Talk:Josh Shapiro

2024/2028

I dont think what we have is the best formatting of the sections. Looking at similar examples, there is little mention of VP consideration, or its stuffed elsewhere. I only looked at 2024, not 2020 or 2016. The 2024 section should probably be condensed to one or two paragraphs of the consideration and the book controversy.

2028 shouldnt be a section. Its far too soon. But I am not sure where to put it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Excessive coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Like with many articles, there is a disproportionate amount of coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Gaza war. Not only is the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" very long, but the topic is also covered in other sections. This really needs to be condensed to the most notable aspects, per WP:UNDUE. Alenoach (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I notice a couple of issues .

First, the section is difficult to understand. It starts with "strongly supported Israel", and later paragraphs say he criticizes Israeli leadership and calls for humanitarian aid to Gaza. It may be better to summarize his overall position rather than a collection of seemingly conflicting quotes.

Second, the section appears to include a large amount of event-specific detail like (individual statements, protest responses, etc.). Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:UNDUE, this could probably be shortened to a summary of his general position and a few of the most notable actions.

(Also, "strongly supported Israel” may have a WP:V issue, as that description is not used in the cited sources.)

Finally, some of the third-party commentary and protest coverage may not be necessary for a biography summary. It might be better to focus on summarizing Shapiro’s stated positions rather than including reactions to events. We can focus on reporting his position, not how selected organizations interpret his position. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alenoach I attempted to clean up a number of sections. Any feedback is welcome. In general, I removed speculative content, kept the characterization described by secondary sources and removed unattributed criticism. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Alenoach (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@StopRejectingMyUsername I saw you restored some Gaza war coverage to the Shapiro page. The earlier concern was not that the material had to be excluded entirely, but that the section had become disproportionate and included too much detail, including a lot of material just from one source. I trimmed it to keep the biography more in line with due weight. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I put that paragraph back in because the justification you used struck me as blatantly inconsistent. The previous paragraph also relied entirely on a single source (the same one used for the paragraph you deleted), yet it wasn't deleted at all. It felt like one paragraph stays and the other goes depending on how critical it is of Josh Shapiro's actions.

You also deleted a lengthy paragraph regarding criticism of Shapiro from CAIR and other Muslim organizations, using a justification so abstruse that I found it unintelligible. The Israeli-Palestinian issue engages many civil society groups across the Western world—Jewish groups very much included—and I don't see why the position of American Muslim groups would not be noteworthy here, especially as they were covered in secondary sources. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference, here's the text in question.

Shapiro faced criticism for his remarks in a letter written by CAIR and signed by 43 Pennsylvania Muslim organizations, which said that Shapiro did not "recognize the structural root causes of the conflict" and "chose to intentionally ignore the civilian loss of life in Gaza".

I removed it per WP:BLPSTYLE since it includes a contentious characterization from a primary-source advocacy letter. I believe the policy reads that a BLP should include criticism as described by reliable secondary sources, rather than including an advocacy organization's own characterization of Shapiro's actions. Do you know of any reliable sources which characterize Shapiro's actions, directly, this way, in his their own voice? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The source used in this excerpt is PennLive, which is a local news network and very much a secondary source. You'd have a point if the source used were the CAIR website or another advocacy group's page, but it isn't. The excerpt also respects BLP rules by attributing the criticism to a specific group or groups, rather than presenting it as an objective fact. At no point does WP:BLPSTYLE imply that advocacy groups cannot be cited for criticisms quoted in secondary sources. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

PennLive is reporting that the letter was sent and what the letter said. My concern is that PennLive is not making that characterization in its own voice.

WP:BLPSTYLE says that BLPs should "summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources." Here, the reliable secondary source supports that CAIR and the other organizations criticized Shapiro, but the sentence "chose to intentionally ignore the civilian loss of life in Gaza" is the advocacy group's own characterization of Shapiro's actions, not the reliable secondary's source characterization of his actions. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

BLPStyle also states that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources...." And at no point does it say that secondary sources must speak in their own voice for the criticism found within them to be cited on Wikipedia. If that were the case, it would be nearly impossible to cite criticism here, because secondary sources rarely address individuals in that manner—especially in political coverage; it is far more common for them to attribute criticism to political opponents or other members of civil society, which is what's happening here.

