Talk:Ben Shapiro

message: Even after the semi protection template that @EvergreenFir instated on this page, we still are getting deconstructive edits in regard to ‘Rapper’ being added to occupation.  I’m wondering if invisible comments would help in this matter. What are everyone’s thoughts? @Cannolis Wanted to ping you as well in this discussion! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't hurt, though probably wouldn't help either, in my experience the kind of people that would add this sort of thing won't read those comments. The number of confirmed users that would(like the person you had to revert) is relatively small though, you could also wait and see if you get more of these edits before acting. Cannolis (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger that. Sounds like a plan, thank you very much. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: My thoughts roughly match Cannolis'. In case it ever helps, I oppose adding "rapper" to the lead and any rapper categories to the article, per WP:BALANCE, WP:ROLEBIO, and WP:CATDEFINING, among other reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I just added a reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:RSPSS to your revert . I too don’t believe by any means it merits being included as a career at all. That’s why I originally just wrote a simple sentence on the page stating the fact that it happened, which i believe should be included on this page in the capacity it is now. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A piece from one of the blogs at The Hill, which are not as reliable as the news articles from the site. I'm not sure that's enough to demonstrate that the content is notable (with a lowercase n, not talking about WP:N). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply grabbed from one of the approved sources per Wikipedia:RSPSS as stated above. Nonetheless I truly appreciate your input, value your opinion & went ahead and added another source Here.  Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation  

message: I removed invalid parameters for Wikiproject Politics. (There is no "fascism" subcategory in the template!) Not sure why he is a member of so many Wikiprojects. Ben Shapiro is NOT of "mid importance" to the United States! As a member of that project and of the Internet culture project, I am downgrading him to low importance. As for Judaism, we don't include every person who is Jewish and has a BLP or biographical article in that project, but rather, in the category. (He is in several varieties of Jewish people categories.) He is definitely not of mid importance to southern California. I do believe that the article is better than merely C class, and should be upgraded to B class. I have not made any changes to quality assessment.--FeralOink (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiprojects and assessment 

message: I get that he's a contentious guy and wikipedia has to maintain some semblance of balance but I'm surprised there's no subsection for controversies and even more surprised that there's absolutely no mention of his fairly unflattering Andrew Neil Interview since this is what he's most famous for in the UK 2A00:23C6:740D:A401:38A2:1444:4B0:A97B (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, he isn't really famous in the UK at all so the Neil interview doesn't count for that much in the grand scheme of things. We try to avoid "controversy" sections anyway, including the controversies in the main flow of the article instead. The interview might be worth mentioning but only very briefly. I think one sentence backed by a couple of good independent sources might be OK. DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the IP user means "most notable" as opposed to "most famous." I've known Shapiro for almost a decade thanks to the internet but most in the UK had no idea who he was before the infamous interview. I am surprised it's not mentioned anywhere in the article as it was a pretty significant event in coverage of him and was widely covered internationally. It was an absolute disaster and showed him to be completely out of his league. I disagree about not having criticism sections, as they can be useful in summarising content about individuals, especially as these are usually popular parts of articles. Far too much weight in this article has been given to his views, which is very unusual for an non-politician. At this point, the interview is vital to be included, even if it's given merely a sentence; where it would be placed, however, is difficult to say. UaMaol (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The IP OP supplies no links, so I'll guess it's about a BBC interview in 2019. If so, I'd put it on a level with an event in 2019 where [insert sports team here] played poorly and was ridiculed for a while, but the team plays many times per year and it had no lasting significance. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: haha, yes perfect! UaMaol (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Neil Controversy? 

message: I’m hearing that Ben is now suing Owens about the debate according to the media. 69.1.59.248 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source SKAG123 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candace Owens Lawsuit