the content in it's entirety, I think the content should be condensed and merged with the Campus Lecture subsections, possibly with a retitled name that appropriately categorizes these one-off notable public/televised events. I don't believe the interview deserves it's own section, based on the size of the article and the other content included. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:15, 18 May 2017 (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.

Protect this page

Wikipedia puts a semi-protection lock on persons who have been subject to "recent media attention". Ben Shapiro has been in the news for quite the while now and is often targeted by the alt-right, as stated in this page. I think it would be appropriate to put such a lock on his Wikipedia page to prevent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.220.21.73 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy Days, M*A*S*H, Mary Tyler Moore Show

For the book, Shapiro interviewed many in the entertainment industry. Shapiro also interviewed several producers who said that Happy Days and M*A*S*H had an intended pro-pacifist orientation.[11] Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times questioned Shapiro citing The Mary Tyler Moore Show and The Simpsons as examples, and Goldstein argued that those shows have "gone over like gangbusters with middle America."

• also: suggests those producers weren't part of the entertainment industry.
• several producers who said that...: doesn't indicate those producers were talking about their own shows.
• M*A*S*H had an intended pro-pacifist orientation: that's like writing "several political commentators said that Shapiro is promoting a conservative POV", stating the obvious.
• Patrick Goldstein questioned Shapiro citing ...: a bit unclear, he wasn't questioning whether Shapiro really made such claims, and Shapiro wasn't quoting someone else. "Patrick Goldstein questioned Shapiro's claim... " would be clearer.
• Goldstein argued that those shows have "gone over like gangbusters with middle America.: Goldstein wrote: "Shapiro doesn't offer an especially persuasive case for why, if "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" or "The Simpsons" have such a radical message, they've gone over like gangbusters with middle America." The actual argument he was making is omitted. That's like reducing the second paragraph of the "perspective on Israel" section to: In a column for Townhall.com in 2003, during the Second Intifada, Shapiro argued that After World War II, Germans were forcibly expelled from the new Polish territory and relocated in Germany." Prevalence 13:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Prevalence, thank you for bringing these issues to light. I have taken the liberty of making three edits that I believe address your concerns and improve the article. KalHolmann (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

change "As of August 8, 2017, Shapiro's podcast was the second most popular iTunes podcast in the United States, behind only Oprah Winfrey's."

Highest Position: #2 (08 Aug 2017) Most recent chart position: #36 (17 Dec 2017)

http://www.itunescharts.net/us/artists/podcast/the-daily-wire/podcasts/the-ben-shapiro-show/ 73.96.106.254 (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done. Per WP:PRIMARY, we probably shouldn't have used NRO because he's written for that publication. The sentence is still accurate but it would need to be updated even if we had a better source than itunescharts.net, which I don't think passes muster. See WP:RS.

The change you seem to be requesting would require changing "2" to "36" and maybe listing the 35 podcasts ahead of him and we're not going to do that. But the whole thing is a pretty big problem per WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMO and, since it doesn't really enlighten the reader about the article's subject, I just deleted it. I kept the NRO citation since it still verifies what's left but it should probably be replaced. CityOfSilver 17:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Can you add in the Radio and Television part of this article that "Currently, Ben has a daily talk show called The Ben Shapiro Show hosted on the Daily Wire" Yblmelo (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

All the source that would be needed is on this page^LSBSFN (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

