Talk:Dave Rubin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Guilt by association (i.e. interviewing figures outside the mainstream left/right)

If you want to say that Rubin has given a platform to "alt right" or "Far Right" or "White Nationalist" folk, then you're going to need a reliable source stating us such. Synthesizing references to one or two people appearing on his show (Molyneux, Southern) into a sentence approximating the above, is not encyclopedic. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, does that make Rumsfeld an Arab Socialist Ba'ath sympathizer? Fisk interviewed bin Ladene, does that make Fisk a Jihadist? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Per RS, Rubin plays a central role in a far-right network whereby he gives a big platform to alt-right and far-right figures. Not only does he give them this platform, but he props them up during interviews and legitimizes them, and doesn't push back on any of the extremist rhetoric that they espouse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• The sources go into extensive depth on the significance of him interviewing those people without confronting them and how it has affected his reputation. It's not WP:SYNTH - we're reporting exactly what the sources say. Here's the relevant quotes:
  • The Guardian: “They have these conversations where really openly racist ideas are getting thrown around as if they are perfectly normal,” said Rebecca Lewis, the author of the report. “This amplifies these ideas.” She cites the example of Dave Rubin hosting Canadian rightwing influencer Stefan Molyneux, who openly promotes scientific racism and advocates for the men’s rights movement. During the show, Rubin asks Molyneux to describe his position on the link between race and IQ, where he cites research that has shown different races have different average IQ test results. Molyneux believes this shows that intelligence of different races is genetic rather than environmental – something that has been shown time and time again to be bad science. Although Rubin doesn’t endorse these views, he doesn’t challenge them in any substantive way and appears to take his words at face value. In the context of an article on right-wing radicalization networks on Youtube and the role Rubin plays in them.
  • GQ Take, for example, the Rubin Report, a YouTube show purportedly devoted to "free speech" and "big ideas" with more than 700,000 subscribers. ... While Rubin frequently rails on identity politics, which he has called "evil," he often invites on some of the most toxic practitioners of pro-Trump, white-identity politics, like InfoWars' Paul Joseph Watson, who recycle black and immigrant crime stories, decry globalism and multiculturalism, and portray white identity as under attack. There they are offered the same deference and audience as some of the country’s leading public intellectuals. Rubin has expressed skepticism that white supremacism is on the rise, such as in this March 2017 interview with far-right activist Lauren Southern. "What portion of this do you actually think is real," he asked. Southern responded that white supremacism was a phenomenon so non-existent that "desperate" people had to "create" it, asserting that a Jewish organization was behind the Canadian Nazi party because they "wanted more, like, hate crimes." Southern then pushed the false distinction between white supremacists and white nationalists. "I see the white ethno-state as super utopian," she said. "It's a utopian idea, right?" Rubin didn't challenge the notion. Context is an article on the mainstreaming of white supremacy.

Honestly, the lead should probably do more to capture the idea that Rubin is amplifying far-right ideas; right now, we mention he's been criticized, but miss a key point of why. The 2018 report from Data & Society mentioned further down in the article seems important, since it identifies him as a key point in this process of right-wing radicialization. --Aquillion (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

These are sentences cherry picked from opinion pieces. Their content is not indicative of the overall coverage he has gotten in mainstream media. It certainly is OR and SYNTH, if you take a couple of mentions of him in Guardian and GQ articles to associate him with (1) Far Right; (2) alt-right; and (3) White Nationalism. He's also interviewed far-leftists, orthodox Marxists, comedians, progressive liberals, feminists, Muslims, gender studies professors, et al. The whole point of his show is free speech - he gives everyone a chance to talk. By labeling him alt/far right for talking to these people, you're kinda just proving his point: elements of the contemporary left are severely uncomfortable with free speech on political topics. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about those sources indicate that they're opinion pieces (this is what an opinion piece in the Guardian looks like; this is what an opinion piece in GQ looks like. Note that both are clearly labeled and categorized as opinion, while the ones you object to are not.) There's also more sources discussing this further down the article. Even if you disagree with what they say, that doesn't make them opinion and doesn't mean you can just remove or downplay them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to look up sourcing. Unless speaking in the editorial voice of the publication - not in the individual writer - you cannot source ascriptions to the publications. Moreover, nowhere do those pieces make any case as to the notability of their claims. I could easily find more sources that refer to him that make no mention of Molyneux or Southern. You're cherry-picking, therefore: UNDUE WEIGHT. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just because somebody, somewhere, criticizes someone, is no license for you to place those criticism in the lede of a BLP. If you type "Dave Rubin" into Google and Google News, you get a plethora of mentions in a range of sources. If I just select the ones that come up in terms of the more notable sources, I get the following (after filtering out marginal sources):

http://udreview.com/dave-rubin-on-why-he-left-the-left/ https://www.foxnews.com/tech/jordan-b-peterson-dave-rubin-ditch-crowdfunding-site-patreon-to-stand-up-for-free-speech https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/censored-in-the-city-dave-rubin-on-the-american-liberal-orthodoxy/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/01/06/dave-rubin-how-he-built-a-political-platform-using-social-media/#620888bf26ca https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/meet-dave-rubin-host-of-the-most-influential-chat-show-youve-nev/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/i-stopped-watching-the-rubin-report-and-you-should-too

even the hostile Daily Beast article says of him: "Rubin is both lauded and criticized for his non-confrontational at-all-costs interviewing style, with fans appreciating his willingness to have an open dialogue with everyone from fringe characters associated with the alt-right to distinguished academics to disaffected progressives to ex-Muslims, allowing for a more thorough airing of their beliefs beyond controversial soundbites. Rubin’s oft-repeated principle to “judge people as individuals, and not as a collective” and reject identity politics would seem to align with The Rubin Report’s stated billing as “a talk show about big ideas and free speech.”

