Talk:Dave Rubin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

May 2020 "conservative" first sentence in lead.

@Leopea and Snooganssnoogans: This is the second time this edit has gone back and forth. Leopea makes a reasonable case that "conservative" seems to be a point that is not universally agreed upon. Snoogan has reverted this change twice but offered no explanation either time which means other editors have no basis for starting a discussion. My take is that Leopea is correct to remove it from the first sentence. Rubin doesn't self describe as conservative and most source that describe him as such seem to do so based on the overlap between libertarian and conservative views. Rubin has also stated support for positions that are normally associated with liberal platforms. Regardless, if the term is disputed it should probably be attributed. Additionally, the fact that we have some detail on this being a disputed term in the lead itself means we shouldn't state it in Wiki voice in the first sentence. That's my take. I support the change Leopea has suggested. Springee (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hockeypro2000: as the editor who added the material here [[1]]. This was added 15 April and first challenged 5 May. I would call this a new addition that needs consensus for inclusion vs consensus for removal. Springee (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RS describe Rubin as a conservative, thus we should. That Rubin self-describes as something different (laughably, a "classical liberal") doesn't negate that. He spends all his time bashing liberals and defending conservatives, and the only thing that makes it notable is that he and the right-wing crackpot outlets he works for (The Blaze) portray this criticism as coming from someone who is on the left. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RS's describe him as alternately, conservative, libertarian or even nothing at all. His conservative positions seem to only live in the area where conservative and libertarian overlap. Regardless, since sources aren't universal in their descriptions pick one and use it in Wikipedia voice. This is a case were attribution, as is done later in the lead, is the appropriate direction. Springee (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Even Dave Rubin describes himself as conservative. Not really sure what the big deal is https://www.reddit.com/r/daverubin/comments/gmq4y9/heres_the_clip_from_rubins_interview_with_andrew/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.129.99 (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason why the lead shouldn't describe him as "conservative" when RS describe him as such, and now, he himself unequivocally describes himself as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As described in the clip above we should put that in a separate sentence and allow the more nuanced description Rubin uses. Again, not in the lead sentence as people have been trying to insert it. The other descriptors in the lead sentence are rather concrete. He does stand up comedy shows professionally. He does political commentary professional. What are is political leanings/angles? Well that shouldn't be summarized in a single word. It makes more sense to expand the final sentence of the lead rather than jam things into the first sentence. Springee (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, he himself describes himself as a modern conservative and only brings on conservative voices to his show; I don't remember the last time he brought on a liberal-minded individual on the show. It is clear that he has ideologically shifted to the right; and that's fine -- but it is important to classify him as a conservative, just like Ben Shapiro is and Stephen Crowder. Minatijeetii (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, in the clip you posted he used a lot of qualifications and didn't just say he was "conservative". As such, we shouldn't either. Instead we should expand the last sentence of the lead. Perhaps something like Rubin has been described as a conservative but describes himself as a classical liberal or "modern conservative" noting... (details from Rubin's description). Springee (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC) No reason to put the term in the very first sentences when it's described in more detail a few sentences later. Also, no it is not important to classify him as a conservative. Springee (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a regular viewer of his, but I will note Rubin had a self-described liberal centrist on the show this year; here's a link to the YouTube video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwmnmnXpoms . I remember him having on a progressive guest on the show a short while back, too. I think there are probably different ways to interpret his statements about conservatism; personally speaking, it seems as though he believes that "modern" conservatives of the present day have moved towards HIM due to accommodating more libertarian and socially and classically liberal thinking. In any case, this is too much in the realm of interpretation for Wikipedia, and I agree with Springee in that it is not necessary to pin him down as being of a particular ideology, especially when his combination of views are so unusual. Webspidrman (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That “self-described liberal centrist” you mention is *not* a liberal centrist, but is merely a right-wing grifter who calls herself a liberal centrist. Her name is Karlyn Borysenko, and if you look at her YouTube channel, all of her videos are defending conservatives and attacking liberals, just like Dave Rubin himself. Mcleanm302 (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Rubin has by now stated that sees himself as a conservative. He is frequently described as conservative by news outlets. He is very outspoken in his support of Trump and conservative values. It's ridiculous to not call him a "conservative political commentator" at this point. LB-Web (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.155.96.14 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)