Talk:Dave Rubin/Archive 1

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)

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)


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dave Rubin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://rubinville.com/inc/bio_inc.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118220934/http://gothamist.com/2005/07/12/dave_rubin_comedian.php to http://gothamist.com/2005/07/12/dave_rubin_comedian.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813202514/http://harpur.binghamton.edu/hotline/121003hotline/names.htm to http://harpur.binghamton.edu/hotline/121003hotline/names.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310063933/http://www.theawl.com/2012/12/funny-guy-david-rubin-answers-our-questions to http://www.theawl.com/2012/12/funny-guy-david-rubin-answers-our-questions
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310063933/http://www.theawl.com/2012/12/funny-guy-david-rubin-answers-our-questions to http://www.theawl.com/2012/12/funny-guy-david-rubin-answers-our-questions

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

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

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)


 * 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).


 * 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)

Intellectual Dark Web
You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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". That's what this Wikipedia page should describe him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think incorporating both of them would be ideal, but the phrasing might be difficult. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should both be incorporated if only one term can be reliably sourced? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are a few more sources from a journal's website, the Huffington Post and the Atlantic . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.174.134 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

COI template.
I have removed the COI template. This was added by because  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, Conflict of interest (and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide) explains some of this. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 5 March 2019‎

Time to classify Dave Rubin as far right
He endorsed bolsonaro AHC300 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * It's virtually impossible to be hyperbolic about Bolsonaro ... no matter how far right someone says he is, he has demonstrated himself to be further right than that. -- Jibal (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Thomas Sowell is, to cparaphrase from the Simpsons, "not racist, but number one with racists." 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".[etc.]
 * So again, what, exactly, is the problem with explaining this? Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Your racist opinion mongering about IQ etc. is not relevant to the article or Wikipedia generally--this page is not a soapbox. -- Jibal (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. My own opinions aside, here are some sources on the matter. I think the best term to describe Rubin might be in that Vox piece "reactionary." &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Your racist opinion mongering about IQ etc. is not relevant to the article or Wikipedia generally--this page is not a soapbox. -- Jibal (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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. 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, and confirmed his abuse of Wikipedia sockpuppet accounts in a Tweet written in May 2019.

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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:28A3:FD0A:C482:5E33, says which reliable source? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 (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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The RS here are leftwing outlets engaged in hatchet-jobs. No relatively neutral, honest, sane reporter could think someone like Rubin is giving a platform to white supremacists and the far-right in a meaningful sense. This is why Wikipedia has a bad reputation, and why I will continue to make sure my students don't get away with citing it. Wouldn't it be nice if Wikipedia was a RS? 61.68.174.134 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your assessment of a source as "leftwing" doesn't make them any less reliable, and reliability is what really counts. If Wikipedia started whitewashing content because of anonymous complaints about an entire news outlet's supposed political ideology, would that somehow make Wikipedia's reputation any better? Of course not. So who gets to decide what counts as a "meaningful" sense and what doesn't? Do Rubin's fans get to decide this, or does the "leftwing" media? For that matter, who besides the media is even paying attention?


 * Likewise, your personal opinion about the honesty and sanity of unnamed reporters at these outlets is useless to an encyclopedia. We are interested in sources, not political hot takes.