Subsection 4.4 "On transgender rights," newly created by Wlmg, is misplaced. It presents no views of that topic expressed by Ben Shapiro, and consists entirely of a 3-sentence description of a silly spat on cable TV between Shapiro and a transgender rights activist. If Wlmg's insinuation is that a single angry slur proves Shapiro's transphobia, that is unsupported by WP:RS and violates WP:NPOV. KalHolmann (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that material should have been left where it was, rather than in a separate section to make a political point. Based upon the prior talk page discussion, I doubt Wlmg's objectivity in this field. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rather than move this content back where it was (under "Personal life"), I propose deleting it altogether. How is it part of his personal life? In that section, we discuss Shapiro's three sisters, his wife, their religion, and their two children. That is his personal life, not this overblown incident on cable TV that, wherever we situate it, runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Please, let's take this opportunity to consign this material to the garbage bin where it belongs. KalHolmann (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be incorrect to call the section "On transgender rights". An incident took place on the Dr. Drew On Call TV show between Zoey Tur and Shapiro. The incident centered around Tur's aggressive move toward Shapiro when Shapiro addressed Tur as "sir". Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, before adding your comment here, you revised the article page by retitling subsection 4.4 from "On transgender rights" to "Zoey Tur incident on Dr. Drew On Call." Your edit summary explained: "The section heading is incorrect because there is no articulation of a position on 'transgender rights' in this incident." However, the content in question remains misplaced. The revised paragraph does not even purport to represent Shapiro's views on gender identity…or anything else. As such, it does not belong as a subsection of section 4 Views. I have accordingly restored the {Dubious} tag. We still need to resolve this issue. KalHolmann (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I would remove it from the article. Tur aggressed on Shapiro. The incident was not about Shapiro. The aggression directed at Shapiro by Tur is in the Zoey Tur article, where it arguably finds a rightful place. This article need not be burdened by an incident that is not particularly relevant to the biography of Shapiro. Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• We now have a slim majority (2 to 1) for removal. Perhaps Chris Troutman will reconsider retaining this content in its original place under "Personal life," where it is obviously and offensively irrelevant. I hope we can make the consensus for removal unanimous. KalHolmann (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Another possibility is to move "Zoey Tur incident on Dr. Drew On Call" to a position just under and equal to "Target of anti-Semitism". Incidentally, I like this edit made by Shelcare. I will go ahead and make my suggested edit now and I will await feedback. This is the edit that I have just made. I have removed the "dubious" comment simply because I find it ugly—but feel free to add it back if desired. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, I misunderstood your comment yesterday in this thread. I thought it said, "I would remove it from the article. … This article need not be burdened by an incident that is not particularly relevant to the biography of Shapiro." Now, apparently, you've decided it should read: "I would remove it from within the article. … This article needs to not be burdened by an incident that is not particularly relevant to the biography of Shapiro." KalHolmann (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann—it certainly can be removed from the article. I support removing it from the article. I provisionally moved it to what I think is a preferable position within the article. Shapiro was aggressed upon by Tur. Inclusion of the incident is justified in the Tur article. Inclusion of the incident in this article is gratuitous. My position has not changed. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Disputed content removed in accordance with WP:UNDUE and pursuant to consensus expressed above. Thanks to Bus stop for clarifying his position. KalHolmann (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Shapiro's Views on Homosexuality and LGBT Rights subsection

I think that there should be a subsection within "Views" section that discusses Shapiro's beliefs on LGBT issues. I have found numerous sources both primary and secondary in which Shapiro expresses his views on homoseuxality/LGBT rights. This would allow us to expand his the section which is seriously short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

First, there are no secondary sources because Shapiro is still contemporaneous. (Everything written about him is not temporally-removed from what he has said.) Second, what you've posted are left-leaning sources which seek to castigate the subject. My goal is to prevent editors from being able to craft their narrative. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I must have been mistaken by what qualifies as a secondary source. Though some of my sources were left leaning a great deal of the sources I used to write that subsection were primary sources written by Ben Shapiro that explicitly elaborated his views on the subject and I believe would be useful for this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the problem writing about living people. You are not forbidden to add content based upon primary sources, but it helps if you discuss the content and come to consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a list of the primary sources written by Ben Shapiro on the issue of LGBT right I've compiled.

• https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2003/08/20/militant-gay-english-on-the-rise-n1334827
• https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2015/03/11/is-being-gay-a-choice-n1968535
• https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2015/07/01/the-real-goal-of-the-samesex-marriage-movement-n2019553
• https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2005/01/12/the-supreme-court-vs-the-constitution-n1160708

User:S1d6arrett23 March 9th, 2018 3:18 ET —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally overcooked

Hi Tooth Dover - you will perhaps remember me from Kendra Haste. It felt tremendously hurtful how you pared the article down but, (with a little rational input from Patar knight), we at least got to a point of mutual acceptance. The reason I'm calling you up here is because my special interest is American politics, and Ben Shapiro is an incredibly destructive hot-rod in the sphere. I consider his page to be, effectively, a call to political arms and therefore in no way encyclopedic. The page goes back 14 years and is effectively a political diatribe, whereby Wikipedia is being coopted for political purposes. I thought you and Patar are more able than me to wield the axe here but, if neither of you is interested, I will soldier on . This article is an abuse of Wikipedia and I intend to do my best to pare it down in such a manner that it describes the person only, and not his young life's work. Your assistance would be appreciated. Mark^Dask 17:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning is a bit odd. If Shapiro is an "incredibly destructive hot-rod" I think of a hot rod as a car, but whatever that makes him more notable, not less. We don't tone down our coverage of political positions, or their exponents, simply because we might think those views are harmful if implemented.

