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 5 |
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)
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)
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).
should be removed 70.108.210.5 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) [1] and the Washington Times [2] 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
Someone has been vandalizing this page for a few days.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1]"
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)
References
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
[1] All the source that would be needed is on this page^ LSBSFN ( talk) 23:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
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 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)
Here's a list of the primary sources written by Ben Shapiro on the issue of LGBT right I've compiled.
User:S1d6arrett23 March 9th, 2018 3:18 ET —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel) 21:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
And it should be noted in the lede. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
Hmm.
What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC 12:04, 11 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.
/info/en/?search=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)
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 5 |
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)
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)
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).
should be removed 70.108.210.5 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) [1] and the Washington Times [2] 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
Someone has been vandalizing this page for a few days.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1]"
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)
References
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
[1] All the source that would be needed is on this page^ LSBSFN ( talk) 23:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
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 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)
Here's a list of the primary sources written by Ben Shapiro on the issue of LGBT right I've compiled.
User:S1d6arrett23 March 9th, 2018 3:18 ET —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel) 21:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Ben Shapiro has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
And it should be noted in the lede. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
Hmm.
What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC 12:04, 11 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.
/info/en/?search=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)