 * If you are a professor at a school (such as Macquarie University) I encourage you to review School and university projects and Wikiedu.org, which provides resources for educators on how to use, and edit, Wikipedia in a higher education setting. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a classic example of "guilt by association". Among the stated purposes of his show is to give air time to unorthodox ideas... and here we have partisan political editors trying to smear him as being somehow in ideological cahoots with some of the people he has interviewed. Tabloid style journalism in a supposed encyclopedia. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, so we're not obligated to prioritize the "stated purpose" of his own show over reliable sources. Readers already know where to go if they want that kind of information. "Guilt by association" would be saying that because a source is leftwing it must therefore also be incorrect. Articles should primarily be based on reliable sources, and also independent sources. In this case, that means independent of Rubin, so his stated purpose doesn't invalidate other sources. If you know of reliable, independent sources which you think should be included, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Non-sequitur alert. If you know of reliable, independent sources who describe him as right wing, let's see them. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag
I've added a NPOV tag to this article. The article fixates on a few very negative sources about Rubin and The Rubin Report. The material is presented often without context and including the tone of the sources that are critical of Rubin and/or guests that Rubin invites on his show. Based on the number of citations the article places UNDUE emphasis on a single, critical DailyBeast article. While it is reasonable to include a discussion of the criticism of The Rubin Report and it's guests, we should start with a higher level summary then provide detail in a IMPARTIAL tone. Citing specific controversial opinions/guest should only be done in support of an overall article narrative, not as a mindless grievance list. Springee (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The content is only negative if you construe it as such. It's perfectly fine and descriptive to note that Rubin invites far-right radicals on his show and then lauds them as bold "centrist" thinkers. And such content fits perfectly with other sources that characterize Rubin as a node in a far-right network. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at how the criticism was framed. A single, negative DB article sets the tone and agenda for virtually the entire political commentary section yet doesn't even lead off with a critical foundation of Rubin's interviews that even the DB acknowledges.  If we are going to widely draw from the DB why not the quote that  cited?
 * 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.
 * Why not lead off with something to the effect of Rubin thinks X and is concerned about Y. "Rubin wants civil dialog is the most important thing etc.  Rubin has interviewed controversial people including X,Y, Z.  Etc."  I'm not against including statements that the Rubin is criticized for having controversial guests but the tone of the Wikipedia entry should be neutral and they should be cast against a backdrop of Rubin's views and concerns about the stifling of dialog.  In that context the interviews with people on the far right or even alt right make more sense.  Without this background the article reads like a bullet list of complaints with limited context. Springee (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, but this is nonsense. The detail is well-sourced (Springee is invited to listen to the live-stream and fact-check the Daily Beast article), so that's not an issue. The detail is indeed presented in an impartial tone, it's just that the detail is critical of the subject. Yes, the article is cited a lot--but seriously, in that first paragraph of "Political commentary", the four citations could be replaced by a single one, so that's one things. Plus, that article is pretty extensive and deep, so I'm not surprised it's cited for a bunch of things. But maybe you can find another source that verifies he referred to "progressivism" as a mental disorder? Drmies (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "he referred to "progressivism" as a mental disorder". That is exactly the kind of out of context quote that is a problem here.  What was the larger message around the quote?  Would it be better to discuss the complete context of the concern he was raising vs just the soundbite quote?  Is he literally thinking this is a mental disorder (perhaps caused by a traumatic brain injury?) or that in context the behaviors are similar?  Essentially the current Wikipedia article does readers no justice as it focuses on the negative criticism but doesn't start with a foundation of Rubin's concerns, which don't seem to be in dispute even in critical articles, nor why he is interested in talking to such controversial guests to begin with.
 * As for the DB, my concerns are not at all non-sense. The Daily Beast is cutting quotes from a very large library of content to create a narrative about Rubin and his show.  When the writer does that it's basically an opinion article in that the interpretation is the writer's opinion.  Sure, the DB article is reliable for the statement that Rubin said X in interview Y.  The context and message the DB writer is crafting however, is effectively opinion.  It isn't reporting, it's interpreting.  Anyway, Why not include something more like a summary quote from another article source, the Tablet?
 * Rubin’s chief target these days is what he calls the “regressive left:” the self-described progressives whose alleged opposition to free speech and open inquiry, particularly around discussions of Islam, is to Rubin a betrayal of the principles they claim to stand for. “I believe the regressive left—the group of people who use illiberal tactics to silence those defending liberal principles—to be the left’s version of the Tea Party,” Rubin said during the opening of his March 18 episode. “If we don’t rein them in now then the left in America will be as fractured as the right.”
