Talk:Josh Shapiro/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josh Shapiro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127151803/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=24&OfficeID=13 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=24&OfficeID=13
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.northeasttimes.com/2007/0201/cora.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Josh Shapiro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722232321/http://www.joshshapiro.org/about/ to http://www.joshshapiro.org/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127132129/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=11&OfficeID=13 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=11&OfficeID=13
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615234916/http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/shapiro-rules-out-bid-for-higher-office-next-year/article_0e3bb599-71b7-529f-aabf-afaad4f15709.html to http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer_news/shapiro-rules-out-bid-for-higher-office-next-year/article_0e3bb599-71b7-529f-aabf-afaad4f15709.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

COI/UDP templates

After reading this article [1] (requires a subscription or viewing in incognito mode), I have added COI and UDP templates to the article pending some sort of cleanup.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate, the article I cited about quotes members of Shapiro's staff stating they edit and update this article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And I can't read it because EU. If you can, put it in a mentioned-by-mediaorg-template with a nice quote here on the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have found a loophole... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: just in case I have quoted part of the article below. I have omitted names out of respect for WP:OUTING.

A spokesman for the attorney general said it’s part of the digital communications director’s job responsibilities to write those kinds of nice things about his boss.

“The digital work is a core function of the digital director’s job. We stand by it,” the spokesman,———, said.

—— said the staffer, ———, had help from a deputy press secretary and that their work was approved by Shapiro’s deputy chief of staff, ———.

— LancasterOnline, "Pa. Capitol staff being paid by taxpayers to edit Wikipedia for elected officials" URL: https://lancasteronline.com/news/pa-capitol-staff-being-paid-by-taxpayers-to-edit-wikipedia/article_a0ea105e-6ddf-11e9-847e-1b5fc3790fc9.html

SamHolt6, I re-read both articles, and neither mention username of editors, so linking them should be fine OUTING-wise. But I still think not being allowed to cite WSJ at Tom Cable was just stupid. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I thought it deserved a mention here [2] as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

County Commissioner in infobox

Bringing this to talk page. He was the Commissioner of one of PA's largest counties. Notable gig and should be listed in infobox. I mean, he even left his role as a State Rep (which is listed) for that gig. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Does the board of commissioners have its own page? KidAd • SPEAK 15:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, but it's a position that received more than 300,000 votes. Is there any policy that says this gig is not notable enough to be listed in the infobox? If not, then you're just arbitrarily applying a policy. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I don’t remember reading a policy about positions being notable if they “… received more than 300,000 votes,” whatever that means. If Shapiro had only served on a county commission, he wouldn’t meet WP:NPOL. There’s your policy. KidAd • SPEAK 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple things. It literally says you meet notability if you have held "state/province–wide office." Montgomery County is equivalent to a province. Additionally, it is still a position he has held, although most of his notability from being the AG. He is a notable figure and this is an office he has held. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the definition of "province." Since we don't have them in the United States, it doesn't matter much, but a "province" is equivalent to a state, not a county. That's why all members of state legislatures pass WP:NPOL, while members of county boards/commissions/councils do not. KidAd • SPEAK 02:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That's besides the point. What's the problem with listing this in the infobox? He's a notable figure and he held this elected position. It makes no chronological sense to list two of his positions while not taking into account of which he has held. There's an entire section of this article dedicated to such a position, too, because it's part of why he is notable and his political career. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It will not be included in the infobox because it is not a notable position. His other positions will be included in the infobox because they are notable. Very simple really. KidAd • SPEAK 02:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The position actually has a subpage at Montgomery County, Pennsylvania#Government]] where the Board is discussed in a prevalent spot. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? "Sub-page" or no "sub-page," the position still doesn't meet WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK

That's a criteria used to determine whether a figure is notable. Shapiro is already notable and entitled to a page. The Montgomery County position he has held (which was in between two other agreed notable gigs) is missing, but a subpage of the position is included under the Montco page. The position of Commissioner is already prominently mentioned and there is no reason it should not be included in infobox given that he is already a notable person. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pennsylvania2, Which policy states that a position with a "sub-page" is a criteria used to determine whether a figure is notable? KidAd • SPEAK 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOL is for notability, but it is well-established that Shapiro is notable because of being AG and a State Rep. The Montgomery County Commissioner is a position that is mentioned in the Montgomery County, PA article. It is covered in a subpage. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition to lead

I think it’s important to add that he is a “Conservative Jew” to the lead as it is defining characteristic. Thank you. Richinstead (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone here?!?

