![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There are irrelevant addenda in the two pieces of text:
"Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity", in contrast to the scientific consensus."
and
"During an interview with Dan Harris of ABC's Nightline in September 2017, Shapiro said that transgenderism "is a psychological disorder. So that's not an insult to people who suffer from psychological disorders…you are not doing a service to people who are suffering from a mental disorder to humor them by suggesting that their mental disorder is reflected in objective reality."[31][32] Harris went on to note that the American Psychological Association does not define being transgender as a mental illness"
Bringing up whether he is right or wrong is clearly outside the scope of the paragraph. -- Danielg00 ( talk) 22:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Source, pls. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a biography. Why are we positing opinions not supported by sources? There is no source saying Shapiro's views differ from scientific consensus. But we have edits such as this and this. Bus stop ( talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Two reversions were made by editor Grayfell (his talk page is worth perusing!) to my deletions of two irrelevant clauses contained in the "Views" section of this article. In neither revert did Graylogic bother to directly respond to my detailed reasoning for deleting two inappropriate retorts to two of Shapiro's "Views". He simply responded, in a hilariously pompous manner, "As an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to refute factual errors" and "Wikipedia doesn't propagate FRINGE theories or pseudoscience through pedantry."
What exactly is the point of a section entitled "Views" in a biographical article on a living person? In the case of Ben Shapiro, it appears to be nothing more than a dumping ground for editors (who clearly detest the subject) to post arbitrary statements of that subject so that he or she may then refute those opinions. A section entitled "Views" -- if it is to exist at all -- should be just that: a simple delineation of the subjects "Views" (which by definition are the subject's opinions). Any editorial retort to those opinions is wholly inappropriate (and particularly so when they are misleading -- see "climate change" post just above). This is the case EVEN if a particular stated "View" is factually wrong -- otherwise editors are simply setting up straw men.
Why not change the section title to "Controversial views and public response." At least that would be intellectually honest. But of course all this is academic. Wikipedia loses again. Christian B Martin ( talk) 01:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Good Lord... My points, made over and over again, have nothing to do with climate change denial or other "FRINGE" topics. This is like debating with a brick wall. Rebutting an argument I haven't made (as you do above) is called fallacious argument. If you are going to be the ultimate arbiter of this (and god forbid) other articles, perhaps you could bone up on your elementary logic. Christian B Martin ( talk) 03:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be a dispute towards how to characterize Ben Shapiro's position on climate change. It's an issue he clearly talks about a lot as seen in the numerous articles and videos on Google that come up when you search his position on it. There seems to be a point of contention over the line: " in contrast to the scientific consensus." Snooganssnoogans, Bus stop, how should we square with this? "Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950," according to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Should we keep the "in contrast..." part but find another way to say it?-- The lorax ( talk) 02:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
For his part, Shapiro acknowledges climate change is occurring, but says he has questions including "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity."[1] And this source says
Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures.So my conclusion is that our article should say
"Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity".Bus stop ( talk) 02:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
the party's full acceptance of the science is still far off...[2] (emphasis mine). "The science" here, is the scientific opinion on climate change, and the attribution of recent climate change is very clear that humans are primarily responsible. Shapiro's questions are his own business, but his acceptance of the science is still far off, and we should not ignore that. Grayfell ( talk) 02:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
A lot of the content in the 'Campus lectures' section is poorly sourced. We should try to re-write the section on the basis of what's reported in RS, and remove inaccurate, misleading and trivial content sourced to non-RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed his statements as I think they haven't been reported widely enough for us to be able to quote them directly. Also we should be summarizing sources; if they list 20 terrible or divisive things Shapiro's said (without commenting on them), we don't go and pick the two or three that are the worst. While this article needs improvement in several places, this is quite a serious issue. Should the statements be included in the article? wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Shapiro opposes abortion, opposes the Supreme Court ruling that prohibited bans on same-sex marriage, considers homosexual activity a sin and described discrimination against gays as trivial. Wumbolo removed these political views. They should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
More content that I will add once Wumbolo stops being a veto player: Shapiro referring to women who have abortions as "baby killers" and saying "a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child than two men or two women". [7] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
should be properly attributed in the text, per WP:RSP, and so should info provided by Slate to ensure neutrality in such a controversial issue. The other sources, e.g. RS, NYT, are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable.