CAIR's criticism of Shapiro—including the sentences you cited—is sourced to PennLive, which is a secondary source. This means its inclusion here is valid under current rules. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, criticism can be included, but it still has to be written in a neutral way. A good example is the data-center section. It includes third-party criticism of the policy, and it also includes secondary-source reporting on what the emails showed. It does not reproduce a loaded characterization of Shapiro's actions. Loaded characterizations need secondary sources to make the description per WP:BLPSTYLE. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I ask you to read the first sentence you wrote here very carefully, so that you understand it involves a complete contradiction. Criticism necessarily involves taking a stance. Criticism is never neutral in itself. It is the editor who must be neutral on Wikipedia. The paragraph in question simply reports what Shapiro said regarding "Israel's right to self-defense" and then the negative reaction from American Muslim groups. CAIR's attack on Shapiro was clearly attributed, rather than being treated as an objective fact. At no point does Wikipedia take a side regarding which of the two is right. Wikipedia needs to be neutral—but CAIR does not. We all need to avoid the urge to read Wikipedia's guidelines in a way that simply leads to the outcomes we desire. And the BLPstyle does not say many of the things you claim it says.

PennLive is a secondary source. If the stance of CAIR and dozens of other American Muslim groups towards Shapiro is notable enough for PennLive, it is notable for Wikipedia. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are responding to a discussion abut neutrality of content, in general. My concern is specifically about how the material is written under WP:NPOV and tone described in WP:BLP. For example, the sentence could say something like:

Shapiro faced criticism... in a letter signed by 43 Pennsylvania Muslim organizations, which said that his public remarks did not adequately address civilian casualties in Gaza.

That would still include the criticism, but without reproducing loaded language about Shapiro's intent.

That being said, the initial concern in this thread was also about due weight. I thought trimming some third-party commentary was a policy-based way to reduce unbalanced coverage of his views on Gaza, and I thought that sentence was a low-risk section to trim for the reasons stated above. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere in the BLP style guidelines is it stated that quoting criticisms verbatim is against the rules. The only expectation is that the source of the criticisms be identified and that Wikipedia not present the criticisms in its own voice. Both of these conditions are already met in the paragraphs you wish to remove.

Being neutral dosn't imply not citing vigorous criticism, either.

In my view, your suggestion flies in the face of Wikipedia policies far more than the paragraph you removed did. American Muslim groups didn't accuse Shapiro of "not adequately address(ing) civilian casualties in Gaza"; they accused him of "intentionally ignor(ing)" them. Your suggestion waters down the position held by these groups. Wikipedia also expects editors to avoid euphemisms and instead describe reality as it is. Furthermore, it is not up to editors to decide when a term is "loaded" and when it is neutral. If something appears in secondary sources, it has a legitimate claim to inclusion on Wikipedia. And the phrase you criticize does appear in PennLive.

I have to ask: if you had no issue with the inclusion of criticisms in the article—only with the way they were presented—why did you remove those two paragraphs wholesale back in April?

I also need to note the following: Shapiro is quoted in the article as calling pro-Palestinian protesters a "mob." That strikes me as far more "loaded," yet no one here has so far called for the removal of this undoubtedly insulting term.

This inconsistency is a constant in the suggestions you make. As I previously noted, you removed a paragraph detailing the fact that Shapiro coordinated with pro-Israel groups to have a Palestinian activist group banned from campus on the grounds of "relying on a single source," yet you didn't do the same with an adjacent paragraph that exhibited the same alleged flaw.

I also disagree that there is any issue regarding WP:WEIGHT here. Criticisms of Shapiro occupy a clearly minor portion of the sections where they appear. The section on Shapiro's positions regarding Israel and Palestine is around 8,000 characters long, while the paragraphs you deleted and I restored total less than 1,200.

Moreover, these sections represent the only criticisms appearing in the article regarding Shapiro's stance on this issue. Must we deal with allegedly excessive criticism by acting as if no criticism exists? StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the content on Gaza and Israel is overall too long (it's longer than "Early life and education", and similar in size to "Early career", which are more essential parts of the BLP). For article on well-known topics or people, there is often more than enough sources and you can't exhaustively cover everything, so there is the question of what facts to cover according to their prominence in reliable sources (WP:WEIGHT).

On this particular sentence, PennLive seems like a reliable source and a secondary source, though a local one, which is not great for WP:WEIGHT, so I would personally lean toward omitting it unless there is at least some coverage in nation-wide news websites. Alenoach (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