Looking to make edits. Richinstead (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pro-abortion stance

I think it’s important to add that he is pro-abortion (link to: “Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.”) given the importance that plays in his election bid and how visitors will be interested in knowing that about him. Thanks!

Here’s one source of many https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-05-17/pennsylvania-kansas-governors-races-abortion-roe-wade?_amp=true Richinstead (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone home? Richinstead (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

His abortion policies are already mentioned in detail under the gubernatorial campaign section. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit

Why does the article say that Shapiro defeated Mastriano in the 2022 governor race before the election is over? 2606:9400:919F:FFD0:E05C:2D6C:7785:1CEA (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022

At the second time Rep. Fox is mentioned, it says he is a Republic. It's an error, he's a Republican. Mosheperets (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Prolog (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

The graphic displaying Shapiro's win over Mastriano in the governor race has the following caption: "Shapiro defeated by Mastriano in the 2022 gubernatorial election by more than 14%" The caption should be changed to "Shapiro defeated Mastriano in the 2022 gubernatorial election by more than 14%" (Removing the first "by", in order to be grammatically correct in the context of Shapiro winning the election) The Cheadle (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Prolog (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Odd inclusion in Results sub-section

@Pennsylvania2: Please explain the inclusion of a comment on four counties won by Shapiro based on their previous net favor for Trump in the 2020 presidential election. This is a gubernatorial election, not a presidential election, with no overlap between candidates, nor did President Trump endorse Shapiro. I fail to see the relevance, as you could just as feasibly make the same comment regarding any historical presidential election. Either a reliable source illustrating why it is notable, or a similar project article with a similar comment, would also be helpful. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This emphasizes the extent to which Shapiro won over Mastriano. Particularly because Mastriano had Trump's endorsement. This is the first election since 2020. Wording could also be changed to Shapiro carried three counties he did not win in 2020 AG race. But both show the extent to which Shapiro won. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This still boils down to synthesis or OR without something showing why its notable, all I'm getting is that you say its notable. The results %s show enough of the margin, without focusing on an entirely different presidential election. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, the lede doesn't need sources, if the info is sourced in the body. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We very much need sources. See MOS:CITELEAD GabberFlasted (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If it's in the body, you don't. Only would be needed for a controversial claim, for a living person, which doesn't exist in this scenario. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Governor Josh Shapiro.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Portrait?

Hey, what happened to the official portrait? It was added on January 17 and then was deleted on the same day. I also can’t find a copy anywhere online. I swear I saw it. Am I going crazy? PencilSticks0823 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read this page, or even just skip to the section immediately prior to yours, or view the article's history? It was removed. JesseRafe (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 24 April 2023

• CONFLICT OF INTEREST*

The edit war that lead to the protection of this page was provoked by user Pennsylvania2. Paid staffers for Josh Shapiro were caught making biased edits in 2019 and they are doing it again. Ironically, this info was added to the page, with citation, and subsequently deleted by the very same paid staffers.

Campaign endorsement op-eds have been listed as source citations. Inconvenient information has been deleted despite proper citations, such as the plea deal for corrupt DA Will Higgins (called a "non-notable prosecution" by Pennsylvania2 - of all the nerve - public corruption?? Higgins went from 62 years in prison to zero, this is notable, if inconvenient to Shapiro's integrity)

Other information that has been suppressed on this page is a carefully sourced and verified link between defendants from the botched prosecution of "Operation Outfoxed" and a significant donor to the Pennsylvania democratic committee. This is relevant information and Pennsylvania2 removed it because it was damaging to his employer.

