Jump to content

Talk:Dave Rubin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Terribly biased article: not constructive (WP:NOTFORUM, WP:PA); new comments also go at the bottom
Line 80: Line 80:


::: You are advancing polemical sources such as the Guardian, Vox, and Mother Jones while claiming that a dispassionate source (USLegal) is not "reliable." If one claims that all sources offering an opinion with which you disagree are not "reliable," you can dismiss any valid definition you wish. The WikiPedia article on classical liberalism is supported by 91 sources, perhaps one of which you will find "reliable:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [[User:Atrobinson|Atrobinson]] ([[User talk:Atrobinson|talk]]) 09:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
::: You are advancing polemical sources such as the Guardian, Vox, and Mother Jones while claiming that a dispassionate source (USLegal) is not "reliable." If one claims that all sources offering an opinion with which you disagree are not "reliable," you can dismiss any valid definition you wish. The WikiPedia article on classical liberalism is supported by 91 sources, perhaps one of which you will find "reliable:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [[User:Atrobinson|Atrobinson]] ([[User talk:Atrobinson|talk]]) 09:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a real problem with using biased, leftwing sources to describe the intellectual dark web. How an earth the likes of Vox and the Guardian can be used to describe someone like Rubin, without any more neutral sources to balance them, out, I don't know. If you want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, I suggest more strenuous attempts at balance. Anyway, libertarian means much the same as classical liberal, in the US. It is just the former term is very US-centric, and classical liberal probably gives a more nuanced impression: libertarian suggests something more strident and ideological. Besides, Rubin actually uses the term classical liberal to describe himself. Also what on earth does it mean to be associated with the political right? That's an almost meaningless phrase. The political right is half the political spectrum, and could include anyone from anarcho-capitalists to Neo-Nazis, to centre-right neoliberals. It is also an indefensible use of the passive voice.

{{ reflist-talk }}
{{ reflist-talk }}


Revision as of 23:40, 14 August 2019

Dear anonymous editor

First of all, if you are associated with the here! network, you should really avoid editing articles about your content, per WP:COI. Second, the changes you are making are unsourced, thus failing WP:V and must be removed. Your unsourced changes also implicate WP:BLP. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before continuing. Otto4711 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does of Jewish descent mean?

Jewish people are part of nearly every ethnic/racial category on this website, so it seems a little weird to treat Jewishness like a unique ethnic/racial group on this article.

--174.89.39.72 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews are perhaps the most prominent example of an ethnoreligious group which is why you may be confused regarding the unique nature of them as a people. Alssa1 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dave Rubin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dave Rubin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous IP 189.162.174.236

You keep reinserting an obscure article from Medium by author by a pseudonim Huxley C (not known for anything). If you want to source your claim about a certain criticism you will have to find a source that has more weight. Anybody can create any article on medium and one article doesn't signified as "has been criticised by the left". For all I know you could be Huxley C and this could also be original research. Oh, and the fact that I have the word Freedom in my username doesn't violate any wikipedia policy, neither does edit history. FreedomGonzo (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the weight of the evidence provided in the article are based on the examples given in the article (which are extensive). Furthermore, the citation is merely citing a "given criticism" and is not claiming that said criticism is true (though the article makes a strong case for such)189.162.174.236 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I have again removed the content. While I would like to find a usable source for this point, this ain't it. Wikipedia has rules for what sources can be used for living people, per WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPSOURCES). Anonymous blog posts are not reliable for factual statements, including the statement that he "has been criticized". He has, of course, been criticized, but we need to contextualize who is doing the criticism, and we need reliable sources (WP:RS) to do it. Please discuss here before restoring this content. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "classical liberal"