Should the following text be added to the "Views" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
vastly minute." is he cramming for the SATs or something? Grayfell ( talk) 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
statements should be properly attributed. I did not check whether the Rolling Stone and Slate source are sufficient in sourcing the statement, but if they are, MMFA should probably be removed as a source. feminist ( talk) 07:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
"transgenderism" is not a term. the headline ought to be "trans rights" or something along those lines instead. Mx-Spoon ( talk) 19:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:POINT behavior. wumbolo ^^^ 10:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I notice that Ben Shapiro is labelled as conservative in the lead. Should this be changed to far right similar to Lauren Southern who holds similar views? Thanks. Dig deeper talk 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Quite aside from the sourcing issue, generally labels like "far right" are often intended to disparage someone as an extremist. Likewise with far left. So I would resist the use of such labels where possible. —Approaching ( talk) 06:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
In the article section titled "Political ideology", the following is stated:
The source ( NYT article source) doesn't say that. It says “The left believes in a hierarchy of victimhood,” he said in Utah." The problem is, Shapiro appears to be talking about different groups when he discusses "the left" versus "liberals". (Cf. his tweet). Accordingly, I've tagged the claim as dubious.
—Approaching ( talk) 22:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove incorrectly from the line "Shapiro described being transgender as a mental disorder and incorrectly equated it with gender dysphoria." or rephrase it, as is now you make it sound as if he was ignorant and talking about two completely different issues, when it was a totally valid equation. Dysphoria is a symptom of being transgender. Tzukishiro ( talk) 01:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add that Ben Shapiro's advertisers have pulled out following his remarks about "Baby Hitler" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaki Naggar ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first picture of ben shapiro needs changed because it is not him. It is a picture of Lil Pump 150.243.197.181 ( talk) 17:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was thinking about adding the 'Conservatism Series' Infobox on Steven Crowder's page, as he is in said series. Austinusa ( talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Which caption should be used in the infobox?
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are quotations linked to the article that are supposedly by Ben Shapiro but are not linked to a source. There are quotes that are linked to a secondary source but no primary source. If the quotes are not linked to a primary source they should be removed. 2600:8804:8080:5220:D04D:F312:60B4:C9D4 ( talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Should be "June 2016" or "(June 2016)" but it does not need to state his name. His name is right above the picture, and also the title of the article. For reasons explained in detail in WP:YOUDONTSAY, I think the caption should remove his name (and same for every other article on WP). Leviv ich 23:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am adding Ben Shapiro because: it is not clear who is that guy. It is hard to understand and assume. Could it his partner, guru, twin, place, or what? THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
MrX as you suggested, I will start over the RFC again. But it would be appreciated if you could do that and show a demo. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox." Leviv ich 00:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The guy's name is both above and below his picture without any caption. I'll support any ANI report about Wizard's combative editing User:Beyond My Ken. The comment that it is not clear who the photo is of is one of the dumbest things I've seen this week. Legacypac ( talk) 04:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Shapiro's views on Islamic radicalism should be addressed. I am not an expert on this and cannot find sources that are reliable enough. But if someone is free to lend a hand, a good place to start is to read Ben Shapiro says a majority of Muslims are radicals, published by PolitiFact. The article consists of the original source (the original YouTube video), and argues against Shapiro. I think it is a great source and follows WP:NPOV. Thanks, and let me know if more explanation is required. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
User:Drmies I'd like to re-up the inclusion of Ben Shapiro's views on Islam. One can argue that not every opinion from a notable person is worthy of inclusion, but Ben Shapiro was the user that the perpetrator of the
Quebec City mosque shooting visited Shapiro's twitter
more than anyone else. Seems important.