This is egregious violation of Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Here are my proposed edits/reverts to the "Tenure" section under "Attorney General":

On May 7, 2019, the Wikipedia Community flagged edits made to this page, saying they may “rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject” and could have been written in return for payment, both of which violate Wikipedia's terms of use. Edits were made by paid communications staffers from Shapiro's campaign, according to Lancaster Online.

 

In 2017, Shapiro announced the roundup of a "Million Dollar Heroin Ring" under "Operation Outfoxed" in Luzerne County. One of those arrested was Maura Kathio, previously charged in a major Bath Salts case in 2016. Kathio's Father, Inayat, is a Pakistani Diplomat and significant Pennsylvania Democrat Committee donor who was the Co-Chairman of then Presidential Candidate Joe Biden's Hometown Scranton Fundraiser. All of the charges in Operation Outfoxed were dismissed after allegations that Shapiro had mishandled the sealing of wiretapped recordings.

 

In 2018, Shapiro offered former Bedford County District Attorney William Higgins a plea deal for corruption charges. Higgins plead guilty to soliciting sexual favors from accused drug dealers in exchange for lenient sentencing recommendations and tipping off dealers about impending search warrants, potentially endangering the lives of officers and informants. Shapiro's agreement for Higgins guaranteed zero jail time. Higgins had initially faced a maximum sentence of 62 years for corruption.

Thank you for your consideration, I hope someone competent sees this..

GunstonHall76 (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Declined Conflict of interest edit requests are for editors with COIs. You do not appear to have a COI, but rather want to revert edits that were apparently made by people with COIs. If you believe your edits are non-controversial, then go ahead and make them; otherwise, post a new topic here and solicit discussion from other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

Change Governor Shapiro.jpg to Joshshapiro2023.jpg Chasekanaly (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: File:Joshshapiro2023.jpg is a professionally taken portrait uploaded as "Own Work" by Chasekanaly at the same time this request was made. It appears to be the same as the official portrait shown on the official website of the Pennsylvania governor's office. The editor has uploaded two other files to Commons, File:Ron DeSantis laughing.jpg and File:MiltonShapp1966.jpg, tagging both as "Own Work". The former is used in a Daily Beast article ([3]) which declares the photographer as Kimimasa Mayama and the copyright holder as Reuters. The latter appears in an article in the online magazine of the Pennsylvania Heritage Foundation ([4]) which tags it "Pennsylvania State Archives/MG-309."

Based on this, I think it is highly unlikely the uploader actually holds the copyright for this work, and far more likely these images are mislabeled. I am in the process of reporting these at Commons but in the meantime suggest not adding this as copyright is clearly suspect. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

why is this article protected?

title 69.132.154.126 (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Because of consistent vandalism. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ser! I saw maybe 3 or 4 instances since the election. It's because he's being groomed for presidential candidacy but that's fine. I just thought it was weird that it doesn't say he's Jewish anywhere. 69.132.154.126 (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason there’s been no vandalism is because it’s been protected. It does mention his religion in the personal life section. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ser! I was talking about before it was protected.

He's an ethnic Jew. Shapiro is a common Jewish surname. Leaving the content of a prominent political figures article up to the will of a few elite users is why this site has the reputation of political leaning and bias these days. 69.132.154.126 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and the fact he is Jewish is mentioned in the article. There was a pretty long pattern of vandalism both before and after the election. If you have anything you want added to the page, you can use the edit request function. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Unencylopedic info

As we know, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When determining whether and how to include information, we look to WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, among others. Notability factors for events include (1) the depth of coverage, (2) the duration of coverage, and (3) diversity of sources.

In this article, the following is stated: "Shapiro supported enforcing Pennsylvania's anti-boycott law against Ben & Jerry's after the ice cream maker announced that it would not renew its license in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Shapiro called BDS a "stain" that Governor Wolf was right to prevent from taking hold in Pennsylvania and said it "is rooted in antisemitism.""

Taking a closer look, this passage is a bit problematic:

1. The passage relies on this source. First, this is hardly a quality source. It is a small, local, right-wing news site, owned by a no-name startup with low journalistic credentials. (With VP buzz lately, this has been mentioned in passing by other sites, but they all cite the Delaware Valley Journal.) This is not a suitable source.