So this is apparently a term that right-wing youtube types like to apply to themselves. However, there are no reliable sources that describes Rubin with this term. NBC News and Variety describes him as a "libertarian".[1][2] That's what this Wikipedia page should describe him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think incorporating both of them would be ideal, but the phrasing might be difficult. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why should both be incorporated if only one term can be reliably sourced? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[3][4] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Politico piece is acceptable for "Rubin self-describes as a classical liberal". The Week piece is an op-ed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the RS descriptions of his political beliefs, but also added a self-description which the Politico piece is a good secondary RS for.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more sources from a journal's website [1], the Huffington Post [2] and the Atlantic [3]. I think it's fair to properly represent his own beliefs on this page rather than accepting a label given to him by people against his agenda. It's fair to concede this is contested, but it's one-side to not represent him. All of these citations I think are fair and, indeed, they some are quite critical of him so this gives some objectivity. The Merion West one indeed is a debate that concedes differing interpretations, noting his belief that what he advocates is classical liberalism and a contest to it. I think the Merion West one combined with thePolitico piece would sit well together citing his views, and another person who accepts good faith that he's a classical liberal but also debates and challenges this (so it also represents your RS sources who label him as a libertarian despite Dave Rubin's own views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.127.197 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MW link is an op-ed and is only a source for "Rubin self-describes as". HuffPo and Frum's Atlantic piece are only a source for "Rubin self-describes as". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NBC do not prove he's a libertarian in their story, they just label him as one whereas other sources respect his self-identification and the through line through his work. I do think they - NBC et al - are misrepresenting him. If any source respecting Dave Rubin's own views is labelled as not a reliable source due to being right leaning, this diminishes this page's claim to be neutral. It's at least a compromise to go with the good faith edit to note he doesn't agree with NBC et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.127.197 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Classical Liberalism" is a well defined political science term. Until the 1950s, it was simply "liberalism" (consider Hayeks _Road to Serfdom_ for examples), and referred to a set of principles of sacrosanct individual liberty, strictly circumscribed central government, and a market economy, on which the US was founded. https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/classical-liberalism/ Atrobinson (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article on Dave Rubin, not for discussing general concepts. If you have a reliable source which describes Rubin as a classical liberal beyond WP:BUZZWORDs, please present it, but USLegal is neither a reliable source, nor does it mention Rubin, making it useless here. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are advancing polemical sources such as the Guardian, Vox, and Mother Jones while claiming that a dispassionate source (USLegal) is not "reliable." If one claims that all sources offering an opinion with which you disagree are not "reliable," you can dismiss any valid definition you wish. The WikiPedia article on classical liberalism is supported by 91 sources, perhaps one of which you will find "reliable:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Atrobinson (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a real problem with using biased, leftwing sources to describe the intellectual dark web. How an earth the likes of Vox and the Guardian can be used to describe someone like Rubin, without any more neutral sources to balance them, out, I don't know. If you want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, I suggest more strenuous attempts at balance. Anyway, libertarian means much the same as classical liberal, in the US. It is just the former term is very US-centric, and classical liberal probably gives a more nuanced impression: libertarian suggests something more strident and ideological. Besides, Rubin actually uses the term classical liberal to describe himself. Also what on earth does it mean to be associated with the political right? That's an almost meaningless phrase. The political right is half the political spectrum, and could include anyone from anarcho-capitalists to Neo-Nazis, to centre-right neoliberals. It is also an indefensible use of the passive voice.

References

  1. ^ "What Dave Rubin Gets Wrong". Merion West. Merion West.
  2. ^ "For Fancy Racists, Classical Liberalism Offers Respect, Intrigue". Huffpost. Huffpost.
  3. ^ "The Republican Party Needs to Embrace Liberalism". The Atlantic. The Atlantic.

COI template.

I have removed the COI template. This was added by Bueller 007 because DavidJanet88 had extensively edited the article in the past. This is an important consideration, but that account hasn't been active since December 2015‎. If there are still issues, and their certainly could be, they should be explained here. Improvement templates need to include some way to solve the attached issues, otherwise they act as badges of shame. This undermines the article, but doesn't offer any way to fix the issue. If there are still problems, by all means restore the template, but please also explain what needs to be done.

For reference, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide) explains some of this. Thanks. Grayfell (talk)

Time to classify Dave Rubin as far right

He endorsed bolsonaro AHC300 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closest characterization I've found is that Rubin "praised" Bolsonaro, but the characterizations of Bolsonaro in most of these sources are clearly hyperbolic and are neither necessary nor sufficient to justify unilaterally classify an unrelated third party as "endorsing" a particular political ideology. Atrobinson (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute - Political Views

The second sentence should be removed, or edited to present the Data & Society article as another point of view, rather than giving it prominence.

The source used to assert that Rubin is an "amplifier of far-right politics" is not one with which I am familiar, but the quote "by letting [Molyneux] speak without providing a legitimate and robust counterargument, Rubin provides a free platform for white supremacist ideology on his channel" betrays a lack of objectivity and neutrality: IQ differences (the subject of the Molyneux/Rubin discussion) between races are well attested, with whites being firmly in the middle of pack. This does not support claim of "white supremacy." Furthermore, while it is clear that IQ differences are not entirely heritable (they can vary substantially based on a birth order within a single family with the same mother and father), there is certainly a genetic component to IQ. Finally, Rubin does not typically approach ANY of his interview subjects in an adversarial way, including those who take politically "left" points of view such as Sam Harris.

