Talk:Dave Rubin

Controversies Section

Dave Rubin's controversy section makes no sense. CNBC and MSM networks have given platforms to individuals like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. This does not mean that CNBC supports their political beliefs. Similarly, this principle applies to Rubin. People across all networks, podcasts, shows, etc. give platforms to controversial individuals. On twitter, there is something called 'Retweets =/= Endorsements.' These quotes for Rubin are cherrypicked and don't really match the contextuality of the content. This section should really be removed, updated, or completely rewritten, because it's clear that it is not appropriately written.

In 2020, Rubin considers himself a "new conservative" rather than a "classical liberal"

Rubin is ON RECORD calling himself a "new conservative". If Rubin's self identification is mentioned at all, it should include his self description as a "new conservative". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LB-Web (talk • contribs)

Is there a source for this? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9x3JmR0To. I'm pretty sure he says it himself on there. Although, I haven't watched the whole thing. If not, I know he calls himself a conservative in one of his videos. It should be fairly easy to find. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BTW, there's also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r9g8VGtyJs. Maybe someone can add it to supplement the Twitter link of him saying it if they think it isn't good enough on it's own. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Random YouTube videos are not reliable sources either. And we generally want WP:SECONDARY sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a random YouTube video. It's from Dave Rubin YouTube channels. Sure, we generally want WP:SECONDARY sources, but that doesn't mean that primary ones aren't fine in cases where someone is saying something about themselves and there aren't any secondary sources to cite. Although, the video clip does come from Fox News and the broadcaster also says Dave Rubin is calling himself a conservative now. It's the whole point in the segment. So, I'd consider that a secondary source. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No, a YouTube clip from Rubin's own channel is obviously a primary source. We can't just cherry-pick random statements from videos. We need reliable, secondary sources to show significance. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your clearly moving the bar. First you say some guideline specifically says Twitter isn't usable. Then when it turns out the guideline clearly doesn't say anything about Twitter you cite a supplement that says Twitter is fine if "the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description." Which completely contracts your original argument that Twitter can't be used at all. Then you say a "random" YouTube video doesn't work. Which you backtrack on by saying it isn't usable just because it's primary when it turns out not be random like you claimed it was. Nothing says primary sources can't be used for confirming basic information and it comes from a Fox News segment. Which clearly isn't primary. Even if it was primary though, WP:ABOUTSELF is pretty clear that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" There's zero reason Dave Rubin saying something about Dave Rubin on Dave Rubin's channels wouldn't be a usable reference. Is it the possible best source? No, but that's not the standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideology and Wildfires

Snooganssnoogans, per wp:ONUS please justify why this disputed content should be included in the article [1]. There are several problems with this addition. First, HuffPo is a poor source for BLP claims related to politics. Second, the summary added to the Wiki article does not reasonably summarize either what the HuffPo said or what Rubin said. The HuffPo article makes it clear that Rubin was drawing an analogy rather than saying this was identity politics ("PG&E strikes me as almost a metaphor for the destruction of the state,"). We are using the false framing of the HuffPo title and further compounding the false presentation by putting this in our identity politics section of the article. If you can't justify the inclusion please self revert. Springee (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Absent any reply to these concerns I've removed the material per ONUS. Springee (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Springee, in the Tucker Carlson interview, Rubin never states, “PG&E strikes me as almost a metaphor for the destruction of the state.” This is a quote from Tucker Carlson.

Here is an excerpt of the beginning of the Tucker Carlson-Dave Rubin exchange (Source: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-and-guest-dave-rubin-blame-diversity-hiring-and-woke-californians):

“TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Dave, thanks so much for coming on. You moved to California because it's a beautiful place and I agree with that. You've seen it really degrade in the time that you've been there, but PG&E strikes me as almost a metaphor for the destruction of the state. So, here's the utility which doesn't really know anything about its own infrastructure but knows everything about the race of its employees. How did we get there?