One sentence summarizing the position of dozens of American Muslim groups can't be seriously deemed a WEIGHT problem. It's either that, or PennLive is simply not a reliable source on Wikipedia anymore if even a single sentence is too long for us. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here with some information about the longer-term history of the page that may prove relevant to this discussion. Shapiro's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were covered extensively in connection to the 2024 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee search process. That's when a lot of this material was added to the page. However, another change to the page took place at that time, which was to group Shapiro's beliefs and actions relating to the conflict throughout his entire life into one section, as a subcategory of his governorship. Shapiro has made statements and taken actions related to Israel and Palestine in his early life, during his time as AG, and during his governorship. Part of the reason why the coverage of this topic appears so excessive is because, unlike any other section of the page, it is siloed based on its subject matter. One solution would be to restore Shapiro's stances on the conflict to the sections they originated in, restoring the chronological flow of the page. I don't have a strong opinion on whether doing so is a good idea. When Shapiro's views were a hot-button topic, siloing the subject matter was arguably necessary to prevent redundant drive-by editing across multiple sections of the page. Now that attention to his beliefs has calmed down, it may no longer be necessary. But it also might become necessary in the future. In any event, an assessment of the dueness of this material should be undertaken in light of both the extensive coverage of Shapiro's views in secondary sources two years ago, and in light of the unique structure of the page with regard to the topic. I don't think much, if any change to the amount of material is necessary. Insofar as editors can be considered representative of Wikipedia's readership, I think the edits on this page reflect a clear desire by the public to read about Shapiro's views in this respect. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The distinction I am making is:

• No: editor POV
• Yes: POV as characterized by reliable secondary sources
• No: including a primary advocacy letter's characterization of a living person's intent without context just because a secondary source reported that the letter was sent

PennLive described the letter as follows:

Several dozen Pennsylvania-based Islamic organizations and Muslim rights groups issued a letter Thursday criticizing Gov. Josh Shapiro for what they see as Shapiro omitting the suffering of Palestinians in his comments so far on the conflict in Israel and Gaza.

My concerns are not about leaving out criticism, but reflecting the POV of reliable sources. If this section is shown to be due, I do not believe it is usable in its current form. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion. And I think all this energy being spent debating over a single, properly made quotation is entirely too much. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

To summarize, two concerns have yet to be addressed:

• WP:BLPSTYLE - "actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources"
• WP:DUE - overall due weight of the material

◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a long thread that I have not read fully. I just want to say that the open letter is also mentioned in a Forward article titled "Shapiro’s position on Gaza tests close bonds with Arab, Muslim community" that we already use as a source, as well as these local sources.

While looking at the section I noticed that we say "Shapiro has repeatedly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ..." but the source only quotes the statement about N. being "one of the worst leaders of all time".

This Forward article I referred to above also provides some further context for Shapiro's comments about Goldies ("A few days after the demonstration, Solomonov apologized to his staff for poor communication and said he had not realized that United Hatzalah sent equipment to the Israeli army"). It also provides more coverage about the relationship between Shapiro and CAIR after Shapiro's remarks in October 2023 ("Ahmet Tekelioglu, Philadelphia director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the community was also able to absorb Shapiro’s initial reaction to the Oct. 7 terror attack, with statements defending 'Israel’s right to defend itself' that made no mention of Palestinians". "Tekelioglu boycotted the dinner. 'Many people who have supported his candidacy in the past could never see themselves supporting Governor Shapiro again', he said".) Burrobert (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

With the additional sources, I think there is a stronger case for inclusion. But I still think it should summarize how secondary sources characterize the dispute and in what context, rather than quote the most loaded wording from the open letter.

How about:

In October 2023, days after the Hamas-led attack on Israel, CAIR and several dozen Pennsylvania Muslim organizations signed an open letter saying that Shapiro's public comments on the Israel–Hamas war had not acknowledged Palestinian civilian suffering in Gaza. Shapiro's office responded that he was pained by the loss of innocent lives but and stood by his support for Israel's right to defend itself.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Some points:

• As far as I can tell, the criticism from CAIR and Muslim groups consisted of two points, both of which reflect what they call a "one-sided discourse".(Pitt Jewish Chronicle) Firstly, the critics accuse Shapiro of "fail[ing] to recognize the structural root causes of the conflict". Secondly, they accuse Shapiro of "intentionally ignor[ing] the civilian loss of life in Gaza".
• In addition to Muslim groups, Shapiro's critics also include "some Jews critical of Israel’s response to the Hamas attack"(Forward) and "left-wing activists and commentators". I have not read the whole bio, but the content related to Israel-Palestine that I have seen gives a lot of space to Shapiro's views but not much, if any, to assessments of his views.
• In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict section, we provide fairly extensive direct quotes from Shapiro. I don't see a problem providing quotes from CAIR or others that appear in the sources we are using.
• "but" is a word to watch, so I would prefer the last sentence be broken into two so that we don't imply something that is not in the sources.

Burrobert (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the concern with the "intentionally ignoring" phrase remains that it is not how the secondary sources appear to summarize the dispute.

