Talk:Ari Shaffir

Vandalism
I will keep on correcting aris birth year, I’m not sure if this is the way to suggest this or not but perhaps an admin would consider locking edits to stop this continuous vandalism Unoc (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an entry at WP:RPP requesting page protection. Loopy30 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Welp i didn't even required to constantly change date to lock this guy's page Myserl100 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020
add in 2019 he was dropped from his talent management for racist and insensitive comments. 172.250.4.4 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bert Kreischer
It is pretty well known that Shaffir placed a Molly in Kreischer's drink. Should this go under Controversy? Kreischer missed a scheduled flight because of the "prank" and his wife wanted to press charges against Shaffir. Kreischer has been pretty vocal about the incident in interviews and podcasts. Shaffir even went on Instagram denouncing Sober October month and saying that he placed the molly in Kreischer's drink as revenge. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this information would only be relevant if this incident had significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Sure, they talked about it on podcasts, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable. They are a couple of drug-taking, hard-drinking comedians afterall. See also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LIBEL, WP:CRIME. Cheers! Marchije•speak/peek 22:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, the fact that the entire section Controversy is sourced by Twitter and "The Jerusalem Post" completely disqualifies any argument you just cited via WP policy. The fact that you just wrote: "They are a couple of drug-taking, hard-drinking comedians" is contentious material for a BLP on WP; and I would not disqualify the actions on your opinion. Nice try, though. Maineartists (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree the that the controversy section is poorly sourced. I was not a contributor to that section, so I'm not sure why you addressed that to me or how it negates my argument. If you think the existing info there should be removed, you won't hear any disagreement from me. I'm just an editor, like you, adding to the conversation. If others weigh-in and agree with you, good, you've got the consensus you were looking for and can for it. You also seem to assume that "drug-taking" and "hard-drinking" are derogatory statements. I do not take such a negative view of enjoying intoxicants, hence me being a fan of both comedians. I'm not sure if you follow Ari, but his drug-taking is well known by those who do, as is Kreischer's heavy drinking. They are both very open about this. Much like the story of Ari slipping Molly to Kreischer, both have talked at length about their drug use and alcohol use on many podcasts. I meant no offense nor was I casting judgement on their activities, but I stand by my response to your proposal and the rationale given. I didn't create Wikipedia's policies, I was simply citing them to support my argument. I don't see how the fact that contentious or poorly-sourced information already exists in that section supports the idea that we should be adding more. Two wrongs don't make a right. But again, this is but one editor's opinion. Try not to take one's conflicting opinion so personally. This was not a judgement about you, I just disagree is all. Have a nice night. Marchije•speak/peek 01:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By saying "Have a good night" does not sweep away the conversation. Your point of debate and statements of rebuttal actually do not promote your case. Your citing of WP:LIBEL does not apply here. The fact that you yourself state: "[Ari's] drug-taking is well known by those who do, as is Kreischer's heavy drinking" negates any libel content that I might introduce to the article by way of this particular situation. In keeping, WP:NOTNEWS & WP:CRIME have no bearing here at all. The BLPs in question rely heavily on certain means of media that are represented in their careers; as you yourself state: "podcasts". You questioned: "I was not a contributor to that section, so I'm not sure why you addressed that to me or how it negates my argument." In my original posting I specifically cite the section: Controversy. Plain and simple. That is and was my entire direction for inclusion. I hardly took anything personal. I have yet to accept a strong argument except that of your personal opinion; which as we both know does not make for good article writing at WP. Maineartists (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Mainartists: I would like to understand why you feel this information is relevant. You've also mentioned during your original talk page post and your recent edit summary that this information is "well-known": It was my understanding that relevancy and notability was established by whether or not the information was reported on by reliable third-party sources. In your initial talk page post you stated this was mentioned in "interviews". Perhaps we can cite those? In addition, as per WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.  