DAVE RUBIN: It’s just unbelievable. I’ve been in LA right now. I live about a minute away from one of the big fires that's still going. I have friends that are evacuated. Los Angeles, putting politics aside, and Southern California might be the most beautiful part of the United States. 

CARLSON: Yes.

RUBIN: The problem right now is that everything, everything, from academia to public utilities, to politics, everything that goes woke, that buys into this ridiculous progressive ideology that cares about what contractors are LGBT or how many black firemen we have or white this or Asian that, everything that goes that road eventually breaks down.”

In other words, Rubin blames PG&E’s responsibility and handling of the 2019 California wildfires on its worker diversity policy, which is a form of identity politics. (“…[E]verything that goes woke, that buys into this ridiculous progressive ideology that cares about what contractors are LGBT or how many black firemen we have or white this or Asian that […] eventually breaks down.”).

I think that this section can be rewritten to be more precise concerning what Rubin said. Furthermore, there have been several articles written about this interview, including PinkNews, which is considered a generally reliable source by Wikipedia. So this section can be sourced by PinkNews instead of HuffPo (HuffPo is, as you stated, a "poor source for BLP claims related to politics"). NaturalSoundsYEAH! (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First, that is a real stretch to take that quote and draw it into a 1:1 A leads to B claim. It would be just as reasonable to say Rubin is claiming that the city/state government's focus on woke issues instead of infrastructure was the cause of the problem or more generally, when things that are tangential to the core function of an organization become the fixation of those who run the organization's the quality of the core function suffers. This is a very generalized statement. Using it to make such a specific claim is grossly inacurate and fails WP:V. Any source that tries to make such a claim from the statements you provided should automatically fail wp:RS (at least for this article). It may also fail Wp:V. PinkNews would not be an acceptable substitute for HuffPo in this case and they aren't going to be a reliable source for claims like this. Springee (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is still a way to write this section that does not possibly misrepresent Rubin’s views. What about this:

“In an interview with Tucker Carlson about the 2019 California wildfires, Rubin criticizes worker diversity policies, stating ‘…[E]verything that goes woke, that buys into this ridiculous progressive ideology that cares about what contractors are LGBT or how many black firemen we have or white this or Asian that, […] eventually breaks down.’” NaturalSoundsYEAH! (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as really needed. Your proposal is certainly better but ultimately I don't see that this adds value to the article and the sources aren't really good for suggesting it's DUE. Springee (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Rubin page has a section about Rubin's views on identity politics, which is currently underdeveloped. This inclusion (1) expands on the identity politics section, (2) adds Rubin's specific views on one form of identity politics (i.e., worker diversity policies), and (3) underlines Rubin's view that identity politics causes great harm to society. Along with the fact that multiple sources have written about this interview, these reasons justify the revised text's inclusion. NaturalSoundsYEAH! (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC?

Springee, what RfC? Drmies (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, this RfC [2]. It was in the archives. It might be time to update it but given it was a really clear consensus last time it would probably be best to actually get consensus what the new version should be. Personally I think the current lead is good since in the second paragraph this is covered with a bit more detail. Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DaveRubinIDW.ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Labels in wikivoice