Fordswish (
talk) 22:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)fordswish
If its in Bens book whats the problem? Is drmies a jew who loves ben or a muslim? Surely his bias needs to be taken into account?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apemonkey1 ( talk • contribs) 8:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Biased
"he has written seven books, the first being 2004's Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth; Shapiro began writing this book at age 17. Also at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States."
A) Why is name of the first he wrote included in the lead paragraph ? B). I wish to change "Shapiro began writing this book at age 17. Also at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States." to "While Ben Shapiro was writing the book at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. C.) Those are the changes I would to make Cheers Baldr The Brave ( talk) 15:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The writer seems to think that Vox is reliable and relies very heavily on it. Just something I noticed. Cheers Baldr The Brave ( talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The New Yorker, Haaretz and Vox have described Shapiro as "right-wing."- critics by multiple outlets.
Shapiro later described President Barack Obama as a "philosophical fascist."- a fact.
Vox describes Shapiro as a polarizing figure, in part due to statements such as "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." (2010).- critic and well supported by the quoting the subject.
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Source number 92 is an opinion piece and in no way verifiable by fact. It should be removed because it provides the illusion of validity to a statement that cannot be prpven true without evidence. 2601:191:200:2468:C890:D30D:DFD1:E1B7 ( talk) 06:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Looking at the current source no. 92
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/05/ben-shapiros-messy-breakup-with-breitbart.html?gtm=top>m=top it says "As the Daily Wire noted, Shapiro was hit with a wave of vicious anti-Semitic abuse, including multiple Holocaust references and requests that Shapiro and his family be sent to the ovens." I think it is best that a discussion takes place here regarding the source if any editor thinks it should be removed.
Sam
Sailor 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There are irrelevant addenda in the two pieces of text:
"Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity", in contrast to the scientific consensus."
and
"During an interview with Dan Harris of ABC's Nightline in September 2017, Shapiro said that transgenderism "is a psychological disorder. So that's not an insult to people who suffer from psychological disorders…you are not doing a service to people who are suffering from a mental disorder to humor them by suggesting that their mental disorder is reflected in objective reality."[31][32] Harris went on to note that the American Psychological Association does not define being transgender as a mental illness"
Bringing up whether he is right or wrong is clearly outside the scope of the paragraph. -- Danielg00 ( talk) 22:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Source, pls. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a biography. Why are we positing opinions not supported by sources? There is no source saying Shapiro's views differ from scientific consensus. But we have edits such as this and this. Bus stop ( talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Two reversions were made by editor Grayfell (his talk page is worth perusing!) to my deletions of two irrelevant clauses contained in the "Views" section of this article. In neither revert did Graylogic bother to directly respond to my detailed reasoning for deleting two inappropriate retorts to two of Shapiro's "Views". He simply responded, in a hilariously pompous manner, "As an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to refute factual errors" and "Wikipedia doesn't propagate FRINGE theories or pseudoscience through pedantry."
What exactly is the point of a section entitled "Views" in a biographical article on a living person? In the case of Ben Shapiro, it appears to be nothing more than a dumping ground for editors (who clearly detest the subject) to post arbitrary statements of that subject so that he or she may then refute those opinions. A section entitled "Views" -- if it is to exist at all -- should be just that: a simple delineation of the subjects "Views" (which by definition are the subject's opinions). Any editorial retort to those opinions is wholly inappropriate (and particularly so when they are misleading -- see "climate change" post just above). This is the case EVEN if a particular stated "View" is factually wrong -- otherwise editors are simply setting up straw men.