And as per WP:Consensus: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  If I'm misinterpreting these policies I would truly like to understand: Can you point me to actual verbiage from Wikipedia's policies and procedures that support your point of view on the matter? Marchije•speak/peek 01:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. You're the only one who feels it should be left out of this article. Gain the consensus that agrees with your specific point of view on this exact matter; and it can be removed. Until then, it remains on the basis that more have attempted to include it than your one attempt to remove it. Plain and simple. As for interviews, stop trying to look for reasons. Kreischer has been interviewed dozens of times on the subject, so has his wife: "LeeAnn Kreischer on Bert's Dosing - So Over October Highlight", so has Shaffir himself. Other comedians have talked about it on their podcasts and online shows: Theo von Podcast #268"", "Tigerbelly Clips with Bobby Lee". I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you when a simple Google search will supply you with multiple sources. It's known by comics, fans, etc. Last, this subject is known exclusively for these two controversies. It's brought up time and again in referencing him (as can be seen in the 2020 sources provided). My question to you is: why are you against including this? Are you associated with the subject? It's only one line. That's all. Not undue weight. Not excessive content. Nothing. Just one line backed by sources; which you asked for. Now you're bringing up policy. Sorry. The sources back the content stated. And if you question or challenge, then you best be ready to do the same for nearly all of the content in this article based on your "policy" defense. Until you gain consensus to remove it; or other editors on the article page feel the same to remove it (which you're the only that seems the need to), it remains. Maineartists (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the need to be so curt in your language and tone. Is there no way that we can keep this conversation on a more civil level? I disagreed with your initial suggestion and your response to my post started with "first of all" and ended with "nice try though." Then I responded and ended my next response with wishing you a nice night and you presumed that this was somehow an attempt to "sweep away the conversation". I've also directly quoted WP policies on how it is the onus of the editor trying to add information and that consensus is not up to a "vote" and still relies on "respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" and your response was "Nope" and to tell me to "stop trying to look for reasons" and how you "aren't going to waste [your] time." Then you went on to suggest that I might be related to the subject. All I can do is assure you that I am coming at this from good faith and that I am attempting to understand where I am wrong about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you must have suspected someone might disagree with including this information, otherwise you would have simply made your edit in the first place, instead of asking for opinions on the article's talk page, no? In any event, since the only people weighing-in on this is yourself and myself, and since I have no interest in being accused of edit-warring, I have added a request for comment to this talk page discussion. I would really like to know if simply speaking about something on podcasts is enough to establish notability and relevancy and to warrant inclusion in a BLP, particularly if the subject matter is arguably contentious in nature since it deals with illegal activity. If citing podcasts is enough to warrant inclusion, so be it. Marchije•speak/peek 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Can we get a list of the sources we do have up-top? Obviously it's both an WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BLP-sensitive claim, so high-quality sourcing is needed, but it's hard to discuss this further without having a list of the sources the dispute focuses on and the text they would be used to cite. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See, this is my problem here. keeps changing his mode of contest and challenge. First he asks for RS. When he gets them, he changes his approach to "not-notabile". Then when he himself states: "I'm not sure if you follow Ari, but his drug-taking is well known by those who do, as is Kreischer's heavy drinking. They are both very open about this. Much like the story of Ari slipping Molly to Kreischer, both have talked at length about their drug use and alcohol use on many podcasts." In one statement he's saying it is not known enough for inclusion, then he's saying it is known enough to state it on the Talk Page. These two comedians are known for stand-up and podcasts. If the coverage of "said event" is by podcast, the main RS will be as such. WP allows YouTube clips to stand as RS when it comes to video and audio reference claims. I showed the most obvious: The Joe Rogan Experience #1358. October 2019 the 3 comedians - Shaffir, Kreischer and Segura talking about the incident in full detail and admitting to what happened. If you'd like another means of representation for that podcast, I'll provide. But the outcome will be the same to back the claim. I also presented 4 sources that show present day relevancy to the topic still in the news as of 2020: Cageside Press. Quote: “... despite his habitual line stepping (like drugging his friend with MDMA)" January 30, 2020., Pop Culture. Quote: "I stopped defending him when he slipped me Molly.” February 13, 2020., The Comic’s Comic. Quote: “Even Bert’s own kids know Ari once drugged their dad.” February 9, 2020., BroBible. Quote: “Fresh off of drugging his good friend Bert Kreischer” January 28, 2020.. I then added a continuance of other comedians still discussing the topic today: Theo von Podcast #268"", "Tigerbelly Clips with Bobby Lee" and even Kreischer's wife: "LeeAnn Kreischer on Bert's Dosing - So Over October Highlight". Now