Only two of those articles, both opinion pieces The Washington Examiner and the Daily Beast, criticize him for giving airtime to extremists. So why make such politically partisan criticisms the main point of the lede in his BLP? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

EmilCioran1195 is correct, this article is giving way too much weight to a single, negative DailyBeast article. It's really problematic that so much of a BLP is being sourced to a few very negative articles and that people think it's reasonable to put only the most negative aspects of responses The Rubin Report in the lead. Springee (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I added two other sources unrelated to the Daily Beast, yet you removed both the cites and the text cited to them. What's your objection to those sources? --Aquillion (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Which two sources are you referring to? I removed a SPLC link that was broken and appears to reference an article about Praiger U rather than Rubin. Springee (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies:, this parpagraph [[1]] is sourced solely to a DailyBeast article that is trying to only present negative information about the show. Even worse, what we have here are a few snippets, taken without context and presented for readers to jump to their own conclusions. The Dailybeast is hardly an unbiased source and not a highly reliable one for commentary. Absent some other sources to support the claims they should be removed as UNDUE. Springee (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not only "negative information about the show". It's about how Rubin propos up far-right radicals and brazen racists as some kind of bold centrist thinkers, and it fits perfectly with content already sourced to the Guardian and Playboy about Rubin's role as a node in a far-right network. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several sources to substantiate the language in the lede. The Daily Beast article is the only in-depth profile of Rubin, so of course a lot of content is sourced to it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, what are the odds that at the same time the article on Jennifer Rubin is smeared... Drmies (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, au contraire. The Daily Beast is a reliable source, even if you don't like it. One can expect decent fact-checking for this, but your objection is even stranger because the article links the actual primary source, the livestream, on which he said these things. And if you are asking for more sources lest it be UNDUE, then you don't understand what UNDUE is all about (this isn't it). Drmies (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, first, please restore the NPOV tag. It's clear a number of editors have been unhappy with this article. Second, the DB is a poor source. Yes, they are linking to sources, but the analysis isn't high quality. More significantly, this too much of the article is being sourced to this single, article rather than a range of sources. That means we have a problem of UNDUE weight. Springee (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you have no leg to stand on. First you claim UNDUE but misapply the term. Then you say "it's not well-sourced", but the primary source is linked, so you withdraw that. Now it's "other editors are unhappy"--maybe, I don't know, but this objection seems new. Finally, no, the Daily Beast is not a poor source. It may be left of center, but it's not very left, and it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability. As for the number of citations, I have already explained that--but to make you happy, I'll deal with it right now. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Four days ago, this short entry sourced 16 claims to an article in the "Let the best ideas win" rubric at the Daily Beast ( § )? Wow. I think the entry should cite to the author, who seems on first reading to be expressing an opinion about who is "slagging" off whom... For the discussion below, it is worth noting that the Beast also says he self-brands as a "classical liberal". As for a paper that advertises for "PAY DIRT: The Daily Beast’s Muckraking Madness In Your Inbox" [2] and whose EiC calls the paper a "high-end tabloid" [3], it's fun to see it regularly summarized so thoroughly in en.wp entries. I've noticed that it appears fairly frequently in blue. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Attribution for the description of his political views seems appropriate, but attribution for the quote about the alt right seems a bit weird: there's not really any doubt that Fisher accurately transcribed what Rubin said, is there? WP:YESPOV says we should avoid stating facts as opinions. Nblund ^talk 21:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's on Fisher's authority that the livestreamed comments about humor are notable, so I don't see why they wouldn't be cited. What harm does it do to give the author credit for their reporting? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It is cited, and credit is given through that citation. The problem is that, as you just acknowledged above, in-text attributions typically convey that readers are reading an opinion or a contested claim of fact. If there's no dispute about the accuracy, then it should normally be stated directly in Wikipedia's voice. Nblund ^talk 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you look at the original text, Fisher uses the word "said" not the word "lauded". I looked to see when the loaded "lauded" word was added and found this. More neutral / encyclopedic might be to simply say that Rubin has said he finds the alt-right funnier than the preachy left (though why this is particularly notable is anybody's guess). Instead we seem to be witnessing a beastification of en.wp with the blue-link to "shitposting" and the reproduction of vulgar language rather than the use of encyclopedic summary style. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's connected to the question of in-text attribution. I've reworded slightly to make it clear that he was lauding the humor, but removed the in-text attribution. Nblund ^talk 11:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nine minutes after abridging the copied text to encyclopedic-style writing, the original copyist swooped in to revert.