On the direct-quote point, I think there is an allowance made in WP:BLPSTYLE when it comes to individuals quoting their own statements.

On "but," I do not think the word is automatically a problem where the contrast is made in the same source. The issue is if 'but' is used between sources to make a connection not made in a reliable source. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I did not find anything in the policy you mentioned that related to this. However, I expect any "allowance" from policy in regards to quotes would apply equally across the board. Provide an excerpt of the policy you are referring to and I will have another look. Btw, Shapiro is not "quoting [his] own statements". A secondary source is quoting his statements, as is the case for CAIR and others who were commenting on Shapiro's position.

We don't need secondary sources to agree with the statement about Shapiro "intentionally ignoring" the loss of civilian life in Gaza. By including the text in quotes, we are making clear that it is opinion of the organisations. Similarly, when we quote Shapiro saying Netanyahu is "a terrible leader" who is "bad for Israel and bad for the stability in the Middle East", we don't need the secondary sources to describe the situation in this way in order to include the quote. Burrobert (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I did not find anything in the policy you mentioned that related to this.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying there is no policy reason to prefer PennLive's, the Jewish Chronicle's, or Local CBS's own summaries of the letter over the letter's more loaded wording about Shapiro's intent? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You pointed to a policy which you said gives an allowance to individuals quoting their own statements, whatever that means. I looked at the policy you pointed to and could find nothing related to "individuals quoting their own statements". I then said, if you excerpt the section you were referring to, I would have another look. That seems to be where matters stand at the moment as far as I can make out. Burrobert (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am not exactly sure what other material you are referring to. So I'll take back the BLPSTYLE comment. Either way, I agree that policy should be applied consistently; if there are problems with other material, those should be addressed as well.

However, I think you may be misunderstanding my point when you say, "We don't need secondary sources to agree with the statement about Shapiro ‘intentionally ignoring’ the loss of civilian life in Gaza." My point is not that secondary sources must agree or disagree with the statement. It is that the article should mirror the interpretation and context given in reliable secondary sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that we quote Shapiro at length and that quotes from CAIR and others appear in sources we can use, I don't see the need to avoid providing direct quotes in this specific instance. The PennLive source that we use for the quotes, does not really have much to say about the letter. It mostly just quotes the parts of it that it, presumably, thinks are most significant. The other three articles that mention the letter also offer quotes from the letter and from Shapiro, but little perspective. However, a quote-free version may be possible. Using your earlier version as a starting point, what about:

In October 2023, CAIR and several dozen Pennsylvania Muslim organizations signed an open letter criticising Shapiro's response to the October 7 attacks. The letter said that Shapiro had failed to recognise Israel as the root cause of the conflict and had not acknowledged Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza. Shapiro's office responded that he was pained by the loss of innocent lives. He stood by his support for Israel's right to defend itself.

Burrobert (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

That works. Thanks for taking the time to understand that direct quotations are not the issue. The concern is the editorial selection of the material. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I made the change using your proposed text as the base. The only issue I found when drafting is that I could not find the claim "{tq|failed to recognize Israel as the root cause of the conflict}}" in summary coverage of the material so I left that part out. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It is in the Jewish Chronicle source, which says "CAIR issued its open letter to Shapiro on Oct. 12, blaming Israel as the “root cause” of Hamas’ attacks". Burrobert (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. The Jewish Chronicle summarizes the letter as:

In an open letter to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and several other Muslim groups urged him to end what they described as a “one-sided discourse.”

So we could add 'one-sided discourse' since that's how that secondary source summarizes the letter. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What about blaming Israel as the “root cause” of Hamas’ attacks? That is also a summary of the letter. Burrobert (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That may be in the letter, itself. The key point I'm trying to say is that that it is not up to editors to decide how to summarize the letter, it's up to the reliable sources and Wikipedia to faithfully represent their summary. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not in the letter. "Root causes" only appears once in the letter and not in relation to "Israel". It is the source's summary of the letter. Burrobert (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair. I was only looking at the summary at the top. Not at the summary in the body. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. I tried adding it, but I could not find a good way to do so. Combining the Chronicle's summary with summaries from other sources in a single sentence could risk synthesis by creating a unified summary that no individual source uses.

Another option would be to add a separate sentence:

The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle characterized the letter as blaming Israel as the "root cause" of Hamas's attacks.