I don't see the current coverage as being a "call to action"; as far as I can tell, Shapiro's views are stated mostly neutrally. I haven't been over the article with a fine-tooth comb, though, just gave it a quick once-over, so I might easily have missed it. There does seem to be a paucity of coverage of criticism of Shapiro. That can be fixed by adding sourced criticism, not by removing material. --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Remember we summarise all subjects with a neutral point of view. this article is hardly what I would describe as a call to arms, but useful contributions are encouraged and I can't see anything obvious wrong with your idea of paring it down, just remember not to remove too much information. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a bit concerned that MarkDask has undertaken the project of "paring [the article] down" based on the fact that MarkDask doesn't like Shapiro's views or actions in the political sphere. That's not a good reason at all. That said, the actual edits don't appear terrible for the most part. I might quibble with a couple of them. This list is looking at the diff of just MarkDask's edits, so some of them may already be out of date:
    • I am not sure on what basis the {{Conservatism US}} template was removed. This is a typical "part of a series" template; they exist for all sorts of political schools. The presence of the template is not an endorsement of either Shapiro or conservatism in the US. It does make an implicit claim, I guess, which is that Shapiro is part of conservatism in the US — if that is under dispute, then please make that case.
    • The removal of most of the coverage of the books should be discussed. Perhaps it was overblown coverage, or maybe just boring and not useful enough to the typical reader to justify the space it took up. I am not taking a position either way at this time; I just think the change should be reviewed.
    • Changing "the NYT described" to "Shapiro claims to have been described" (I may have the exact quote wrong) doesn't make sense without evidence that Shapiro made such a claim. Glancing at later edit summaries, this one may already have been addressed.
  • That's it for now. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

Ben has many transphobic and views that should be included in his bio. It is doing the readership a disservice to exclude his widely publicized prejudices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHNXGfaM https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/328894989285351424?lang=en 104.34.202.79 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sorts of edits are being suggested. Do you want a section on Shapiro's statements on Transgenderism? Or are you suggesting it should be included in the opening section of the page? It hardly seems central enough to his identity to include it at the top of the page. It might make sense to put a section on transgenderism under the heading of "views." BenjaminMan (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Journalism: order of events

I just wanted to know why the section about him working for Breitbart (2012-2016) was after the section about his founding of TruthRevolt (2013-2018). I think the order should be Breitbart-TruthRevolt or simply put the whole section in chronological order. Tolkien5 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

The section on UCLA BDS Proposal is heavily biased. It offers highly subjective descriptions of crowd response with no supporting evidence (e.g. Shapiro's arguments were "embraced with wide acceptance from the crowd.") and assumes Shapiro's stated claims as objective fact. Existing text reads: "Shapiro appeared at his alma mater to deliver counterarguments to the resolution that were embraced with wide acceptance from the crowd.[31] Shapiro pointed out the hypocrisy of the selective moral outrage in targeting Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, which was described as far less egregious than the human rights violations carried out by other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and by groups such as the Palestinians themselves. He pointed to the differences between Israel and the rest of the countries in the Middle East as it relates to the treatment of sexual and religious freedom and diversity, and made the claim that the BDS Movement is fueled not by true concern for human rights but instead by antisemitism.[32]"

Suggested text: "Shapiro appeared at his alma mater to deliver counterarguments to the resolution.[31] Shapiro described the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians as less egregious than the human rights violations carried out by other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and by groups such as the Palestinians themselves. He argued that Israel is exceptional in the Middle East in terms of its treatment of sexual and religious freedom and diversity, and made the claim that the BDS Movement is fueled not by true concern for human rights but instead by antisemitism.[32]"

I believe my suggested edit conveys the information presented in a more neutral manner.