Marchije wants to question the WP:EXCEPTIONAL content due to an illegal action? and WP:BLP-sensitive claim? Come on. If the subject himself is perfectly fine talking about it at length on various media outlets and admitting to the act, other comedians interview the subjects involved, and media publications actually print the action; where is the "expectionalism"? Stop moving the ball. It's one line: "In 2019, Shaffir spiked fellow comedian Bert Kreischer's drink with MDMA, leading to a falling out between Shaffir and Kreischer's family." If you'd like me to change it to: "In 2019, Shaffir admitted to spiking fellow comedian Bert Kreischer ..." I will. But let's stick with one contestable objection and be done with it. Either it's RS, notability, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or the fact that the editor just has a problem with this one single inclusion, for whatever reason. He originally wrote: "If others weigh-in and agree with you, good, you've got the consensus you were looking for and can for it." Well, they did. By continually attempting to add this very well-known incident regarding the BLP; they formed a consensus to include. But this one editor kept removing it based on one complaint: RS. On the Talk Page it's notability; and now WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The section can easily be expanded to included statements from Shaffir, Kreischer (including Kreischer's statement regarding choosing not to release the podcast due to the implication of a crime being committed) and Kreischer's wife (Your Mom's House with Christina P. Ep. 1 Thursday October 3, 2019 with LeeAnn Kreischer: "in the lead up, Ari dosed Bert for an episode of "The Bertcast" so we hear LeeAnn's reaction in full"). But why bother? We're simply discussing one line. Not a lengthy section full of detailed paragraphs that need multiple sources to back contentious claims. Maineartists (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * SOURCES For the record. All three comedians in question, including the BLP subject, utilize not only Podcast links as RS but YouTube links as well in their WP articles. On this page specifically, RS #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, (#8 / #9 deadlinks) #10, #11, #12 etc are all interviews / podcasts with the BLP. This should assuage the question posed: "If citing podcasts is enough to warrant inclusion, so be it" and also counter the defense that my RS need to be "third-party". Maineartists (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude - pretty clear for multiple reasons. First it seems not widely covered by third parties so not WP:DUE.  Second, WP:BLP guidance is to avoid sensationalism and tabloidism especially so for possible  WP:BLPCRIME.  Third, there isn’t a common statement of what (if anything) happened so what to propose here would be problematic.   And lastly it is just not biographically significant.  This isn’t a major life choice, nor an event that altered his life, nor something that was an enduring large portion of years.  I wouldn’t be against trivia about how the life is lived, but making WP about detailing sleazy incidents just seems making WP less reputable.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't a common statement? Did you even read the above? the sources? listen to the BLPs involved? Come on. The statement is as common as it gets. "Ari Shaffir slipped Bert Kreischer a Molly." Both subjects have stated it countless times; and every single person in the industry that interviews them about it says the exact same thing. Plus, I provided sources that back the "common" statement. Do you want more? It is not sensationalism or tabloidism considering the source. It is a major life choice. It did alter his life and those around him. I cannot accept anything you're saying. It sounds like you didn't even read the sources or listen to the re-telling by those who it affected. It ruined his friendships and cost him the trust of his colleagues; who still talk about it today. "Nor something that was an enduring large portion of years"? There are only two things that Shaffir is remembered for regarding controveries: Kobe Bryant and Bert Kreischer. As of 4 days ago, it was still being talked about: and uploaded on [Steve-O]'s WILD RIDE. How can you possibly defend half the trivial content in this article: "He cites Bill Burr as his favorite living comedian. In 2010 Shaffir appeared on the 3rd episode of the Joe Rogan Experience. Every 50 episodes the comedy team Danish and O’Neill appear as guests. He became a New York resident in 2015. " So? Nothing - absolutely nothing - in this article is "widely covered by third parties" so I reject that as a reason to exclude. Maineartists (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Exclude - per WP:BLP. Our standards for inclusion of contentious material - a serious allegation that the subject of a BLP allegedly committed a crime - are considerably stricter than podcasts and the sources presently used in the article for this very serious allegation of a crime. Quite frankly, this content should have already been removed, until consensus is achieved for inclusion. Per WP:ONUS - The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. In my view, this is disputed content, because it is not merely an incident (as the section currently states), but rather a serious allegation of a crime being committed by the subject of this BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

His father, the Holocaust survivor
In his Skeptic Tank podcast, the man said this is his father but I'm unable to find a reliable source which confirms. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)