2. The full response can be viewed on local news sites at the time: [5], [6]. It was a response to a letter from State Rep. Aaron Kaufer. It was not personally from Shapiro, but rather from a staffer in his office. It was general and detailed no action to be taken by their office:

Good morning, Rep. Kaufer —

The Attorney General received your letter and wants to be sure you receive a timely response. Our statement is below: BDS is rooted in antisemitism. The stated goal of this amorphous movement is the removal of Jewish citizens from the region and I strongly oppose their efforts. Governor Wolf rightfully signed a bill 5 years ago which passed with broad bipartisan support to prevent the stain of BDS from taking hold in Pennsylvania. I expect Commonwealth agencies with jurisdiction to enforce the Act. Thank you, Adrienne Muller Government Affairs

Office of Attorney General Josh Shapiro

3. Notably, the local news sites—which all simply mention it in passing—never interpret the emailed response to mean that the AG's office was taking (or even supporting) action to be taken. They simply state that one Republican legislator emailed several state officials to request action and got a "response" from some, including the AG's office. There is no indication that any action was taken, or even planned to be taken. In fact the It simply concluded that their office expected that other state agencies that have jurisdiction would enforce an already-existing law. It makes no reference to Ben & Jerry's at all; it makes no reference to the occupied territories. Further, no AG statement was every published on the Attorney General's website. It was simply an email response from a staffer. This is hardly notable.

In summary, the scarce sources and bare-minimum, in-passing coverage show the email was hardly newsworthy—let alone notable for an encyclopedia. It got picked up by no other outlets. The source used (which is weak) does not even support the assertion made, as it simply stated that it supported the existing law, without saying a word about whether it actually would apply to the Ben & Jerry's matter.

Precision123 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree DW Journal is a little weird as a source. But the issue is also covered in other articles as well in the same or even better fashions:

• The New Republic
• Salon
• The Nation
• Jerusalem Post
• Jewish Chronicle
• Times Leader

These are decent quality sources. Can you incorporate them into the article so it doesn't just rely on the DW Journal source? In the end2 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Contentious topic?

This might be dumb question, but would edits related to Israel-Palestine fall on Shapiro's biography under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict? I've noticed there's been an uptick in such edits these past few days, some by users who wouldn't be able to edit such content if those restrictions did apply. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And there's been a 438% increase in the rate of edits overall in the first days of this month compared to July. I've placed a contentious topics notice. Jade Ten (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

Change incorrect spelling in election map spelling "porcent" to "percent" 50.243.149.6 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I can't see any "porcent" on the page. I only see "percent" in the caption beneath the election map. Could you check again and let me know where you're seeing this? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove misleading phrase: "compared protestors to the KKK and white supremacists"

I propose that we remove any version of the misleading phrase: "compared protestors to the KKK and white supremacists". The New York Times is one of the original sources and gives needed context, quoting Shapiro stressing "that he did not believe all encampments or demonstrators were antisemitic — not 'by any stretch'" and saying, "If you had a group of white supremacists camped out and yelling racial slurs every day, that would be met with a different response than antisemites camped out, yelling antisemitic tropes". He is comparing alleged antisemitic speech to white supremacist speech and explicitly contrasted with demonstrators who are not antisemitic. NBC supports all of this. The New Republic's article subjectively mischaracterized his words by saying, "Shapiro made clear the low regard in which he holds pro-Palestine campus activists".

CNN provides the rest of the context: at the 2:55 mark in their video, Shapiro says, "Students shouldn't be blocked from going to campus—just because they're Jewish—or learning in a classroom as opposed to being forced online because their Jewish. It is simply unacceptable. And you know what, we have to query whether or not we would tolerate this if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia making comments about people who are African American in our communities. Certainly not condoning that, Jake, by any stretch. But I think we have to be careful about setting any kind of double standard here on our campuses." Here again he is comparing an alleged antisemitic action with actions like the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door. The New Republic vastly oversimplified it to "he compared campus protesters to the Ku Klux Klan".