Also, by shortening the text, I was able to note that in the original text Fisher does *not* claim that Rubin has *said* X,Y, and Z are "centrists", but "has suggested or said" X, Y, and Z are centrists. We should be attentive to such details when dealing with news sources that describe themselves as high-end tabloids. Saying someone has suggested something involves opinion, POV...🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not averse to paraphrase, but I don't think your change accurately characterized the quote or the author's intent in citing it. I don't read Rubin as saying that the alt-right is just funnier than the left, he seems to be praising the rebelliousness in addition to the humor. I also definitely don't think that we can say the "preachy left" in wikivoice. I also think "characterized" would be a reasonable approximation of "said or suggested", but I think its fine to trade that out if you think its crucial. Nblund ^talk 17:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

edit This, however, seems problematic for the same reasons I mentioned above. There's not a meaningful factual dispute here. Also: "assert" is not really neutral terminology (MOS:CLAIM) Nblund ^talk 17:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, looking further, it is clear that Rubin does *not* say that he thinks X,Y, and Z are centrists in the conventional understanding of this term. The previous wiki-text was misleading on that score. Feel free to add quotes around the word "preachy". Also, I notice in your text that you say: "I don't think your change accurately characterized ... the author's intent in citing (Rubin)." Well, indeed... Fisher is advancing a point of view, I just focused on the facts being reported. It's interesting that one of the few words originally eliminated from the Beast photocopy was "amazing".  :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Fisher is advancing an interpretation of facts, which is a defining feature of a secondary source. Its very gracious of you to offer to let me put quotation marks around a quote, but I would hope you would be willing to take care of that yourself. Nblund ^talk 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I also followed two of your other suggestions, which were not bad at all. No need for sarcasm, I prefer a cordial environment. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But you did so while also restoring the in-text attribution issue that we discussed previously. This is not just bold editing at this point. Nblund ^talk 18:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph should be removed. It's a non-encyclopedic "sound bite". The paragraph has no topic sentence or theme. It seems to exist only to throw out a possibly contentious factoid and then let the reader jump to their own conclusion. This sort of ambiguous purpose is exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article. Snooganssnoogans, please explain why you think this paragraph should be in the article at all. Absent some justification I propose removing it as both UNDUE and as usencyclopedic (which I guess is part of undue). It currently is a factoid sourced only to a single, highly critical and rather opinionated article. Yes, op ed articles can link to other articles as sources. What makes it opinions is when the author tells the reader what to think. Springee (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the topic sentence would be that several sources have described Rubin as having a bit of a soft spot for the alt right. The quote could be traded out for some other statement along those same lines, but eliminating that discussion entirely seems unjustified given that this has been a topic of discussion in several reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 17:54, 1 September 20 19 (UTC)

edit to that end, I would suggest something along the lines of this diff in my sandbox.

This would combine the multiple instances of criticisms in a single paragraph, and would clarify the "topic sentence", while also providing a less distracting version of in-text attribution for the Daily Beast. Nblund ^talk 18:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the author's name (Rebecca Lewis)should be in the footnote for the Data & Society report and perhaps (§) a link to the D&S landing page for the paper would be good too. Also, why is The Daily Beast blue while Data & Society is red? Cf. §, §, etc. Surely a page is warranted... As this page stands now, just linking to a PDF without even mentioning the author of the report doesn't seem like best practices.

As for the direct quote cited by the Beast, I notice that both "preachy" *and* "amazing" had gone now (though now the proposal is no longer on the page?).  :) Fair enough. ^^ As for in-text attribution, I'm thinking it should be to the author (Fisher), not to the corporation (IAC, ultimately), especially when it refers to a Beast piece that floats from op-ed to reporting and back. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay I implemented this and fleshed out the ref for data and society. I replaced with "Daily Beast reporter Anthony Fisher" for the attribution. IMHO, the name is extraneous since he's a reporter for the site, but we should at least note his affiliation so readers don't think he's just some rando. I don't think the "preachy" or "amazing" parts are imperative, but I do think a partial quotation is preferable to a potentially debatable effort to interpret what precisely he's praising there. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls: you're edit warring here, and this doesn't seem like an improvement. The whole point of placing the "shitposting" quote in a paragraph with other criticisms was to make it clear how it fit in to the broader set of criticisms regarding his approach toward the alt right - this defeats the purpose. The insistence on in-text attribution here already seemed silly, and the "confusion" seems like a solution to a problem you yourself created. There's no indication from the author that the quotes about the alt right were "in contrast" to the "preachy left" - it seems like you're applying far more strict standards to every other interpretation of this quote other than your own. The best approach would be to simply follow the author as closely as possible. Nblund ^talk 21:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I agree that the claim "Rubin has implied or stated that right-wing figures... are part of "a new political center" appears to be a summary by Fisher. Fisher doesn't offer links to where he feels Rubin is making those statements and given the strong POV Fisher is pushing I think the statement should be attributed.