 * Alternatively it would make sense to talk about Rubin's response to an exchange between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck as this was a turning point for Rubin []? We can do a lot better even with the sources we have.  Springee (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that the actually important piece - especially in terms of "why does all this matter?" - is the Data & Society paper, which a lot of other sources picked up on and which we have secondary sources relying on. This Vox piece explains it well.  Notably, it does also highlight the "mental disorder" comment. --Aquillion (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Classical liberal category
WP:CATDEF requires that reliable sources consistently and commonly apply a label to a subject. Sources call him a libertarian (1, 2), but I don't see any cite "classical liberal" as anything more than his own self-description. Even the article itself notes that this is not what sources typically call him. Most classical liberals are long dead, and many sources describe it as a euphemism in contemporary politics. Can you show sourcing to demonstrate that this is a consistent defining feature? Nblund talk 17:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hm... so this article about how the term "classical liberal" is making a comeback somehow shows there are no "classical liberals" anymore? And those T-shirts saying "classical liberal" that are part of Rubin's branding?  Of course classical liberals should probably just redirect to neoliberals.  Wait...  why isn't there a category for neoliberals? :D  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 18:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It attributes the resurgence of the term to conservatives and libertarians who don't want to be associated with those labels anymore: they embrace the label, then, as a sort of “gotcha” to their critics, emblematic proof that they are the true defenders of intellectual freedom. It's not a defining category, it's a talking point. The term properly describes people like David Ricardo or John Locke, who are associated with classical economics, and whose life and work coincided with the classical period in music. Applying it to Dave Rubin makes as much sense as calling him an adherent of Georgism, which is why reliable sources just call him a libertarian. If we want to add it, we need to show consistent use in reliable sources. Nblund talk 19:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Erm... sounds like maybe you need to add a paragraph to Classical Liberalism if you wish to better inform readers about why they might see people wearing such T-shirts. (I won't link to the guy's twitter or his online store.) Whether it's verily and in sooth "truth" or just venal branding, I would have thought it wasn't for en.wp to decide:  remember the WP:V mantra "verifiability, not truth"? Politico is independent of Rubin and talks about his (and more generally the "intellectual dark web"'s) branding... That said, I live on a continent where it is illegal to make ad hoc lists of living people based on their political opinions, so as a law-abiding citizen, I won't be adding anyone to any such lists. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 19:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree: it is a question of verifiability (and WP:NPOV). That standard hasn't been met here. To meet WP:CATDEF we need to show that Rubin is consistently described as a classical liberal by reliable sources. There are sources (including Politico) that quote or paraphrase Rubin describing himself this way, but I can't find any high quality sources that actually describe Rubin that way in their own editorial voice. Further, categories should generally be uncontroversial, yet opinion sources actually directly contest this description.
 * This self description stuff comes up all the time. The fact is most people are at describing their own ideologies, and so we shouldn't defer to them. We need sources. Nblund talk 20:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nblund, I’ve been busy in real life. Removing the cat again even though 2 editors have objected is simply put, not cool. Please restore as a show of good faith until we finish the discussion. More when I get back to a computer. Springee (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I pinged you, waited a day, and reverted once you returned to editing without a response. Restored for now, but neither of you have provided any sources that describe him this way in their own voice. BRD is a two way street, and the WP:ONUS for including this stuff is kind of on you. Nblund talk 16:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, first, I think enough sources acknowledge the label to accept it. Some are critical of those who use it but they don't refute the modern usage. I support keeping the category as it isn't a contentious label but I also acknowledge that Nblund's arguments against are not without merit. Here are some sources that refer to Rubin, along with others, as classical liberals. Some, such as The Week are critical of the group. [], [], [], [], [] Springee (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Jacobitemag article you're citing is tagged as "satire". The Week and Politico both characterize it as a sort of "rebranding exercise". The only source that appears to actually support this characterization is the Objective Standard, which looks to be an Objectivist blog. Limiting it to only generally reliable sources: I've found one instance (the Daily Dot in 2017) where Rubin is directly described as a "classical liberal" by a generally reliable source. Sources either describe him as a libertarian or conservative, or they cite his "classical liberal" description in scare quotes.
 * Variety libertarian talk show host Dave Rubin
 * New York Times Libertarian podcaster Dave Rubin
 * The Hill: Popular “classical liberal” YouTuber Dave Rubin
 * Hollywood Reporter: Dave Rubin, a sometimes controversial radio and YouTube personality formerly of left-leaning The Young Turks (generally considered a conservative, he describes himself as a “classical liberal”)
 * Daily Dot (in 2017) he has devoted himself to defending free speech, free ideas, and classical liberalism
 * This is clearly not a consistent defining feature in reliable sources. I'm also really not sure how you can say its not a contentious label. In addition to The Week and Politico, this Daily Dot editorial also describes "Classical liberal" as a code word for a conservative.  Nblund talk 17:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