Why not change the section title to "Controversial views and public response." At least that would be intellectually honest. But of course all this is academic. Wikipedia loses again. Christian B Martin ( talk) 01:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Good Lord... My points, made over and over again, have nothing to do with climate change denial or other "FRINGE" topics. This is like debating with a brick wall. Rebutting an argument I haven't made (as you do above) is called fallacious argument. If you are going to be the ultimate arbiter of this (and god forbid) other articles, perhaps you could bone up on your elementary logic. Christian B Martin ( talk) 03:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be a dispute towards how to characterize Ben Shapiro's position on climate change. It's an issue he clearly talks about a lot as seen in the numerous articles and videos on Google that come up when you search his position on it. There seems to be a point of contention over the line: " in contrast to the scientific consensus." Snooganssnoogans, Bus stop, how should we square with this? "Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950," according to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Should we keep the "in contrast..." part but find another way to say it?-- The lorax ( talk) 02:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
For his part, Shapiro acknowledges climate change is occurring, but says he has questions including "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity."[1] And this source says
Since 1950, the report's authors say, humanity is clearly responsible for more than half of the observed increase in temperatures.So my conclusion is that our article should say
"Shapiro acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions "what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity".Bus stop ( talk) 02:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
the party's full acceptance of the science is still far off...[2] (emphasis mine). "The science" here, is the scientific opinion on climate change, and the attribution of recent climate change is very clear that humans are primarily responsible. Shapiro's questions are his own business, but his acceptance of the science is still far off, and we should not ignore that. Grayfell ( talk) 02:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
A lot of the content in the 'Campus lectures' section is poorly sourced. We should try to re-write the section on the basis of what's reported in RS, and remove inaccurate, misleading and trivial content sourced to non-RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed his statements as I think they haven't been reported widely enough for us to be able to quote them directly. Also we should be summarizing sources; if they list 20 terrible or divisive things Shapiro's said (without commenting on them), we don't go and pick the two or three that are the worst. While this article needs improvement in several places, this is quite a serious issue. Should the statements be included in the article? wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Shapiro opposes abortion, opposes the Supreme Court ruling that prohibited bans on same-sex marriage, considers homosexual activity a sin and described discrimination against gays as trivial. Wumbolo removed these political views. They should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
More content that I will add once Wumbolo stops being a veto player: Shapiro referring to women who have abortions as "baby killers" and saying "a man and a woman do a better job of raising a child than two men or two women". [7] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
should be properly attributed in the text, per WP:RSP, and so should info provided by Slate to ensure neutrality in such a controversial issue. The other sources, e.g. RS, NYT, are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable.
Should the following text be added to the "Views" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
vastly minute." is he cramming for the SATs or something? Grayfell ( talk) 06:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
statements should be properly attributed. I did not check whether the Rolling Stone and Slate source are sufficient in sourcing the statement, but if they are, MMFA should probably be removed as a source. feminist ( talk) 07:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
"transgenderism" is not a term. the headline ought to be "trans rights" or something along those lines instead. Mx-Spoon ( talk) 19:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:POINT behavior. wumbolo ^^^ 10:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I notice that Ben Shapiro is labelled as conservative in the lead. Should this be changed to far right similar to Lauren Southern who holds similar views? Thanks. Dig deeper talk 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Quite aside from the sourcing issue, generally labels like "far right" are often intended to disparage someone as an extremist. Likewise with far left. So I would resist the use of such labels where possible. —Approaching ( talk) 06:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
In the article section titled "Political ideology", the following is stated:
The source ( NYT article source) doesn't say that. It says “The left believes in a hierarchy of victimhood,” he said in Utah." The problem is, Shapiro appears to be talking about different groups when he discusses "the left" versus "liberals". (Cf. his tweet). Accordingly, I've tagged the claim as dubious.