Second comment. We don't all agree but complements to Nblund and SashiRolls. The article has made some real improvements in balance and general quality with these last edits even if the pace has been a bit staccato. This is probably going to be a case where neither side is really happy so the net result is likely better for the reader. Springee (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a summary. It's literally what Rubin says to these people in interviews. The source, which is a RS, does not need to prove he made these statements. But for what its worth, Rubin's statements are explicitly made in clips shown in this three-part series if you are desperate to verify it.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

^ yeah. This doesn't seem like there's really a factual dispute. I'm content to attribute the statement to the Daily Beast, I'm willing to compromise and attribute it to Fisher reporting for the Daily Beast, but I'm puzzled as to how he lost his credentials and got demoted to a "writer". For my part, I'd be fine with removing Fisher's quote about Rubin "eschewing the details" and restoring the other stuff - with attribution - in the following paragraph. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

TDB is clearly hostile to Rubin as a subject. I would not trust Fisher's characterisations as objective or without bias. The Fisher article doesn't offer the supporting evidence nor, more importantly the associated context. As such, and given this is a BLP, I think attribution is best if the material is kept. I'm not convinced it's due but I'm less inclined to argue that point. Springee (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(We're up to seven layers in again... time for an outdent for mobile readers)

I agree that that quote Nblund mentions is pretty symptomatic, as it, too, is chopped out of its larger sentence. (The wiki-text gives no clue that the Fisher quote is pulled from a larger sentence. [...] is the usual way of showing that.) So far, I see two people thinking that Fisher should be credited for being the observer of implications (Rubin implies...), one person who says they don't care much one way or another, but recognizes that the source at least should be attributed in-text, and a fourth who thinks no attribution whatsoever is needed for claims about what Rubin implies (though they seem to want us to watch 3 hours of Timbah on Toast's Youtube channel to "verify" the claim) or finds funny. One wonders why it is such a big deal to give the writers whose work is being copied into Wikipedia credit for their work?

Parenthetically I'm also mystified by what this "lost his credentials and got demoted to a writer" might mean? Is Fisher some sort of specially accredited pundit? If so, shouldn't someone make him an en.wp bio? He's not the (archbishop), I don't think? Are you referring to the sentence referring to him as "the same author" Nblund?

As long as the text about what Rubin implies and finds funny is attributed, I don't see anything wrong with it being cited in the "critics have accused" paragraph.

Finally, your comments above about there being no contrast expressed in the cited material are wrong so I am wondering why you made them... (Compare "there’s nothing funny coming out on the left now... they're a bunch of preachy [...]", "you know where the funny stuff is coming? It’s coming out of the alt-right.") 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue with in text attribution has been explained already. I actually do care, but I'm trying to forge a compromise. The article includes a link to a 30 second clip that supports the "new center" characterization. Fisher's bio at the Daily Beast lists him as a journalist, and I linked to the diff to show precisely what I was referencing. The term "contrast" implies that he's making a direct comparison, but I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the quote. I've changed accordingly. Nblund ^talk 00:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

By generating almost plausible confusion about what a straightforward text says you've found a way to argue against including the word "preachy" which you (coincidentally) don't seem to like. It's fun to watch, I must admit. ^^ All in all, it's a mild improvement from the over a dozen citations to the Beast and associated confusions (e.g. center vs. new center) introduced here. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I explained the issue with "contrast" above. I'm really not sure how you got the impression that my primary objection was to the term "preachy" as long as it isn't in wiki-voice, but if you think "they're a bunch of preachy little bitches" is truly a necessity, I'm open to hearing it. In any case, please refrain from trying to read minds. Also, I really don't think repeatedly citing old diffs adds anything to the discussion. The goal is to improve the article through collaboration. Nblund ^talk 18:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The 'bringing up old diffs' is just Sashi being a creepy harasser who has to shoe-horn something about me into every talk page discussion. That's also the only reason why he's now here on this page making this article dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

#1 I arrived on this page because I noticed Nblund was mass-removing "classical liberal" category tags for people like Jordan Peterson and this guy. (Apparently nobody ever added one to Camille Paglia's page?) I then noticed (#2) that people were wrongly claiming that the Daily Beast was always and everywhere a reliable source, which as a self-proclaimed "high-end tabloid" it simply is not. Then (#3), I used wikiblame to find out who had added the POV term "lauded". Your name turned up in the edit where well over a dozen claims were sourced to a single article. You can impugn the good faith and insult people all you like, but that doesn't change the basic facts of the matter. Your comments are inappropriate personal attacks and should have been redacted when Springee requested it. I just learned now of this latest example and the redaction request you've apparently chosen to ignore. I am exercising my right to reply to your little exercise in lashing out. (Stop it. Such toxicity reflects terribly on en.wp.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The description of guests are still subject to BLP

@Grayfell:, at least some of your recent revert here [[5]] needs to be undone as a BLP issue. Take for instance Lauren Southern. We can not describe her as a "white nationalist" in wiki-voice. The article on her says some (the left leaning HuffPo and Vice) have described her as white nationalist. Springee (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the points made by @Ihuntrocks: on your talk page [[6]] regarding what the cited sources say are also legitimate (it would be better to have that material here). We shouldn't embellish the descriptions beyond what the cited sources are telling us. Springee (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

[Important bits migrated per suggestion from Grayfell's talk page] I noticed that you made a reversion of edits by Springee stating We should explain why these people are "controversial" otherwise it's pointless in the edit log with regard to Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson. First, let me say that I agree that they should have explanations as controversial figures -- that's totally correct. The sources [23] and [25] definitely describe Watson as promoting conspiracy theories ([23]), so that seems fairly straightforward, but the source stops short of labeling him a "conspiracy theorist", for what that's worth. However, neither source describes Southern or Molyneux as "white nationalists", despite including some descriptions that might lead a reader to that conclusion on their own. Further, though the language of the article would lead one to believe that Tommy Robinson is indeed an "anti-Muslim activist", neither source states this. For all, this seems like borderline if not outright WP:OR. At the very least, I don't think those terms should be applied in wikivoice. Perhaps alternate RS would describe them as such and clear up the issue with wikivoice, or maybe some in-text attribution to whoever is labeling them as currently presented would be appropriate? Just some thoughts. Thank you for your time. Ihuntrocks (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A factual description of someone's political position is not a BLP violation, even if it's potentially unflattering. The amount of sources for these descriptions is overwhelming.