note added a link to this discussion over at WP:NPOVN Nblund talk 01:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Variety - overcite and other citation issues
, I think is right, the Variety link is just not needed. To be honest it's not needed anywhere in the article. It's used 3 times and in each case it's an additional source rather than the sole source and one of the times it's used is in the lead where we shouldn't need any citations.

Speaking of the lead, currently the lead has seven citations. Why have any? I would like to remove all citations from the lead (and add them later where needed). Would anyone object? My comments about Variety not being needed aside I won't remove any links without discussion. Springee (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking that all the Variety refs could be removed, as each time its used, there is a better source already cited either inline or elsewhere in the article. I'm not sure if the Variety article provides anything unique to the article. It's a good RS for entertainment news, and some of its political features offer unique content not available elsewhere, but it's far from the best source for anything in politics, or really anything serious. (Same opinion about The Daily Beast, Hollywood Reporter, Daily Dot, and–frankly–The Hill after its recent change in ownership, and all other such popular second-tier newsmagazines and aggregator/content producer websites.) I also agree about the lead, that's an easy one per WP:LEADCITE, with the usual caveat that as its a BLP, anything "likely to be challenged" should be cited. – Levivich 03:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need it for stuff that already has three cites to high-quality mainstream sources (where it was recently removed), but I do think it's worth having in other places. It's worth citing controversial stuff to multiple sources (and even to multiple types of sources) to avoid the risk of giving any one of them WP:UNDUE weight and to establish the relevance of things like eg. the Data & Society paper.  I think Variety is a good enough source for those things - it can lend additional weight when cited alongside eg. NBC News or Vox and Data & Society, which is how we're using it now.  I absolutely wouldn't lump it in with most of the sources you listed, either.  The Daily Beast, while usable, is much, much more clearly WP:BIASED in a way that requires some caution, while Hollywood Reporter and The Hill are more tabloid-y.  All three of them are also relatively new-media things with shorter reputations, whereas Variety is extremely well established and has a reputation going back over a century - I would actually name it as one of the better sources for entertainment news (and I would argue that Rubin does fall under that category; he is also an entertainer, and his output straddles the line between entertainment and political commentary.)  If you think it's that bad it might be worth taking this to WP:RS, but I'd check the five previous discussions on WP:RS/P first; the crux of any dispute would probably be whether Rubin is an entertainer or not, and whether he's enough of an entertainer to reasonably put him under Variety's area of expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right, Variety isn't in the same league as those other sources, it's definitely more reliable. For entertainment, it's a go-to. For non-entertainment, it still does run well-reported, "hefty" features like and . But for controversial information in an AP2 BLP, I would put it in the category of "OK to use, but if a better source is available, use the better source". So I think if we have a better source to use (we do for libertarian, not sure if we do for the D&S paper), we should swap it out; if not, then it should stay (that's what I meant by "unique"). It's a good point about Rubin being an entertainer, too. But I definitely don't think it's worth taking to RSN, this can be resolved on the talk page (or maybe I'm being naive). (Some of the other sources might be worth taking to RSN, but to be honest I have zero interest in starting, joining, or reading a whole big Daily Mail-type discussion, and I'm sure you feel the same way.) – Levivich  06:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Content order
Above I talked about moving citations down to the body from the lead. Would anyone oppose if I change the order of material? I’m thinking it would make more sense to follow the comedy section with a description of his political commentary shows (TYT, Oar, RR). This section would only provide facts such as timelines etc. The section on political views, speaking etc would follow. My intent isn’t to change the content, just put it in an order that starts with the dry facts then goes into the controversial material. I think this is a rather typical layout. Springee (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I moved the citations from the lead to the body. No text changes to the article. Springee (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think your proposed content order above makes sense, too. – Levivich 04:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)