Newimpartial, please show where these labels are both supported by sources in this article and how their use doesn't violate WP:LABEL. [3] Springee (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering that each and every one of these figures is described here using terms that are also used in wikivoice in their respective main articles, I'm not seeing an issue. Do you want me to copy over the best source for each just to clarify this for you? Newimpartial (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues with that. First, these sources in this article would need to use those descriptions. While GQ's content would support those, the GQ article does not label the subjects. The Daily Beast's RSP entry notes the opinionated nature of the source and says be careful when using it to make claims about BLP subjects. Again, it doesn't paint the people as incompatible with the labels in question but it doesn't support all the labels in question either. So your second justification is that the parent articles do support the labels. That, that may or may not be true (just being there doesn't mean they should be) but that doesn't matter. The claims in this article need to be supported by the sources in this article else the claims fail wp:V. Third, per WP:LABEL, these are all clearly contentious labels. The fact that the sources that tie these people to Rubin don't use the se labels means we should not use them in wiki-voice. Label makes it clear that to use contentious labels like these in wiki-voice they need to be basically universally accepted and used. Else they need to be attributed. After that we have something similar to the issue that drove BLPCAT limitations. There isn't enough information in this article to support the label but we apply it anyway. If we were to claim a person is a pedophile in wiki-voice that article better support that claim within the article. We can't say "Mr Patel, a known pedophile, was interviewed..." even if Mr Patel's BLP includes the needed legal convictions. Such claims need to be supported within the article. We don't have sourcing to that end and applying such labels without such sourcing is a BLP issue. Please note that this is a NOCON situation (2:1 opposed) so the content should be removed until consensus to include has been established. Springee (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, given the length of time this content has been stable in this article, your NOCON interpretation is not tenable. What is more, there is clearly no community consensus that these terms are inappropriate labels when applied to these subjects, since there is consensus for these specific terms on the main BLP pages of each and every one of them. So if you like, I can create a note (probably a footnote) for this article providing the expanded sourcing for that list, but your argument that the fact that the sources that tie these people to Rubin don't use these labels means we should not use them in wiki-voice is at best WIKILAWYERING and at worst horse manure. There is nothing in WP:LABEL about "when used outside the main biographical article, the terms used must not only be used and accepted without dispute, but must also be used in the specific sources mentioning the BLP in reference to those other article's topics". Nothing even remotely similar to that.

So while I am willing to add those sources if no other editor gets to it first, I am not going to do so until your ridiculous (albeit original) argument that only the sources that tie these people to Rubin can be used is off the table. It draws on one of Wikipedia's great urban legends, sure, but that doesn't ground it in policy. Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the wp:BURDEN to provide sources that support those labels is on those who wish to include them. Burden is part of WP:V and states, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The sources we have here don't support the LABELS in question. Additionally, the labels aren't needed to make the point the article is trying to make. You might be able to find sources that do support those labels but are those sources DUE in this article? Probably not if they don't mention Rubin. I would also suggestion you review wp:OR (you added a link) since you are trying to applying it to policy discussions. WP:OR starts with a very clear declaration that, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." It doesn't say anything about debates with respect to policy. I would also suggest checking the abcom case related to BLPs. It's the one that justifies DS alerts related to BLP cases[4]. It's conclusion was very clear in stating, "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." Thus contentious labels that are not supported by sources or in context in this article should be avoided. Springee (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I was using WP:OR as a polite euphemism, I'm afraid. Such original interpretations of policy as the conceit that a LABEL could be correctly used in a BLP article lead but that the same term would "do harm" when presented in another article, might more accurately be termed hallucinatory, or else extrinsically motivated, rather than simply "original research".

Again, you have shown no policy-based reason why the sources of the labels need to be the same ones we would otherwise be using in this article. If the sources are needed to establish a label that is DUE in the context of the main biographical article, it is absurd for you to make the essentially circular rgument that the terms can't be used because the sources aren't in this article, but the sources can't be added because the content they support (the labels) isn't due, That kind of sophistry isn't what we are supposed to contribute to Talk pages, either. Newimpartial (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean no policy based reason other than WP:V? Are you suggesting wp:V isn't a policy? You are certainly implying as much. Springee (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What part of WP:V invites you to exclude quality sources for content you wish to exclude from an article because you happen to disagree with it? Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You should review wp:npov. Springee (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You think WP:NPOV says that? Or are you just using a random acronym generator at this point? Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you haven't made a case for inclusion and NOCON is clear. Springee (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In what sense is NOCON clear? You want to remove long-term, stable content because one other editor agrees with you? Newimpartial (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)