LeifyGreenMusic (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made the modifications as Leify wanted, but was just wondering why he put a [31]? There is no citation at that spot.Tolkien5 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Instead of "Trump", the section titled as such should probably be renamed to "Criticisms of Trump" to better represent the nature of the section. Nonk51 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the section, it was a fairly new section with no sources. If the statement can be adequately sourced it would not need a section all on its own. It should be incorporated into the article. ~ GB fan 10:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Shapiro is conservative

And it should be noted in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Dates in lede

Lede states he writes for Creators Syndicate, but doesn't mention when or for how long. This is also true of when he founded Daily Wire and the lede should make clear that its a website and/or news opinion blog. IMHO given his fame (or infamy from opposing side) these kind of details are important in ledes because most Wikipedia readers pay most attention to ledes rather than reading the entire length of an article. I think there's even a guideline advising ledes to summarize more details than included here. Mansheimer (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Palestinian Removal

I'd like to know why reference to Shapiro's article about forcibly removing Palestinians from occupied territories (and his subsequent backpedaling) was removed from this Wikipedia article. He is listed as a journalist, and it is important that any journalist on Wikipedia receive full and fair coverage of their past published articles, including those that clearly showed biased and immoral positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.247.250 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is what was removed: In a column for Townhall.com in 2003, during the Second Intifada, Shapiro proposed expelling the Palestinian population from the West Bank, writing, "The Jews don't realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. … After World War II, Poland was recreated by the Allied Powers. … Anywhere from 3.5 million to 9 million Germans were forcibly expelled from the new Polish territory and relocated in Germany. … The Germans accepted the new border, and decades of conflict between Poles and Germans ended. … If Germans, who had a centuries-old connection to the newly created Polish territory, could be expelled, then surely Palestinians, whose claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at best, can be expelled."[24] Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg said, "this was the position of the extremist Meir Kahane, who was banned by the Israeli Supreme Court from participating in Israeli politics because of his racist views."[25]

A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light.[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.247.250 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I would also really like to know why this has been removed. Shapiro has made many, many controversial (I would argue racist) statements about Arabs and Palestinians. For example, he argues Arabs should be offered equal rights in Israel, that the Palestinian population is "rotten to the core", opposes a two state solution and tweeted "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." If these are no longer his views, then it's fine to disclose that in this Wikipedia page. But mentioning the fact that he was a nationally syndicated columnist from when he was 17 without disclosing any of the (controversial) views he put forward in that capacity seems highly dishonest to me. O lockers (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Shapiro has since said called that transfer ‘idea “<a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/03/13/what-can-israel-do-n1532133">inhumane and impractical</a>,” as well as a “<a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/768838624078999552">moral and philosophical error</a>.”’ (Quote from https://www.dailywire.com/news/33362/so-heres-giant-list-all-dumb-stuff-ive-ever-done-ben-shapiro which he notes is incomplete) CWC 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Shapiro's list of "dumb stuff"

Shapiro recently published an admittedly-incomplete list of “dumb stuff” that he's said or done: So, Here's A Giant List Of All The Dumb Stuff I've Ever Done (Don't Worry, I'll Keep Updating It), which might be worth mentioning or citing in the article. Cheers, CWC 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

article makes contentious 'global warming' remark?

From the article: 'Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity." This is in contrast to 97–98 percent of the most published climate researchers who say humans are very likely causing most global warming.'

I note that wikipedia has a separate article about 'global warming'. Does this belong here? It seems tendentious editorializing to me, though just rephrasing it a bit might improve it drastically in my eyes. I don't really disagree that various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. However, I actually do not even know what '97-98 percent of the most published climate researchers' may be taken to mean? Is it 97, or 98? It looks like some sort of a percentage of a percentage -- 'of the most published climate researchers'? I might get a clarification in response, about who are these scientists that were surveyed, but I'll do the footwork, I recognize the strange '97-98%' number, from this link:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

Here: 'we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers..most actively publishing in the field..'

However, it's not that I'm asking who are these scientists (of course I don't actually get to see a list of names, even if I follow all the links). It's that also, what are they convinced by? According to the article, they 'say humans are very likely causing most global warming'. That is simply not what they say. Instead, the link asserts that they are convinced that 'Anthropogenic change' has been detected and/or estimated. The question seems urgent to me, whether or not this is really in contast to your Ben Shapiro paraphrase, where he 'acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity."'

Note that I'm not trying to debate global warming, here. Indeed, I'm a believer. I'm not Breitbart News. Does it take Breitbart News, though, to say 'Climate Change: No, It's Not a 97 Percent Consensus'? This link is to something by William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, and it used Google Scholar. This link does not even, itself, involve doing a survey of anybody. Just to be a pill, if you like, then, I wonder if the Ben Shapiro article as currently written, could be said to falsely strongly imply that the science is settled..? Because it's obviously not. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. As I say I'm not trying to debate it here, I doubt we disagree about global warming any of us, but in terms of the article on Ben Shapiro, I think this also is not the place to be to be trying to debate it.DanLanglois (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd get the input of the WP:FRINGE noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.