That would avoid synthesis, but it may give undue weight to a characterization emphasized by only one relatively niche source. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's use the quote until we can work something out. I understand your reservation about combining two sources into one sentence. A separate sentence for the Pen JC summary would be fine. A simpler attribution would be to say: The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle said the letter blamed Israel as the "root cause" of Hamas's attacks". Burrobert (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That works. I still think a lot of coverage in the section may not be due, but at least it isn't pulling from separate sources to make a single statement. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle's gloss. To be quite honest, for people who have been fretting about WEIGHT for a while, it looks hypocritical to go out of the way to add this line. So CAIR's protest letter, co-signed by dozens of groups, was ruled not notable for Wikipedia for months, but the moment it is added, we must also make room to a swipe from a minor local paper? Shapiro is already quoted responding to CAIR, and that's enough. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle is not due as a separate sentence. However, replacing "had not acknowledged" with "ignored" re-raises the same secondary sourcing concerns mentioned above. "Ignored" is not just a synonym, it uses the advocacy letter's characterization of Shapiro's conduct and intent as opposed to the secondary sources'. Editors should not be deciding which wording is euphemistic, favorable, or unfavorable on their own. The article should reflect how reliable secondary sources summarize the dispute, rather than editors selecting stronger language from primary material quoted within the sources.◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You haven't been able to show me where Wikpedia's guidelines object against the use of this kind of quotation despite the extensive discussion we engaged in above. What Wikipedia does in fact do, is urge editors not to give in to the temptation of describing reality with euphemisms, which is what all your suggestions for this line ultimately do. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not about quotations. It is about editorial selection. We should follow how reliable secondary sources summarize the dispute, not choose wording from the letter because an editor considers it less euphemistic. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think using the word "ignored" is a problem here, it's clear in the paragraph that it's CAIR's POV, not Wikipedia's. If it were a very loaded or a vulgar quote, I would agree it would be better to paraphrase it neutrally, but here I believe it's well within the range of what's acceptable. Alenoach (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That is fair. And I just realized that after rereading it, the "intentionally" part was removed. "Intentionally ignored civilian deaths" was more loaded than the current text, as it implied deliberate malice or motive. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have now restored the part where it says "intentionally." In an article where Shapiro is quoted as calling pro-Palestinian protesters "a mob" with no contradiction acknowledged from the target of his comments, it dosn't seem proportional to split hairs over the much less loaded characterization that CAIR made of his comments. The article at least recognizes Shapiro's response to CAIR. StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for your preferred wording over the wording used by the reliable sources. Per WP:VNOT, just because material is cited does not mean it is due for inclusion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no consensus in favor of your proposals, and no Wikipedia policy states that CAIR's accusations are too vulgar for the page (and they aren't). The entry contains much harsher rhetoric regarding the Israel-Palestine issue (from Shapiro himself), yet no one on this Talk Page has objected to those comments of his being shown in the entry. I myself am only bringing up the fact that this page does not censor Shapiro's "mob" insult against pro-Palestinian protesters in order to expose the selective squeamishness of some editors here. All this ink is being spilled solely to protect Shapiro – nobody else. I ask you to really consider what your insistence looks like.StopRejectingMyUsername (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no consensus in favor of your proposals

I reached agreement with both Burrobert and Alenoach on the wording.

too vulgar for the page

I'm not arguing the wording is too vulgar. Material used by reliable sources should not be removed solely per vulgarity per WP:NOTCENSORED, either. The issue is with tone and how secondary sources summarize and characterize the letter and dispute per WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPOV.

I myself am only bringing up the fact that this page does not censor Shapiro's "mob"

Potentially problematic wording elsewhere doesn't establish consensus for disputed wording here. They can be edited or discussed separately. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Aleonach said only a handful of replies up that the quote is "within the range of what is acceptable." Skimming the discussion, I'm not totally sure what Burrobert thinks, but it doesn't strike me as agreement that the quote should be summarized. For my part, I believe the quote is better than a summary, given that it is reported verbatim by secondary sources. I trust the readers to evaluate the quote's veracity themselves. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, I think I made my point clear, so I'll drop the stick. My concern was the article was characterizing Shapiro's position through an advocacy group rather than explaining his position directly through reliable secondary sources. To me, it risks leaving readers with just the criticism without describing the underlying policy. However, if other editors do not have a concern, additional discussion would not be constructive at this point. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Death of Ellen Greenberg?

I think it would be a good idea to add a portion discussing the death of Ellen Greenberg, because of the extent to which Governor Shapiro was involved in the case starting 2018 when he was Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Even just a link to the article would be good, because his role was notable and also somewh controversial. ~2026-20175-76 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hm... I don't see much coverage or involvement by Shapiro for the case in reliable sources as mentioned in Death of Ellen Greenberg. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this, I feel like I remember it being in the article at some point a while back, but maybe I'm wrong. Greenberg's family and their PIs have criticized him in the press multiple times for not doing more. OhWyrm (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)