Talk:The Rubin Report

Sources

I've restored the templates for improving references. Far, far too many of these sources are unusable, and those that are mostly talk about Dave Rubin, who has his own article. Almost all of the individual listings are sourced to blog-posts by the people being interviewed, which does nothing to establish notability. Some are even worse, like links to Reddit comments or random blogs which link to the Youtube clips. Similarly, having the show hosted on multiple sites is irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the templates I added, these issues still haven't been resolved. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

TYT Network

History is missing the whole TYT era, which is probably intentional, and probably points to him writing his own article about his show. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4200:DF0A:6525:6F32:4024:785C (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Some controversy has arisen about this article. IMO it is notable because it is an endeavor by Dave Rubin. And the controversies are minor. With this in mind, I suggest we merge the Report into Rubin's own BLP. If I do not read objections, I will do so via a WP:BLAR. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: The show is notable enough to have its own article on it. Rubin has a career history totally separate from the show. Michipedian (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Upon later review, I support this merge proposal. I wasn't clear on how exclusive The Rubin Report is to Rubin himself. Michipedian (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

List of episodes/interviews

@Trevw23: Hello. In March User:Czar removed the list of episodes as WP:IINFO. I agree with that. This level of detail should be supported by secondary sources, otherwise it's using Wikipedia as a hosting service for the show. If independent sources can be found for guests, it could be carefully expanded based on those sources.

The list of interviews (here) adds much more detail, but still totally lacks independent sources. The use of informal, blurb-like language ("As part of YouTube Week, Dave talks to...") is also inappropriate. These summaries were taken from the series' site and only minimally paraphrased. (Why does almost every entry up until 2017 end with "among other things" and then switches to "and more"?) In addition to being undue weight, it's not going to work here for several other reasons. It's sloppy attribution of copyrighted material, for one. It's also promotional and a breach of Wikipedia's formal WP:TONE. Please discuss before reverting again. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not watching this page, but this is the right logic. Ping me if you need me.  czar 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

'conservative'

Why is the Report becoming 'more conservative'? Rubin only said he feels that his liberal/libertarian stances appear to become a conservative stance, but that does make the show conservative in term of the political philosophy of conservatism. – User:Dg21dg21 09:56, 30 June 2017 (CEST)

The "notable guests" section

Seriously, I'm surprised no one else has pointed this out yet... the section contains a list, 8 full lines long, of nothing but names. Is it really necessary to mention every single person with a Wikipedia article who has appeared on the show, which has a new episode every week? At some point the list has to be trimmed. FinalForm (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It was ebbing and flowing, apparently based on whim, so I axed it. This is the same issue as #List of episodes/interviews, above. This should provide some context, not just a bland, arbitrary listing of vaguely notable people. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this issue out, @FinalForm:, and for resolving it, @Grayfell:. Do you think the same logic applies to the sentence in the introduction that lists eleven long names of organizations that provide funding for the show? I think this is useful information, but I do not think it is appropriate for the introduction. The list could probably be trimmed, as well. Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in lede, on subsources of funding

The lead has a long, referenced, list of funding sources for Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) which in turn funds Rubin's show. That information is essentially a duplicate of what appears in the article on IHS. For this article, it is SYNTH, as the references don't mention Rubin Report, and OR (or just guesswork) in that the references don't state that money from those sources is what was channeled to Rubin's show. The Institute's political leanings are documented at its article, but the link between Rubin or Rubin Report and the subsources or their politics is indirect, and not inferrable from the current references. I suggest mentioning only IHS in connection with Rubin Report, and linking to IHS' page for any analysis of its funding. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the excess citations that didn't cite news articles. I've left the Data in Society article even though it's self published. I don't think it should remain but currently it's not making a controversial claim (though the associated footnote is trying to coatrack). I also moved the content from the lead to the body. If the material isn't in the body it shouldn't be in the lead. Springee (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)