Wikipedia should not be implying that Shapiro compared the people who were only exercising their right to peaceably assembly to the KKK and white supremacists. Nor should Wikipedia make the embarrassing assumption that opposing antisemitism means opposing pro-Palestinian activists. There should be no misleading or opinionated oversimplification to go with the full context from reliable sources, per WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Let readers make their own characterizations of what Shapiro said. Jade Ten (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the phrase, particularly the word compare, is accurate, and has enough prevalence in RS to warrant its use. Comparison involves evaluating two or more things and identifying their similarities and differences. I think many people conflate comparing and equating things, which has led to some confusion in this debate over how to describe Shapiro's comments both on and off-wiki. I think it's also worth noting that even in Shapiro's comparisons where he contrasts the two groups, he indirectly reveals his position that that the two groups of protestors are of essentially the same type. He is saying that the authorities ought to respond to pro-Palestinian protestors more similarly to the manner in which they respond to white supremacists, rather than treating pro-Palestinian protestors in a way similar to other peaceful, more accepted groups of protestors. In saying that the response should be similar, Shapiro is equating what he sees as antisemitic conduct from pro-Palestinian protestors with the bigotry of white supremacists, and saying that equivalence should mean the difference between a protest movement being permitted and embraced or cracked down on. If Shapiro were saying that pro-Palestinian protestors are apples and white supremacists are oranges, I would agree that describing that sort of thing - a contrast with no equivalence - as a comparison would be misleading even if technically correct. However, he's saying something more like this: Pro-Palestinian protestors and white supremacists are both apples. Everyone knows that white supremacists are rotten apples, but pro-Palestinian protestors are just as rotten on the inside and we give them a pass due to their shiny exterior. That's certainly a comparison, and none of the more detailed explanations of his comments contradict the use of that term to describe it as such. Unbandito (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does that have to be there at all? It's only there for the implication otherwise it has absolutely no newsworthiness whatsoever. All that's needed is his position and his actions. Saying he "compared protestors to" anyone is pure unadulterated commentary only designed to inflame.

It should be removed. Sviscusi (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Shapiro's statements:
A is antisemites (apples).
B is protesters (fruits).

Shapiro said that not all pro-Palestinian protesters engaged in antisemitic speech or actions, and that antisemitic speech or actions are like white supremacist speech or actions. To use your apples analogy, Unbandito, Shapiro said that pro-Palestinian protesters are fruits, which are not all apples; antisemites are apples; and white supremacists are also apples.

He in no way said that "protestors and white supremacists are both apples" that are "rotten". This leaves out the important point illustrated on the right. To claim he did violates WP:Verifiability. Shapiro certainly compared antisemites to white supremacists in the first sense of the word "compare", meaning to liken. The second sense, meaning to examine for resemblances or differences, might be technically correct for the statement "pro-Palestinian protesters are not all antisemites", but to reduce that to "he compared protesters to antisemites, which he compared to white supremacists" would be a stretch, and to reduce it further to "he compared protesters to white supremacists" would just be a lie.

I agree with Sviscusi, who spoke the plain truth. Jade Ten (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we're basically saying the same thing. My summary of Shapiro's comments, Everyone knows that white supremacists are rotten apples, but pro-Palestinian protestors are just as rotten on the inside and we give them a pass due to their shiny exterior, looks a lot like the diagram in your comment. To make things easy, I'm agreeable to changing the phrase to something like "Shapiro has been accused of comparing" or "Shapiro seemed to compare" as Newsweek says. I ultimately do believe the comments deserve some coverage as they have become a significant enough controversy and at a minimum, the outrage of a particular constituency and interpretation of his comments as such has received coverage in RS, for example here, here, here and in the Newsweek article above. Unbandito (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't love it, but it seems far more accurate to move it from a statement that "he did this, he said that" and apply that to the people making the claim that he said or did something. It at leasts puts it into perspective. Sviscusi (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Volunteering for the Israel Defense Forces

I added the fact that Josh Shapiro studied and volunteered for the IDF during/just before his university years.