• The cited article has only 3 paragraphs that mention Shapiro:

Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief at the Daily Wire and host of The Ben Shapiro Show podcast argued that Democrats are responsible for shutting down the conversation about climate change.

“Here’s the bottom line: As long as Republicans propose solutions that are different from the ones Democrats propose, Democrats will call them climate deniers, then the Republican base will react to that by actually denying,” Shapiro, a former editor at Breitbart, said. “They’ll say ‘fine, if you’re going to say I’m a climate denier anyways, then screw you. I’m not interested in your little debate here.’”

(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.”)

• I'm not sure that ‘having questions’ is significant enough to mention in the article.
• I find Shapiro's point about politics (“a climate denier anyways”) much more interesting, but again I'm not sure it's worth mentioning in the article.
• Given that Shapiro is vociferously criticized by both the alt-right and the left, we need to avoid turning the article into a catalog of criticism.
• So I'm inclined to completely delete the bit about climate change.

What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC 12:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In reply to @DanLanglois and Chris Chittleborough:, I added his opinion on this because Ben is one of the most prominent conservative political pundits and I thought his viewpoint on this issue was interesting, being featured in a recent report on Republican positions about climate change. Also, Daily Wire appears to report on this topic frequently with a very specific point-of-view. I thought it would be also important to note that most climate scientists believe humans have caused recent warming.--The lorax (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As to how to change the article, maybe something like this is good for me: 'Recent reports on global warming are, to put it mildly, sobering.'

I suggest taking the word 'consensus' out, because maybe technically, a 'consensus' is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

Of course, a number of people can’t be convinced by the facts due to their polarized views.

Cross-reference a Ben Shapiro quote about the issue:

'For example, The Economist reported in 2014, “Between 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s.” That forced the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to come up with a whole new way of evaluating its data to fight those results. It also forced global warming advocates to claim that the oceans somehow ate up all of the excess heat in the air. All of that led President Obama to claim to the world in Paris that 14 of the past 15 years have been the hottest on record. But when scientists said that 2014 was the hottest year on record, they admitted they were only 38% sure that was the case.'

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1472/five-reasons-obamas-climate-change-agenda-ben-shapiro DanLanglois (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "consensus on climate change controversy" is commonly used and widely understood. As an encyclopedia, we must be very cautious not to subtly validate the fringe position that climate change is not anthropogenic. Since the Daily Wire is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, this link is not useful here, but as it repeats a number of easily debunked climate-change denier talking points, it really only shows Shapiro's knack for sophistry anyway. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You describe 'a number of easily debunked climate-change denier talking points', but I guess that's homework for me. If I am being given work I'll turn it in here, I followed the link you provided, and found nothing that even purports to be relevant. You say 'Shapiro's knack for sophistry', and indicate that the Daily Wire is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It is, at the very least, a media source. If your point is that virtually every story favors the right and denigrates the left, then I take the point. Maybe the Daily Wire, on the whole, has a mixed track record with fact checkers. Maybe that puts it in poor company indeed. Shall we agree that it is something like BrexitCentral, to our eyes. However, I indicated that I wanted to 'Cross-reference a Ben Shapiro quote about the issue'. I note, on this very talk page, a lengthy discussion about Breitbart News, and for example: 'If anyone would like to say that Brietbart is a reliable source for anything other than as a source for what Brietbart said, I invite you to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.' I notice, that Breitbart is a reliable source for what Breitbart said -- I figure that the Daily Wire is a reliable source for what Ben Shapiro said -- because, he currently serves as editor-in-chief (& is founder). My intention was not to, like, provide a number of articles which cast doubt that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. My point was what does Ben Shapiro actually say? Note also, that you may find these articles inaccurate and misleading, but I wonder, we are experts? What is 'Shapiro's knack for sophistry'? To my eyes, it looks like an insult. It's scornful, it's disrespectful. You know, UCLA is my alma mater, and Ben Shapiro graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Los Angeles, at age 20. Then cum laude from Harvard Law School. I think your description of Ben Shapiro, will offend him. It could be classified as derogatory language. This air of hostility provokes me to clarify my feelings, about the original issue..

