Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
LGBT Section Shapiro/Tur interaction is mischaracterized.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the LGBT rights section the following sentence is misleading.
"After Shapiro repeatedly referred to Tur, who is a trans woman, with male pronouns, she placed her hands around his neck and threatened on air to send him "home in an ambulance".
It should read:
"After Shapiro repeatedly referred to Tur, who is a trans woman, with male pronouns, she placed a hand on the back of his neck and threatened on air to send him "home in an ambulance".
The original sentence makes it sound like she was threatening to choke him. You can watch the interaction on YouTube. She placed one hand on the back of his neck and made the statement after he called her "sir".
Additionally, I made an edit to the same section. Shapiro referred to Jenner with male pronouns, not to Tur. The heated exchange between Shapiro and Tur began when he referred to Tur as "sir". The cited sources say the exact same thing so I did not modify the sources. -- zaiisao06:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
“far-right... Breitbart News”
Whilst the use of this descriptor is also present in the article for Breitbart, its use here is also worth discussing separately. The source seems somewhat dubious, as a quick Google search will reveal sources tend to describe the site as right-wing. The contention of this phrase is not worth importing into this article; readers can and ought to click on the hyperlink to find out more about the outlet. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Thorpewilliam: Hello. There have been long discussions of this at the Breitbart TP (something like 10 RfCs). The consensus is that Breitbart is considered a "far-right" news source. However, I completely agree with your sentiments that the descriptor is not relevant in the lead of this BLP. You're correct; users can easily click on the wikilink to learn about Breitbart. This article is not about Breitbart--it's about Shapiro. Why do you think we don't label Ami Magazine as an Orthodox Jewish publication or label Daily Wire as a right-wing source in this article? There's no dispute that those labels are not accurate, however this article is not about Ami Magazine or Daily Wire, so it's not necessary to add those extraneous qualifiers. Some logic should apply to the Breitbart descriptor. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose a merger from The Ben Shapiro Show and redirecting that article here. Actually the content seems pretty well merged already, the podcast doesn't seem to be independently notable from Shapiro, and it barely rates a paragraph, the content of which is in this article under "Host" and a tiny bit in "Political Positions" anyways. The page for The Ben Shapiro Show appears to have been created as promotional content containing mostly mentions to self-awarded awards and promotional ad copy links (links to Daily Wire, "Westwood One", "iHeartRadio Podcast Awards") from companies involved in producing or transmitting it, which is not allowable under WP:PROMOIHateAccounts (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. As this is a broadcasted copyrighted podcast that is also televised, it exists as a separate entity to Ben Shapiro. Many other shows and podcasts are available as separate articles such as the very famous "Joe Rogan Experience" and almost every other televised broadcast. Events that happen on broadcasts should be recorded and made publicly available as a separate entity to a person's biography page. Anon 21:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the above "Anon" was IP-hopping on US Air Force addresses or proxies, trying to remove this proposal and then leaving the comment as "131.13.100.86" then signing it as "138.163.106.72", and also deleting other comments/proposals and leaving some nasty personal attacks as "131.13.100.66". IHateAccounts (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)—Comment struck as IHateAccounts has been blocked for being a sockpuppet
Support per nom, seems like the Show is completely based around Shapiro. Vallee01 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC) (Retracted it most certainly fits the notability standards)
Oppose It's been around for awhile now and has been near the top podcasts in the recent future. Has a large audience as well as being nationally syndicated broadcast. Vallee01 The show is not based around Shapiro. There is no evidence that supports this claim. The show is advertised as a political commentary and is not a blog. Even if it was, considering its status it wouldn't even matter. By your logic all shows that center around a single host i.e. "The Michelle Obama Podcast", "The Joe Rogan Experience", "Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend", etc. should be merged. Also, from the looks of it, it appears that all of the awards and other content was removed by IHateAccounts anyways. As the page looks right now, there is no self promotion. Only a link to the website of the podcast which is permissible under WP:PROMO "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article". Yesornooridk (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC) —Comment struck as Yesornooridk (talk • contribs) has been blocked for being a sockpuppet