Would it be better to euphemistically describe Molyneux as a someone who is "passionate about scientific racism", or to cite a source (GQ, for example) mentioning that he claimed on Rubin's show, without apparent rebuttal by Rubin, that black crime and poverty are genetic? No, Instead, we should summarize what the sources are saying. For what it's worth, some sources do specifically make this connection as well, such as GQ, which explains that the first three mentioned "toe the line" and avoid Nazi rhetoric while pushing racist paranoia. There are many sources which describe Watson as a conspiracy theorist, as has been tediously discussed at Talk:Paul Joseph Watson. This has also been tediously discussed at Talk:Stefan Molyneux, and Talk:Lauren Southern. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that you are aware of numerous RS locations for these terms, it would seem like the best course of action would be for you to locate those sources which support the language you've kept in wikivoice and use those as citations where that language is used. Since the sources are apparently quite numerous, that should not be a significant effort and would bring the page in line with BLP policy. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, WP:V applies here and so does BLP. The newly added material violates both. Springee (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Koch funding in lead

@ContentEditman:, I think you have failed to understand WP:ONUS. The material about Koch funding is newly added to the lead thus consensus is needed for inclusion if challenged. I have challenged it. The next step is for those who wish for inclusion to open a talk page discussion to make the case for inclusion. I have now done that. (sorry, something has come up so this is not as long as I wanted it to be) Springee (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I reverted the change based on the reason given (see above) but I got cut off before I could post my reasons why I think the edit wasn't good regardless. The issue I see is DUE. The Rubin Report as a show has been around for a while. I believe this source of funding is relatively recent with both sources less than a year old. Second, the funding gets a single sentence in the body of the text. It's UNDUE to give that same information the same weight length/volume of coverage in lead, especially since it's not clear how long this has been true. Also, let's be honest, why would we mention the Koch funding? Often such information is used as a way to poison the well for some readers. Is this something that is commonly discussed? Is it being suggested the Koch family is impacting or encouraging particular content? Since the information is still in the body of the article it's not being removed, just removed from the lead. Springee (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This may be warranted for the body, and it may be warranted for the intro on the Rubin Report, but I'm not sure about including in the lead here based on the current sourcing. We mention that he's generally considered conservative/libertarian in the lead, and the fact that he gets money from the Koch brothers is less surprising in light of that fact. Nblund ^talk 18:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your general view. Your added quote to the source was useful (I might move it to the body where the Koch information was originally included). I think it should probably be added to the body that the IHS is part of GMU. As the text currently reads it looks like an independent entity rather than one that exists under an established university. As this degree of separation between the Koch money and Rubin I'm not sure I agree that the Koch connection should be mentioned but so long as the sources support the claim I don't see this as worth the effort. Springee (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that there is a dispute in RS about whether he's libertarian

The lead should not suggest that there's a dispute between sources whether Rubin is a libertarian. There isn't: RS say he's libertarian, whereas Rubin sometimes self-describes as something else. The lead also should not only include Rubin's self-description, but both the self-description and RS descriptions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

Add "Dave Rubin founded his own company, "Locals.com". Kafkaxd (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I am confused where you would like me to add it. Please give the paragraph or line or a location as to where the thing should be added :) Aasim 23:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am setting this to answered, as templates are for specific changes which are either non-controversial or which already have consensus. Feel free to continue discussing to build consensus, but cite reliable sources please. The Federalist (website) is borderline, and the article in question is churnalism, so it would be better to summarize an independent source for this. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Book reviews

Deontologicalutalitarian, as editors we are not supposed to summarize the reviews of a book. We need to let external sources do that for us. Picking a few reviews and then saying the book had bad reviews is WP"OR. I previously left the links to the reviews in place so readers can judged for themselves. Springee (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The new mediaite article that I cited is an external source that summarizes the reviews of the books. I would suggest adding a second line "The book was met with largely negative reviews" Deontologicalutalitarian (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Mediaite is a marginally reliable site. Additionally, the thrust of that article is Rubin being critical of the 1 star reviews posted on sites like Amazon which Rubin sees as politically motivated rather than based on the quality of the work. That is not a sufficient source to include a sweeping claim in Wiki voice. The BI and Spectator reviews may be spot on but that means we have just two reviews. At this point the book has just been released and RECENT is an issue when talking about reception. Springee (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Let's see some unbiased factual reporting. I don't want info from people with an agenda other than truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.134.0 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reporting? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and Rubin doesn't even pretend to be a journalist anyway. If you have a specific proposal, make it, and support it with reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "Conservative and libertarian" in the first sentence of lead