Perhaps it is now too late to stop a great deal of change to our planet’s climate and its global payload of disease, destruction, and death. And certainly I expect that somebody might be annoyed (with me and so forth), because they think the science really is settled. But I was curious, and looked to see if wikipedia claims, for example, that 'Al Gore is right about global warming'. It doesn't, though maybe that's a good idea? I'm kidding. But by the same token, we could insert a great deal more into the Ben Shapiro article, about how the evidence is overwhelming, and the time to act is now, and many powerful industry interests have spread dangerous myths about climate change, and no matter how much contrarians try to cloak reality, the evidence is not going away, and scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it, and the scientific consensus is clear. Maybe the article can say that Ben Shapiro misrepresents 'scientific uncertainty' to undermine climate science findings. If that's not a good idea, then why not? I don't think it's a good idea, but I figure that's because uncertainty exists on the exact timing and intensity of the types of impacts that global warming is causing. How much warming will actually happen? How much land-based ice and glaciers will melt?

I don't want to bury the subject -- I think it belongs in the article, nice call. But I like to quibble about what 'consensus' means, for the same reason that I got involved in a debate about whether 'international opinion' is against Israel. I lost that debate too. Yet I still think I have a point -- what does this process of decision-making that is called 'international opinion' actually seek? Like, maybe 'widespread agreement'? But what is that? Is it merely majority of opinion? To stick with my analogy, how does the world feel about Israel/Palestine? One way to respond is to give me 'how the world sees Israel', in one chart. Like maybe, of what three years of surveys on the world's opinion of Israel found. It may seem rather perverse of me, to object if wikipedia says of Israel, that Israel is not a welcome member of the International community, and again, that Israel is moving closer to international isolation as Europe and the international community grow increasingly angry at the occupation and human rights violations. I realize this is wordy, and I regret it, but I left what turned into a debate there, on September 10. Going back a year later to look at the talk page for 'Israeli Settlement', I find that the article eloquently rants at length, about how 'The international community considers the settlements illegal..'. I remain unconvinced by the locution. I had pointed out, for example, the wikipedia statement about 'international community, that 'the term is commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue', but is typically used to imply the existence of a common point of view etc. It does not refer literally to all nations or states in the world.

My point here is not to vent my feelings about this or that controversial issue. I don't actually have a set of political solutions to offer, I don't wish for people to note my personal opinions. For me the issue is 'publishing standards', and improving the article when it employs abstractions, employed informally, such as 'consensus' or 'international opinion'. These are tendentious locutions. Again, my point is not that smoking causes cancer or whatever. I see that currently, the article 'Israeli settlement', is subject to active arbitration remedies resulting from three arbitration cases. Wow. My point is not whether humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to change, with potentially unknown and unalterable impact. Instead, I am musing about who it is that gets to look at a sampling of international institutions and measure them by how much attention they receive, versus how much they actually make things happen, and who gets to say how important they really are? This is why, as an analogy, it seems relevant to me that European coldness to Israel gets a lot of attention, but there’s no substance to it. Israel hasn’t won over Wikipedia. But that issue is just an analogy to the climate issue. It appears to me, that there is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous.

Here is Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. An American atmospheric physicist. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

Wikipedia says this on the article about him: 'He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.'

Of course, I wonder about this term 'the scientific consensus', his term? Given that after all, this guy was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change. Atmospheric physics is his field.

When there's a consensus, everyone agrees on something. The definition of consensus is an agreement made by a group. Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F

I haven't changed the article, and don't want to. I'm only mildly frustrated, here. However, I think I'm right. At least, I worry in these cases about what is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. I guess this is my 'thing', and will take me next, to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, for reporting issues etc. I don't mind taking the discussion to a more appropriate place, and as far as Ben Shapiro goes, I can certainly relent. My issue is more general one with defining the relevant policy. The goal is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's three core content policies. So, I am familiarizing myself with this policy -- is it non-negotiable? What can the principles upon which it is based be superseded by? My understanding is that Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. One is to avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, and to prefer nonjudgmental language, and to present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. These are not my rules. Maybe it's tricky, then, to properly indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. There is due and undue weight. Of course, generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. But we have a NPOV disagreement, here.

'As an encyclopedia, we must be very cautious not to subtly validate the fringe position that climate change is not anthropogenic.'