This is based on this Philadelphia Inquirer article from today which contained this section:

“I find it impractical to believe that factions of Arabs can miraculously unite in peace as Palestinians, so they can coexist with Israel,” he wrote. Shapiro concluded, writing, “Despite my skepticism as a Jew and a past volunteer in the Israeli army, I strongly hope and pray that this ‘peace plan’ will be successful. History is not made by diplomatic handshakes between two political leaders but rather when two age-old foes can have the courage to stop hating, begin healing and exist in peace and tranquility.”

For thoroughness I also linked to to the original article in Campus Life referenced by The Philadelphia Inquirer article.

My addition was just removed by an anonymous editor with the message:

Removed claim that he volunteered for the IDF due to lack of credible source. Only source was an anonymous comment on a 1993 blog post.

This claim by the anonymous poster is incorrect because this is sourced to a Philadelphia Inquirer article. That is a major hometown newspaper where Josh Shapiro lives. You can not get a better source than that. It is not a blog nor is it an anonymous comment. So it is very confusing what this anonymous user is doing.

Anyhow, I have added it back now, and have started this discussion so that we can deal with this properly. In the end2 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you get the "5 months" part? It also is worded to sound like his time in Israel was while an undergrad. A statement from his office suggests it was in high school and volunteering for the IDF may have been as minor as day trips.

That is now part of the cited article.

"Bonder, Shapiro’s spokesperson, said Shapiro never engaged in military activities. He said Shapiro completed a program in high school that included a variety of service projects in Israel, including on an Israeli army base. He also worked on a farm and at a fishery in a kibbutz, Bonder said." 2603:7080:6139:F9C2:D30:F79:2D4B:FF20 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment. There is no reason to believe this volunteer work happened during Shapiro's time in college. Campus time published this which is a further reason to support this was during high school. The article states, "Josh Shapiro spent five months studying in Israel and volunteered in the Israeli army." This does not account for when the volunteer work happened and how long it was for (it may have been only a day or two and putting five months is misleading. We see further evidence that this was during high school here"Bonder, Shapiro’s spokesperson, said Shapiro never engaged in military activities. He said Shapiro completed a program in high school that included a variety of service projects in Israel, including on an Israeli army base. He also worked on a farm and at a fishery in a kibbutz, Bonder said." It is misleading to quote only the army base work and not provide the full context, consider moving this to the section dedicated to the conflict or removing. NightTrain31 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section that includes the mention of Shapiro's volunteer work in Israel, as well as the clarification made by his spokesperson about him never engaging in military activities. Since Shapiro's possible involvement in the IDF is becoming a widely discussed topic after that op-ed, I feel that this is necessary to be included, even if he isn't chosen as the running mate, seeing as Shapiro is the governor of one of the largest states in the U.S. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It was asked "Where do you get the '5 months' part?"

If you look at the original article that Josh wrote in 1993, there is an italicized sentence at the end (which seems like a description of the author's background? experience?) that reads:

Josh spent 5 months studying in Israel and volunteered in the Israeli army. In the end2 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, this implies 5 months studying, please see the clarification on the army service: "Bonder, Shapiro’s spokesperson, said Shapiro never engaged in military activities. He said Shapiro completed a program in high school that included a variety of service projects in Israel, including on an Israeli army base. He also worked on a farm and at a fishery in a kibbutz, Bonder said." I know that is a repeat, but this talk has already been resolved, and the information has been added to the appropriate section. I understand this is a heated topic, but it is important to keep information clear and accurate please see DukeOfDelTaco's edit on the page which did a good job explaining the edit you are trying to make in the appropriate section and with context. This edit does not belong in the section on early life and is more appropriate below. NightTrain31 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

At the bottom of his op-ed, the editor of the Campus Times wrote: Josh Shapiro spent five months studying in Israel and volunteered in the Israeli army. Kire1975 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is an important fact and should be included in the article. EnSingHemm (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is it put under his gubernatorial role section? should it be a new political positions section? Wisenerd (talk) Wisenerd (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see discussion Turn the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" subsection into a section on its own called "Positions on Israel and Palestine" below. NightTrain31 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

1996 Israeli embassy internship

according to a The Bulwark reporter, Shapiro spokesman Will Sommer stated the he worked at the Israeli embassy in 1996. [7] I can't find any published source or press statement on this yet, it seems Shapiros press team directly responded to a reporters inquiry. Considering the BLP and contentious topic implications, would we have to wait until it actually gets published to include here? — jonas (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

update: the story has been published, adding it [8] — jonas (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspect suicide case