—Approaching ( talk) 22:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove incorrectly from the line "Shapiro described being transgender as a mental disorder and incorrectly equated it with gender dysphoria." or rephrase it, as is now you make it sound as if he was ignorant and talking about two completely different issues, when it was a totally valid equation. Dysphoria is a symptom of being transgender. Tzukishiro ( talk) 01:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add that Ben Shapiro's advertisers have pulled out following his remarks about "Baby Hitler" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaki Naggar ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first picture of ben shapiro needs changed because it is not him. It is a picture of Lil Pump 150.243.197.181 ( talk) 17:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was thinking about adding the 'Conservatism Series' Infobox on Steven Crowder's page, as he is in said series. Austinusa ( talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk) 20:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Which caption should be used in the infobox?
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are quotations linked to the article that are supposedly by Ben Shapiro but are not linked to a source. There are quotes that are linked to a secondary source but no primary source. If the quotes are not linked to a primary source they should be removed. 2600:8804:8080:5220:D04D:F312:60B4:C9D4 ( talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Should be "June 2016" or "(June 2016)" but it does not need to state his name. His name is right above the picture, and also the title of the article. For reasons explained in detail in WP:YOUDONTSAY, I think the caption should remove his name (and same for every other article on WP). Leviv ich 23:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am adding Ben Shapiro because: it is not clear who is that guy. It is hard to understand and assume. Could it his partner, guru, twin, place, or what? THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
MrX as you suggested, I will start over the RFC again. But it would be appreciated if you could do that and show a demo. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox." Leviv ich 00:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The guy's name is both above and below his picture without any caption. I'll support any ANI report about Wizard's combative editing User:Beyond My Ken. The comment that it is not clear who the photo is of is one of the dumbest things I've seen this week. Legacypac ( talk) 04:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Shapiro's views on Islamic radicalism should be addressed. I am not an expert on this and cannot find sources that are reliable enough. But if someone is free to lend a hand, a good place to start is to read Ben Shapiro says a majority of Muslims are radicals, published by PolitiFact. The article consists of the original source (the original YouTube video), and argues against Shapiro. I think it is a great source and follows WP:NPOV. Thanks, and let me know if more explanation is required. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
User:Drmies I'd like to re-up the inclusion of Ben Shapiro's views on Islam. One can argue that not every opinion from a notable person is worthy of inclusion, but Ben Shapiro was the user that the perpetrator of the
Quebec City mosque shooting visited Shapiro's twitter
more than anyone else. Seems important.
Fordswish (
talk) 22:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)fordswish
If its in Bens book whats the problem? Is drmies a jew who loves ben or a muslim? Surely his bias needs to be taken into account?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apemonkey1 ( talk • contribs) 8:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Biased
"he has written seven books, the first being 2004's Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth; Shapiro began writing this book at age 17. Also at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States."
A) Why is name of the first he wrote included in the lead paragraph ? B). I wish to change "Shapiro began writing this book at age 17. Also at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States." to "While Ben Shapiro was writing the book at age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. C.) Those are the changes I would to make Cheers Baldr The Brave ( talk) 15:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The writer seems to think that Vox is reliable and relies very heavily on it. Just something I noticed. Cheers Baldr The Brave ( talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The New Yorker, Haaretz and Vox have described Shapiro as "right-wing."- critics by multiple outlets.
Shapiro later described President Barack Obama as a "philosophical fascist."- a fact.
Vox describes Shapiro as a polarizing figure, in part due to statements such as "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." (2010).- critic and well supported by the quoting the subject.
![]() | This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Source number 92 is an opinion piece and in no way verifiable by fact. It should be removed because it provides the illusion of validity to a statement that cannot be prpven true without evidence. 2601:191:200:2468:C890:D30D:DFD1:E1B7 ( talk) 06:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Looking at the current source no. 92
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/05/ben-shapiros-messy-breakup-with-breitbart.html?gtm=top>m=top it says "As the Daily Wire noted, Shapiro was hit with a wave of vicious anti-Semitic abuse, including multiple Holocaust references and requests that Shapiro and his family be sent to the ovens." I think it is best that a discussion takes place here regarding the source if any editor thinks it should be removed.
Sam
Sailor 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)