Oppose Articles like Błenna B get an article a small village in the middle of Syria, Ben Shapiro is obviously much more noteworthy then a random Syrian village and it has a large amount of citations of a popular figure (Ben Shapiro) therefor we must conclude the article is noteworthy. Vallee01 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, notability guidelines do vary quite a bit by subject. A small village in the middle of Syria is very much notable as per WP:GEOLAND, even if few know that it exists. Notability for web content is different; Ben Shapiro's popularity does not make The Ben Shapiro Show notable, as the current guidelines do not allow notability to be inherited. There needs to be enough reliable secondary sources specifically about the show to warrant a standalone article, and as it stands, there are not. Vanilla Wizard 💙09:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Yesornooridk This is a tricky issue it does seem this is notable enough to include of page we certainly include much more obscure articles, Błenna B or Tal al-ward as an example. However does every single talk show deserve it it's own page? I don't really know, I am generally a maximalist on pages however I am conflicted onto this you do make some good points however. Also welcome, I see you are new to Misplaced Pages be neutral and help contribute. Vallee01 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that a merger is the best option because The Ben Shapiro Show is extremely short, and this article could benefit from being longer. The show's notability is just tied to Ben Shapiro, but even if the show is notable in a larger way, it's notability can still be adequately covered in this article. SupportFuntoedit1212 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Alex B4 I agree that this violations stances on promotion but this isn't really something to go off being deleted or merged. Even if we merge the article it doesn't solve the issue of Promotion either way it will need to be copy edited. I state this as a radical leftist it very clearly justifies inclusion. Des Vallee (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Alex B4 That would fine I suppose. If the article was more in depth. Overall I am starting to think this could be merged. It meets notability guidelines but the article is so short absolutely no information would be lost. This takes my usual reason for opposing merges however I do believe merging it might have other effects. Des Vallee (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. As others have noted, Ben Shapiro Show is notable in its own right. If there are problems with the content of that entry, they should be addressed. But that is not a reason to merge it out of existence.Jreiss17 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Support Merge It's obviously a very well-known show, but if the show is notable enough in its own right to be distinct from Ben Shapiro, then why not cover it at The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio? The Podcasting WikiProject uses the WP:WEB standards to determine notability, and I feel that some of the good-faith oppose !votes may want to consider WP:INHERITWEB. Ben Shapiro himself is certainly notable enough, and The Daily Wire itself is certainly covered by quite a lot of sources, but if The Ben Shapiro Show is notable enough in a way that's distinct from either Ben Shapiro or The Daily Wire, then the article should certainly have more than a couple of sources in it. As of right now, there's so little content in the article (with some of that content being quite poor quality) that we certainly wouldn't lose any information about The Ben Shapiro Show on the encyclopedia by merging it into another article. Vanilla Wizard 💙09:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment I've listed this talk section as an RfC in an attempt to get more eyes on the thread and allow for closure if/when a consensus emerges. The original nom was found to be a sockpuppet and is now blocked indefinitely, so for obvious reasons I wasn't able to request that they be the one who lists it. Vanilla Wizard 💙20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak Support - I'm not convinced of the notability of the show in itself and I don't really see it as being important or distinct enough from Shapiro himself for its own page. My biggest gripe, however, is with the fact that this article has been around for two years or so and in that time hasn't grown from being more than a paragraph long. Since it seems like a paragraph is all anyone can say about it, why have a separate page when it would fit better in the main Shapiro article? The "weak" part of my "weak support" means that I'd be ready to change my mind if somebody were to expand the article with enough relevant information and citations proving the notability of the show to warrant its own separate page. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose merger - the show seems notable on its own and a different category, so if it was removed the WP coverage of podcasts would be deficient. The norm as others mention is for eponymous shows like The Joe Rogan Experience, or The Ramsey Show, or The Johnny Carson Show to be separately described items as it’s just not the person’s life. A biography should be more WP:BLP about describing what they do in daily living or prolonged activity, events that altered their life, or life decisions that made a difference to them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
^This user is " topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed" per the arbitration enforcement log.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That is correct, and if this is a political article or the proposed merging is a question of partisan stance rather than biographical article or question of article categories then please disregard my input. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Support. If it can be incorporated into the main article without causing size problems or making the main article too in-the-weeds, then yes, it should be merged. I oppose the existence of all these tiny forks for aspects of an individual's life and career. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Support. I'm not convinced that the show is independently notable except in that it's related to Shapiro or the Daily Wire. See both WP:INHERENTWEB (listener/viewer counts are not relevant here) and WP:INHERITWEB (just because Shapiro is famous doesn't make this show notable). The show's article has existed for years and not been expanded beyond a single paragraph. The reason for that is that it hasn't been extensively covered by independent RS's. It ought to be merged into either Daily Wire § Podcasts and radio or Ben Shapiro § Host. Srey Sros17:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Already done -ink&fables «talk» 10:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