Should the first sentence of the lead describe him as a "conservative and libertarian political commentator" (instead of just "political commentator")? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. RS describe him as "conservative"[7] or "libertarian"[8]. Since at least May 2020, Rubin has characterized himself as a "modern conservative".[9] The confusion in terms of how to describe him is not a RS issue. Rather, the confusion stems from the fact that Rubin has in the past tended to characterize himself as a leftie or as a "classical-liberal" (a term that some blatantly conservative figures have decided to use in recent years). Since he now characterizes himself as a conservative, there's no reason not to describe him as such in the first sentence. Political commentators who are clearly described by RS as being conservative, liberal, progressive etc. are typically described as such in the first sentence of the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not in opening sentence. I'm not sure why some editors feel such a strong need to label people. It certainly doesn't make for a better reading article. The first sentence starts with a few objective descriptions of Rubin. He is a political commentator, talk host and comedian. Those are solidly objective descriptions. Just a few sentences later we go into Rubin's personal political leanings. He has been described by others as "conservative" but Rubin does not describe himself as such. Rubin has repeatedly referred to himself as a "classical liberal". In the the clip that Snoogan's wishes to use to "prove" he is a "conservative" Rubin doesn't cleanly characterize himself as a "conservative". He uses the term "modern conservative" and includes a number of qualifiers. Thus some editors want to take what is a complex self description and dumb it down into a handy label. Sadly it seems that when editors fight to add "conservative" to the description of a BLP subject it comes across as an attempt to paint a scarlet letter vs to simply better inform readers. Certainly readers are better informed about who Rubin really is if we allow some space, even in the lead, to describe his view of himself rather than jamming it into the opening sentences. So oppose as its both stylistically poor and tries to dumb down the issue. Springee (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. If someone obviously is a member of the alt-right, but decides to not identify themselves as such, they are still classified as a member of the alt-right. Obviously, Rubin isn't a member of the alt-right, but when he says that he's not a conservative or something -- everyone knows he is. He is a member of Blaze TV, regularly interviews conservatives, regularly gives speeches for PragerU and TPUSA praising conservative ideals and policies. It is obvious at this point that he is a conservative, and he should be labelled as such, along other similar figures such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Tucker Carlson. Minatijeetii (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What you are asking for is already in the lead. Effectively you aren't answering the question asked, why should this material be in the opening sentence vs just after the opening sentence? Springee (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not in opening sentence per Springee. ~ HAL333 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• No on "conservative". The sources generally identify him as libertarian. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence, per Springee. Why, when the slight delay allows a more complete and nuanced account?Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence - there is nuance that is being lost. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence - Nuanced and balanced description makes wikipedia look more neutral and less like rationalwiki. We want to keep wikipedia free of activist language and trustworthy for people of all political leanings. I am for whatever makes description of political pundits and publicatons more nuanced and balanced FreedomGonzo (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence. Rubin is hard to label. One opinion piece in Politico is not sufficient sourcing for calling him a conservative. Most sources seem to give a more nuanced take, no doubt because Rubin is hard to accurately characterize in a single word. We should do likewise in the body, and avoid a political label in the first sentence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence per Springee. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence per Springee. I have noticed this trend in Wikipedia articles, and in my view it is time to start questioning it. This is a good start. Directed here by a notice on my Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence. I think the current sentence, "Although Rubin often describes himself as a classical liberal, he is generally described as conservative and libertarian in his politics," is on the right track. Rubin seems to be more well known for his self-identification as a "classical liberal" than he is for any of his actual political views, particularly among "modern liberals", who seem to view Rubin's use of this term as misleading and disingenuous. That's a major component of Rubin's notoriety, and it ought to be detailed in a statement like the aforementioned quote. Minor improvements could perhaps be made, but I think the structure is on point. Michipedian (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• With strong qualifications and not in the opening paragraph; I think there is generally a lot of confusion, especially in these polarized times, between conservatism and right-wing politics in general, which sometimes do not go together. Someone may be conservative but favor strong regulations against business or else government support for the poor, for example, and others may be socially liberal but free-market fundamentalists. Rubin is clearly someone whose views don't fall squarely in line with any modern mainstream political philosophy, as evidenced by all the contention and debate surrounding him. Some commentators above have pointed out that he's spent a lot of time around and interviewing conservatives, but we're at risk of falling into the "guilt by association" fallacy here because in a strongly bifurcated political environment people in the broad political "middle" are going to be forced to be closer to one side or another without necessarily agreeing with all of that side's views (plus conservatives may be more comfortable appearing on his program). I would tentatively agree with the assertion that he is "on the right" because of his emphasis on free-market fundamentals at least, but a centre-right type and, to be objective, without cited clarification from Rubin the particulars of the exact place he should be on the political spectrum outside of not being on the left are at least somewhat in the realm of speculation. On the other hand, his social views seem more liberal than conservative, with specific views being of the libertarian sort or the social liberal sort, but not enough to fall into modern liberalism by his own admission. Webspidrman (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

It's unfortunate that this comes across as an attempt to paint a scarlet letter on a BLP subject rather than some effort to help readers better understand the person. It's as if adding "conservative" will help readers know everything else is unimportant or automatically controversial. Snooganssnoogans, why push for this information in the opening sentence vs just 3 sentences later where it can be better explored? How does your proposal improve the reader's understanding of the article subject? Springee (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a majority of people believe conservative should not go in the first sentence. Fine by me but we need to change the last sentence in the lede.