In other words, there was nothing "white supremacist" or "far right" about the interview on which the Data & Society "report" is based, and such evidence ought not be given any prominence when describing an individual who has demonstrated a remarkably even-handed political acumen consistent with the CLASSICAL LIBERAL principle of freedom of speech.

Atrobinson (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please present RS that conflict with the existing RS. So far, you're just saying that the sources are wrong because you personally believe Molyneaux's race/IQ drivel is sound science and your own interpretation of Rubin's interview style. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove the NPOV tag again. I did not say the source was wrong, I said I was not familiar with the source and it's claim as expressed in the article is fallacious. You are clearly not dispassionate about this topic. The issue has nothing to do with Molyneux in particular, but in presenting an apparently biased source in a position of prominence in an article that is supposed to be presented from an NPOV. The issue here is not the validity of Molyneux' argument, but the implicit assumption that not actively confronting Molyneux constituted a "free platform for white supremacist ideology." Atrobinson (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with respect to IQ differences between groups, consider _Discrimination and Disparities_, Thomas Sowell 2018 (a published work, rather than a link). I would be curious to see someone label Sowell "far right" or "white supremacist," but that would certainly prove the NPOV dispute. Atrobinson (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Sowell is, to cparaphrase from the Simpsons, "not racist, but number one with racists."[6] None of this has anything to do with Dave Rubin unless reliable sources explain the connection. So are sources discussing Sowell's opinion of Dave Rubin? If so, we could attribute his opinions on Rubin to Sowell. This is similar to how the article currently treats Rubin's chat with Molyneux. A source explains something, and we summarize that source.
The Guardian source seems perfectly valid for this. So what, exactly, is the problem? Per many sources, Rubin gives the right and far-right a much, much bigger and more flattering platform than he gives anyone else, including other "classical liberals".[7][etc.]
So again, what, exactly, is the problem with explaining this? Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sowell's relevance (whether or not he is "number one with racists," which is well poisoning and has no relevance to the validity of his arguments) is that he directly, extensively, and empirically addresses what this article is presenting as a factual claim: that a discussion of IQ differences between groups is implicitly "white supremacist." Furthermore, how an interviewer treats his guests (and Rubin treats all guests the same way, without few "robust counterarguments") has NO relevance to his own political ideology. The Guardian quoting Data & Society is clearing not offering an NPOV. I have no objection to the PRESENCE of the reference, but to its place of prominence in the categorization of Rubin's personal political view. There are no lack of articles from sources like the Guardian, Vox, and Mother Jones describing anyone like Rubin as "the reactionary right," but that is a polemical characterization unsupported by logic or evidence that ought to exclude the article from any position of prominence as a reference, just as one would exclude polemical characterizations of individuals "of the left." I would suggest that at most the Data & Science article should be quoted directly -- not using the Guardian as a tertiary source -- and that it be presented as "other sources have described Rubin as xxxx," avoiding any pejorative constructs such as "reactionary right." I would further argue that a commentator who rejects an individual's own statement of his political views has the burden of proof to establish using dispassionate sources how that individual's views differ from his own claims.
Furthermore, unless we devolve to pedantry of providing sources to define terms which are readily verified, "reactionary" implies the desire to preserve the status quo, which is exactly the opposite of what Rubin appears to be doing. Anyone who wishes to apply that label has a burden of proof to do so by weight of evidence, not merely polemical claims by third parties, which is what several contributing to this article wish to do. Such behavior is inconsistent with the principle of NPOV.
Finally, the NPOV tag is to be removed by consensus. So far the "consensus" has been one (or two) individuals removing the tag unilaterally, more or less as soon as I put it in the article. That needs to end Atrobinson (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that Vox can be ignored as anything other than an opinion source. As soon as one starts invoking terms like "the reactionary right," the lack of NPOV is firmly established. Atrobinson (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Klein, Ezra (24 September 2018). "The rise of YouTube's reactionary right". Vox. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
  2. ^ Tavana, Art (12 September 2018). "Can Dave Rubin Save the Political Talk Show?". www.playboy.com. Retrieved 16 April 2019. I think this is the first time I ever visited playboy.com... surprisingly not a bad puff piece.

