Talk:Jennifer Rubin (columnist)

Notability

I think this is pretty clear. Rubin occupies roughly the same role that David Weigel played earlier, (and Ezra Klein is playing now on the liberal side at WaPo), in the mix of blogging and traditional journalism. A quick Google test shows the extend of her popularity. She is extensively mentioned (both as a praise and criticism) in all kind of traditional media, such as Washington Times (see e.g. here where she is mentioned in the editorial!), or The New Republic (say, negatively here), or even here at the Investor's Business Daily and NPR. It is hard to get more WP:RS than these. In addition, her views were discussed by Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic here, MSNBC, and even British The Spectator here. I included a number of additional refs in the main body of the article to ensure to pass WP:GNG and WP:Author. Mhym (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism/bias

Article could use a section about perceived bias imho. Pär Larsson (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

She is paid to be biased. She is a columnist, not a news reporter, so it's part of the job description. What might be useful is an expansion of views - that would speak for itself (cf. Charles Krauthammer). Mhym (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, the criticism concerning Rubin and the anti-semitism at the Occupy Wall Street rallies is hilarious. It is pretty much impossible to look at a picture or watch a video of those lame rallies without seeing anti-semitism front and center. To state that Rubin mainly relied on a video of "one homeless guy" when multitudes of commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer as an example, have commented on the blatant anti-semitism is pathetic beyond words. What is the author of the entry going to do next, claim that the protesters weren't advocating for communism of socialism? Furthermore, most of this entry seems to be little more than a polemic berating Rubin for her particular political views. The section detailing the Norway shootings goes beyond merely reporting criticisms of Rubin, with the author of the entry criticizing Rubin himself. And a bulk of the sources for this article come from far-left sources that are beyond biased.

Jeffrey Goldberg's defense of Rubin's error

I deleted Goldberg's defense of Rubin erroneously claiming that Oslo bombing was the of Islamic terrorists because it was less a defense of Rubin and more a defense of poor journalism. Goldberg's logic basically amounts to believing that any bombing in the world should immediately make one suspect it to be the work of an Islamic terrorist. However, whether or not you believe that to be true, Rubin then made several leaps of logic in her infamous column, mentioning altogether useless information such as the location of Mullah Krekar before engaging in a highly partisan argument on defense spending. To say that this column merits a defense by Goldberg who then attacks the Washington Post for apologizing for Rubin's erroneous reporting normalizes yellow journalism. And considering that Goldberg himself then goes on to cause the reader to believe that the majority of terrorism is committed by Islamic extremists, I feel that this column reeks of conceit and isn't up to the standards of an online encyclopedia. Mentioning Goldberg's odd defense of her gaffe makes the article seem more than a little biased in favor of Rubin, especially in light of all the praise already heaped on her for at least being prolific.Shabeki (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is overthinking. The article has to be W:NPOV which means we need to present links to both sides and let the reader make conclusions. Goldberg does defend her, it's a fact. Fully or partially is an opinion. Not mentioning any defense is one-sided. You are free to reword this, but blanking does not seem to be a reasonable action to me. Mhym (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, if you do dig up some (unrelated) negative (or positive?) comments on Rubin's work, you might to add them as well. The article as it is is rather small and can use some expansion. Mhym (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So now a supposed encylopedia is omitting the fact that a well-known columnist wrote something in defense of Rubin because a Wikipedia editor doesn't think Rubin's writing should be defended? You have got to be kidding me? Yet another reason why Wikipedia is a total fucking sham. As for causing the reader to believe that most terrorism is committed by Muslims, I think the fact that pretty much every notable act of terrorism in the past ten years, except for maybe one, was committed by Muslims would lead one to believe such a thing, rather than Jeffrey Goldberg's defense of Jennifer Rubin. It would seem that Shabeki has revealed his true reasoning for wanting Goldberg's defense removed.

Jennifer Rubin and John Podhoretz

I believe an erroneous familial relationship between John Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin is stated in this article. Podhoretz is the half-brother of Rachel Abrams. Jennifer Rubin worked with Podhoretz at Commentary. The cite provided as footnote 6 does not support the claim that Rubin and Podhoretz are half-siblings. Can someone confirm that Rubin is Podhoretz's half-sister? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.79.2 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was reference removed?

• Attack Dog Jennifer Rubin Muddies the Washington Post's Reputation July 16-23, 2012 edition of The Nation

99.119.130.123 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)