This talk of 'fringe' makes me, personally, think of fringe political groups. Therefore I note, if it is relevant, that there is no bipartisan consensus. It bothers more and more people, but it hasn't reached a critical mass of public opinion that would compel Congress and the White House to act decisively. Consider, the announcement that the U.S. will withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate accord, and the removal of climate change from the list of top U.S. national security threats. And that in general, Republicans view global warming skeptically. About seven in 10 Republicans (69%) think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated in the news:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

Perhaps it doesn't seem natural to ask: What do Americans think of global warming? In any case, Americans have grown increasingly polarized in their views on global warming. Remember WP:NPOV.

There are also people such as Fred Singer (an emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia) and Willie Soon (an astrophysicist at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), who both claim to be serious scientists working at prestigious institutions. What does wikipedia have to say about Fred Singer?:

'Singers's opinions conflict with the scientific opinion on climate change, where there is overwhelming consensus for anthropogenic global warming, and a decisive link between carbon dioxide concentration and global average temperatures, as well as consensus that such a change to the climate will have dangerous consequences.'

By the way, I'm amused by the next sentence too: 'In 2005 Mother Jones magazine described Singer as a "godfather of global warming denial."'

My point here is that Mother Jones magazine counts, apparently, as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. It's not that I disagree. I do notice their left bias, I assume that we agree about that too. Even more interesting, I wonder about CNN, because I trust Mother Jones more. So okay, what exactly is the nature of Wikipedia's standards? Not a rhetorical question, but really the question more abstract -- if The Daily Wire is like National Review, then what? Credibility is a difficult thing to rate in regards to a news source even one such as Brietbart. But I digress, interesting stuff, getting back to the thread though, what about Willie Soon?:

'Soon is a climate change denier, disputing the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.'

Well, I see 'climate change denier', and this seems rather an arbitrary way to put it. Maybe climate contrarian. According to the very next sentence, he is not a 'climate change denier' -- he contends climate change is driven by the sun. Here's another point:

'As of 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry over the previous decade, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.'

Source is the New York Times. Call me a pill, but I see 'over $1.2 million' and I pine for an actual number. What, $1.25m? And how do we define 'the fossil fuel industry', I wonder -- does this category include, for example, a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers? We call that the fossil fuel lobby, maybe? But isn't there something that is the *actual* main oil lobby? And it's not the Charles G Koch Foundation. Supposing that I don't feel misled if you don't, I also don't mean to be coy, I'm familiar with the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings. Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center shared the documents with news organisations:

http://climateinvestigations.org/willie-soon-scandal-corporate-funding-year-by-year/

Now, maybe there is a topic here for the Smithsonian Inspector General. Remember, Willie Soon works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA as they call it) on the Smithsonian side of the building called the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Every time Dr. Soon made a proposal and then got a grant from the Koch Foundation, from ExxonMobil or Southern Company, CfA Director Alcock and his grants department staff were deeply involved in making it happen, crafting budgets, sending email, signing contracts and letters of thanks. I confidently guess that the reply to this, is that 'The Smithsonian takes a lot of corporate money.' Yet I still wonder, if the point is that he's gotten $409,000 from a subsidiary of utilities giant Southern Company and at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, then is this really 'the fossil fuel industry'? Well, at least, Southern Company (NYSE: SO) is America’s premier energy company, right? But it is not precisely ExxonMobil. I assume that the clean energy sector doesn't count as part of 'the fossil fuel industry'. I think of Shell, of Chevron, of PetroChina, Total, BP, Petrobras, Sinopec, ConocoPhillips, Eni.

But, Southern Company? It seems to me, that electricity is still the company's bread and butter. This is the regulated electric utility business. Now, my point here is not that could this mean that global warming is caused by the Sun and not man's pollution? Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun. I'm not kidding, but I think I'm hilarious. Certainly, let's remember that there are political and ideological ramifications of global warming, and a lot of people — politicians, in fact — have a lot at stake and are known to twist science to meet their needs. And okay, maybe the Earth is getting warmer, and maybe we are dumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but still, I see 'over $1.2 million' and I pine for an actual number. That's even leaving aside the point that obsessing over his source of funding could be construed as a red herring..DanLanglois (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Except the first few sentences.

But anybody who talks about global warming and uses temperature differences starting with the year 1998 is either dishonest or incompetent, because 1998 was an outlier, a spike. If you start with that year and end with anything up to 2013, your result will be "there is no global warming". If you go beyond 2013, you will not get that result. If you start with 1997 or 1999, you will not get that result either. So, the interval 1998 to 2013 is very carefully selected to yield that result. That is a despicably dishonest tactic called cherry picking real scientists do not use, and any source that uses it is unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)