Lede: Rubin Report role in far-right network

More than half of the body is dedicated to Rubin's political commentary and The Rubin Report. Thus, the lede should summarize that half of the body, per WP:LEDE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And more than half the body is dedicated to attacking the man coatrack fashion. Lede should consist only of what rubin is notable, which is that he hosts a political interview show. I should also note, that "alt right" is mostly used as a slur. There is no consensus here, and the half of a an article lede on a BOLP should not be dedicated to attacking the man. Eric the fever (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per RS coverage of the man, he is to a large degree notable for giving a huge platform to white supremacists and far-right/alt-right folks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of information about Rubin's Wikipedia conflict of interest, allegations of sockpuppet accounts, blog, anti-Arab bigotry

Please discuss the inclusion of the following passages:

In March 2019, a Reddit user posted a thread to the Dave Rubin discussion page, alleging that Rubin's husband David Janet, and/or Rubin himself, had created dozens of Wikipedia sockpuppet accounts in order to promote Rubin's public image via the encyclopedia.[1] The page history of the Dave Rubin Wikipedia article also shows that the article has been edited by multiple users containing the name "David Janet". Rubin's former co-host at the Young Turks, Ana Kasparian, has stated that she witnessed Rubin operating sockpuppet accounts for several years on other websites such as YouTube[2][3], and confirmed his abuse of Wikipedia sockpuppet accounts in a Tweet written in May 2019.[4]

From 2003 to 2011, Rubin operated BlogSpot account[5] in which he repeatedly characterized all Arabs as murderous, "untrustworthy", "peace-hating", "freedom-hating"[6], "fundamentalist wacko's"[7] [sic]. Rubin also used the blog to incorrectly describe the Pakistani people, who are Indo-European, as "Arabs"[8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:8400:1e9d:28a3:fd0a:c482:5e33 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "r/daverubin - Dave Rubin's husband's Wikipedia sockpuppets". reddit. Retrieved 2019-05-23.
  2. ^ "YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2019-05-23.
  3. ^ "YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2019-05-23.
  4. ^ Kasparian, Ana (May 14 2019). [twitter.com/AnaKasparian/status/1128404631841673217 "Twitter - Ana Kasparian"]. Twitter. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ "rubinville". rubinreport.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2019-05-23.
  6. ^ Dave. "rubinville". Retrieved 2019-05-23.
  7. ^ Dave. "rubinville". Retrieved 2019-05-23.
  8. ^ Dave. "rubinville". Retrieved 2019-05-23.
2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:28A3:FD0A:C482:5E33, thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this here. However, these passages are so badly referenced that I'm close to removing them from this talk page as well, because WP:BLP applies to every page. Without reliable, independent sources, this original research needs to stay out of the article. All of your sources seem to be self-published sources that are completely unusable to reference your claims. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Blogspot posts are Rubin's own self-published words. 2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:28A3:FD0A:C482:5E33 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:28A3:FD0A:C482:5E33, says which reliable source? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are two separate issues:
  • As for the Blogspot/Blogger posts, these do appear to be posted by Rubin. Archives of Rubin's various sites link to dailydave.rubinville.com (archive). This looks like it was the same content as the Blogspot page. That doesn't mean this belongs in the article. Highlighting specific posts would be arbitrary, and making conclusions from those posts would be WP:OR. If reliable sources discuss this, we can reevaluate. If they don't, neither can we. Wikipedia isn't a platform for whistle-blowing, so this is not presumed significant just because it's offensive. Perhaps someone like Sam Seder would find this interesting, but that's none of my business.
  • As for the sock-puppetry issues, there's... more to it, but I don't really find this convincing. The account which originally created this article in 2008 was blocked for sock puppetry in 2010, several months before the "named" COI accounts were created. If those two accounts were technically related to the sock farm, it likely would've been detected by a checkuser, as the sockpuppeteer was prolific at that time and used sleepers (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive). This isn't proof of innocence, but it's an indication. Further, comparing the article at that time to the heavy-handed PR added by the named accounts, it doesn't seem like an obvious match. To put it another way, the sock farm was dramatically less promotional than the obvious WP:COI editors.
It's reasonable to be concerned this might be a COI issue based on behavior, but that's not enough. Regardless, again, this speculation doesn't belong in the article unless reliable sources explain it for us.
If there is some specific reason to think this is an ongoing issue we should address that at the appropriate WP:SPI. If a reliable source explains how this obscure Wikipedia drama is connected to Rubin as an encyclopedia topic, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rave Dubin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rave Dubin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Rubin&oldid=910860129"