Nothing about the suspect case closed as suicide by Shapiro's office in his capacity as AG? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering the case's notoriety and having its own Wikipedia page referencing Shapiro's office's role, I also believe this would be a reasonable addition to the "Pennsylvania Attorney General" section. Asleepency (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Paid wikipedia editing by Josh Shapiro staff

There is this article from Lancaster Online:

https://lancasteronline.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-capitol-staff-being-paid-by-taxpayers-to-edit-wikipedia-for-elected-officials/article_a0ea105e-6ddf-11e9-847e-1b5fc3790fc9.html

"Anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, but Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s bio is so glowing you’d think one of his staffers wrote it. Turns out, one of them did. The flattering edits were made by a digital communications director in the attorney general’s office who gets paid $65,526 a year by taxpayers after a recent raise of nearly $12,000."

"The state’s top ethics official said he’d never heard of taxpayer-funded Wikipedia editing but didn’t find it illegal."

"'Every day our job is to promote the work of Josh Shapiro and this office,' Grace said. 'A Wikipedia page is a bio, similar to that which would be on a government website.'"

Basically this article makes the claim that Josh's staff has been paid to keep this article nice. Can the editors who are editing this article as part of their jobs/roles self-identify? In the end2 (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not hard to see what was done in 2019 and who did it. All you have to do is to look at the edit history. The most likely COI editor hasn't edited in five years, and it doesn't appear that any currently active editors were editing this article in 2019. I would advise caution in insinuating that any current editors have conflicts of interest, five years after that story ran. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a PhD student, I have no association or knowledge with respect to this. Not involved politically in any way. I am simply acting to try to make the information fair and accessible. I don't believe Israel should be the headline of this article, despite what some editors are trying to do. It is a misrepresentation and not what most readers are coming looking for. We must ensure fairness and readability in the information present and I am prepared to work with the community towards that goal. NightTrain31 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Turn the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" subsection into a section on its own called "Positions on Israel and Palestine"

I propose that we move the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" subsection from the "Governor of Pennsylvania (2023–present)" section to immediately before the "Personal life" section, change the heading from a level three to level two, and rename it "Positions on Israel and Palestine". Shapiro's positions on Israel and Palestine have been documented at different times in his life and should not all be kept in the "Governor" section. Nor should they be divided into different sections; instead, his positions on these subjects are notable enough that they should be discussed in a single cohesive section on their own. Jade Ten (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If he does become VP pick, we might consider creating a whole section on "Views" with different subsections such as Jobs, Economy, etc. This way, voter's can look at his history on issues they care about. I know Israel-Palestine is a hot button topic and I agree it is important to cover in detail, but we should consider how people coming to this article looking for various kinds of information can most quickly find it. I would support postponing this change and implementing it if Shapiro becomes VP pick, which will happen around August 7th. If so, we can create a detailed views section. NightTrain31 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Jade Ten (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason that governors can't have a section for political positions/views? Some examples of non-VPs in government who have a section for political positions on their page: Mark Kelly, George Santos, Kathy Hochul Wisenerd (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, seems like a unified "views" section is fitting for a well-known politician (or any politician, really) whether or not he's selected as VP. TomNormanCohen (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup I agree, I think HistorianAJG does have a point but if someone would want to dedicate time into getting the Views section working that would be great, I am happy to do it at some point as well. NightTrain31 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that beyond current media sensationalism, Shapiro isn't uniquely well-known, noted, or prominent for his views on Israel-Palestine, the content currently in the Israel-Palestine section should be carved up and relocated to the relevant sections (i.e. 'Attorney General', 'Governor', 'Early life'). HistorianAJG (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Cover-Up Allegation Needs Own Section

If he does or does not get the VP slot, this is going to be a major issue when it comes to Shapiro and what many will come looking for. If he Harris doesn't pick him, this could very well be the primary reason why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:7800:9F15:1C3D:EF07:7C73:6EAC (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)