I suggest it should state something like "At different times Rubin has referred to himself as a conservative or a classical liberal and he is generally described by outlets as a conservative or libertarian in his politics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarville789 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't share Rubin's politics (you'll have to take my word for it), but it is clear even to me that the neutrality of this article is in question. It seems there is a growing recognition here that we need more sources that are favorable towards Rubin to counterbalance the negative claims made against him. Whilst comments about the aspects of his politics that are more conservative or more libertarian can and should be discussed in the text, he also has some views that don't fall in line with either category (for example the typically "social liberal" beliefs of government-recognized same-sex marriage and a social safety net). Also, I don't think the side section linking him to "Conservatism in the United States" is warranted at all unless it also includes a section on "Libertarianism in the United States" and "Liberalism in the United States", because as aforementioned he has factually sourced views that fall into all of these categories (and because as one of the above users pointed out it feels more like an attempt to brand Rubin with a "scarlet letter" than be a strictly accurate categorization of his politics). Because he has most famously described himself as a "classical liberal", if his article should be linked only to one series then "Liberalism in the United States" makes the most sense to me, but I think the best answer is to not link him to any "series" related to a political faction or ideology at all, especially because he is a living person whose views are heterodox and not universally agreed upon. I'm going to go ahead and edit a couple sentences to be less charged and more "objective" sounding, but this cannot be a substitute for a thorough overhaul of the article to present the subject in a more neutral light. Webspidrman (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

How should Paul Joseph Watson be classified in the article?

This isn't a big deal, but the article alternately calls Paul Joseph Watson "alt-right" and "alt-lite" in different sections. To reduce confusion, I think we should collectively settle on one designation or the other and run with it. Webspidrman (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Could we just use the apparent consensus from the subject's page? The lead of that page suggests 'far-right' or 'alt-right'. Note that it looks like there hasn't been an extensive talk page discussion of this label question. Jlevi (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Dave rubin is far right

Far right AHC300 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We cannot omit that Watson, Molyneaux, Southern and co are extremists

This edit[10] makes no sense. It's also removal of long-standing content. It removes descriptions of the far-right extremists that Rubin gives a platform, making it unclear to readers why it is controversial that Rubin has hosted them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually per BLP, yes we can. We are under no obligation to use controversial labels when describing these people. Additionally, only two of the four are labeled in wiki-voice in their own articles. The other two articles say attribute those labels. If you review the Southern article she is "...described as alt-right and a white nationalist." by very left leaning sources. OK, if there is a clean way to say "described as" in the Dave Rubin article fine. However, if labels are a problem in the primary articles we should avoid their use in the Rubin article. Perhaps a sentence like, "Rubin has had guests described as alt-right, far-right, nationalist and white supremacist. Controversial guests include [list of names]". This avoids labeling any person with a controversial label in wiki voice yet retains the labels to help unfamiliar readers understand the controversy. Springee (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I asked for feedback on the BLP noticeboard.[11] As for your comment, what WP:OTHER pages do is irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to play the WP:OTHER game then the use of the labels needs to be adjudicated here and the labels will need proper citations. It's probably best if we instead follow what the parent article does or what ever is more cautious. Springee (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

For now, I have inserted adjectives based on what each of the parent articles state in Wikivoice, except for Paul Joseph Watson where I used a self-described label (the RS for this appears in the parent article) - the latter choice was mostly for prose style, because I didn't want two "conspiracy theorists" back to back and was also reluctant to change the order of the list. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That is better though I still think this is BLP problematic per LABEL. Since we don't support any of the labels in this article something along the lines of the proposed text avoids using any controversial labels in Wiki-voice. It seems that some of the labels are rather solid but others like Southern's label are based on a few fairly far left sources (Vox and HuffPo). BTW, using the term "whitewashing" is problematic since it's just as easy to claim you are trying to blackwash the people in question. Neither whitewashing or blackwashing are an acceptable reason to include/exclude material. Springee (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

My point about "whitewashing" is that it is a BLP violation to minimize or underplay the controversial or extremist actions of a BLP subject just as it is a BLP violation to exaggerate them. And as far as Southern is concerned, her support for the Great replacement conspiracy theory - particularly in relation to her full-length documentary on the subject - is literally her major claim to Notability; the parent WP article on her essentially states as much. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is that a BLP violation? You can argue it's an issue with DUE but that isn't a BLP concern if we avoid using contentious labels. The "whitewashed" version didn't suggest these people were without controversy. Springee (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is in WP:BLPSTYLE:

