14:3214:32, 3 June 2019diffhist−799
Ben Shapiro
Undid revision 900112043 by
SharabSalam (
talk) The video does not say that he's talking about his book, the statement does not reflect what Shapiro says in the video, and the video is not cited. This violates BRD, BLP, and NPOV (as reviews of the book are mixed at worst). Please see talk.Tag: Undo
13:2713:27, 3 June 2019diffhist−780
Ben Shapiro
→Author: Cannot use an opinion piece to source a statement in Wikipedia's voice. The claim is actually not true, so this becomes a BLP issue. The source doesn't even support the claim as it acknowledges that Shapiro was making a different argument than the one the author invented for him.
13:0613:06, 3 June 2019diffhist−119
Ben Shapiro
→Author: This information is not in the source. In fact, the source says that Shapiro used fuzzy language and points out others. Also, this is from an op-ed, and we shouldn't use WP's voice to make a claim that is knowingly false.
03:4203:42, 2 May 2019diffhist+530
Carl Benjamin
Added citation where Benjamin directly states his opinion on when, where, and at what Phillips was laughing; misrepresenting his opinion is a BLP violationTag: Undo
03:0403:04, 21 April 2019diffhist+387
Carl Benjamin
Undid revision 893401972 by
Grayfell (
talk) The Guardian and the Birmingham are referring to the same exact incident. By definition one cannot be synth if the other is not symth.Tag: Undo
02:5302:53, 17 March 2019diffhist−46
Carl Benjamin
I agree that this should be the first thing said in this section, as it was for most of this article's recent history; but these edits introduce too many problems
14:3214:32, 3 June 2019diffhist−799
Ben Shapiro
Undid revision 900112043 by
SharabSalam (
talk) The video does not say that he's talking about his book, the statement does not reflect what Shapiro says in the video, and the video is not cited. This violates BRD, BLP, and NPOV (as reviews of the book are mixed at worst). Please see talk.Tag: Undo
13:2713:27, 3 June 2019diffhist−780
Ben Shapiro
→Author: Cannot use an opinion piece to source a statement in Wikipedia's voice. The claim is actually not true, so this becomes a BLP issue. The source doesn't even support the claim as it acknowledges that Shapiro was making a different argument than the one the author invented for him.
13:0613:06, 3 June 2019diffhist−119
Ben Shapiro
→Author: This information is not in the source. In fact, the source says that Shapiro used fuzzy language and points out others. Also, this is from an op-ed, and we shouldn't use WP's voice to make a claim that is knowingly false.
03:4203:42, 2 May 2019diffhist+530
Carl Benjamin
Added citation where Benjamin directly states his opinion on when, where, and at what Phillips was laughing; misrepresenting his opinion is a BLP violationTag: Undo
03:0403:04, 21 April 2019diffhist+387
Carl Benjamin
Undid revision 893401972 by
Grayfell (
talk) The Guardian and the Birmingham are referring to the same exact incident. By definition one cannot be synth if the other is not symth.Tag: Undo
02:5302:53, 17 March 2019diffhist−46
Carl Benjamin
I agree that this should be the first thing said in this section, as it was for most of this article's recent history; but these edits introduce too many problems