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects... Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. The use of vague, unsourced terms to avoid being specific about how reliable sources characterize BLP subjects is, in fact, a policy violation. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with your read. Note "cautiously". It's a stretch to argue that skipping the labels in this article is "understatement". Conversely, given that we don't discuss the supporting details here, we are violating the part about contentious labels. Regardless, I think the BLPN discussion has yielded a good alternative sentence that will hopefully satisfy all involved. Springee (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to ... political personalities Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, and activist Tommy Robinson is most definitely an "understatement" for Southern, Molyneux and Robinson, and a violation of BLPSTYLE by using "terms that lack precision". It does not at all reflect "what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". No reliable secondary source says anything like, "Rubin is accused of giving a prominent platform to political personalities and activists". Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If my first proposal gets no traction then I would suggest using the labels in the two sources for the "critics say" and attribute the labels to the DB and/or GQ. Springee (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Request received to merge articles: The Rubin Report into Dave Rubin; dated: June 2020. Proposer's Rationale: As far as I can tell, The Rubin Report is primarily notable for being a venture of Dave Rubin, and the two articles appear to have quite a bit of overlap in information. It seems unnecessary for the show to have its own separate article, separately detailing Rubin's political history and career. S. Rich proposed this merge three years ago, and I opposed it at the time, though I have since seen their rationale as valid and support it. The fact that Dave Rubin's Twitter handle is @RubinReport says it all. Michipedian (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – From looking at Dave Rubin, I wonder if the show is primarily notable because of him or if he is primarily notable because of the show. Since other political commentators have articles for the shows separate from the personality, it would seem appropriate for that to be the case here. But I don't know if either article meets the requirements of WP:N, given that there is no set subscriber or view count that can establish notability. TXAggie (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - both are notable standalone articles. A subsection Dave_Rubin#The Rubin Report already exists and it points to the main article which is highly notable as a standalone YT channel (200 million views). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - He is notable beyond his show, he contributes to media other than his show, is notable for his work in comedy, and if his show ends he likely will continue to contribute to media or to other ventures. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Fair enough, case closed! Michipedian (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Dave Rubin be called right-wing in the intro?

The user User:Springee and another have tried to revert an edit previously made by user:2600:6C40:500:3329:40E4:3A33:5BCE:31AB which describes Dave Rubin in the opening sentence as right wing. Although he was once left-wing/liberal, Rubin is a now right-wing commentator, a fact which has become more apparent since he returned from his digital break this summer. His unequivocal support of the Trump campaign, the Amy Coney-Barrett Supreme Court nomination, and his opposition to "lefties" (a pejorative which he often uses to describe his political opponents in his twitter and most recent book) certainly puts him to the right of the political spectrum.

Considering that he is described in the subsequent paragraph as a conservative, I don't think calling him right-wing in the opening line is objectionable. Not including this key detail early on seems like a lie by omission, perhaps motivated by those who wish to advance a certain political narrative. It is common for political commentators political leanings to be signaled in the first sentence - this case should be no different.

How do you suggest we resolve this dispute,User:Springee? --Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Cosmopolismetropolis, thank you for taking this to the talk page. There are two issues with your edit. First, the sourcing is weak for a claim in Wiki voice. Right Wing Watch is not considered reliable. Vox is reliable but very biased and should be used with care. Jacobian is too biased to use them as a source for this sort of label. That's the sourcing end of the issue. The other is the RfC above.["Conservative_and_libertarian"_in_the_first_sentence_of_lead] You are arguing that "conservative" and "right-wing" are the same thing. Accepting that argument then the RfC that said we shouldn't say "conservative" in the lead sentence also applies to "right-wing". The reasons why are in the RfC above. Springee (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, thank you for your reply. I must start by saying that I was not the person who made the initial edit, I merely undid your reversion. I would also like to say that right-wing≠conservative, especially in this context. While I would not call Rubin a conservative, which is a category I don't think applies to his political ideology, I think the term right wing is more wide-ranging and comprehensive, and certainly describes his current political trajectory. In an interview with the University of Delaware, he positions himself as a center-right commentator : “So what’s happening right now on the center-right is you’ve got some Trump people, you’ve got some never-Trump people,” Rubin said. “There’s not many neocons left, but you’ve got neocons, you’ve got classical liberals, you got ex-lefties, that are sort of waking up to what the left has become, and I see something very very rich developing here. The other thing that I really like, which sort of brings it around to where I started is that what I see, as a really sort of healthy bright or healthy conservative group, is one that embraces a little more Libertarians." His recent book, Don't Burn This Book, also charts his recent political transformation. Originally it was going to be called "Why I Left the Left", a reference to a popular video he made for the PragerU YouTube channel. His persistent opposition to the left, whether center-left (i.e. liberal) or progressive, puts him to the right of the political spectrum.

I agree that the sources are not ideal - as I said, I was not the one who made the initial edit. Perhaps I could include some better citations, of which there are quite a few. What do you think? --Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that and generally feel "right-wing" and "conservative" aren't always the same though they do greatly overlap. I also feel they have different subjective values when used as labels. However, I don't know that such a view is universally accepted here. Certainly the terms are used interchangeably by many. Anyway, since we already talk about the conservative aspect, you would need to add content in the body that specifically supports his shift to "right-wing" vs just "conservative" which is already covered. Depending on that we could then look at adding the label to part of the lead. Keep in mind, the lead is meant to summarize the body of the article. That means we need to add content to the body before making changes to the lead (assuming the current lead adequately summarizes the body). We should never add new content/ideas to the lead without adding that to the body as well. In this case I would suggest either proposing the changes or if you wish being WP:BOLD and adding the content to body and seeing how it goes. I think, given the sourcing, you are probably going to have to attribute the claims. Springee (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Springee, thanks for the feedback. I have given it another look and agree that the sources are lacking at the moment. Rubin's turn to the right is a recent development and is not as well documented as I would like it to be. I think I will give these new editions a pause for the moment and wait until Rubin's right-wing status has become more widely recognised. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References