Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance). Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish Women Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020) This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Article could use a section about perceived bias imho. Pär Larsson (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is paid to be biased. She is a columnist, not a news reporter, so it's part of the job description. What might be useful is an expansion of views - that would speak for itself (cf. Charles Krauthammer). Mhym (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha, the criticism concerning Rubin and the anti-semitism at the Occupy Wall Street rallies is hilarious. It is pretty much impossible to look at a picture or watch a video of those lame rallies without seeing anti-semitism front and center. To state that Rubin mainly relied on a video of "one homeless guy" when multitudes of commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer as an example, have commented on the blatant anti-semitism is pathetic beyond words. What is the author of the entry going to do next, claim that the protesters weren't advocating for communism of socialism? Furthermore, most of this entry seems to be little more than a polemic berating Rubin for her particular political views. The section detailing the Norway shootings goes beyond merely reporting criticisms of Rubin, with the author of the entry criticizing Rubin himself. And a bulk of the sources for this article come from far-left sources that are beyond biased.

I just modified the page to give it more structure and also wrote a few words about the use of the word "neoconservative" to describe her politics, a word that evidently comes with some baggage. I found it hard to not sound critical of Rubin, but in all seriousness, it is really really really hard to find people who take her seriously or like her style of journalism or editorial writing. So instead I tried to add some context about her own views in her own words and I think it works, and helps to make her bias clearer (as the section title suggests) as well as her opponents' biases or potential biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshin47 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more meat to the "views" section (foreign policy) and I structured it yesterday. I think in not too long, once we have a little better writing and flow, and a bit more up to date info on her views, we can close this particular complaint because it will be clear that a) she is a columnist and therefore presents herself to be biased, not objective; b) despite this, others on both sides see her as either particularly biased or misrepresenting her real bias; c) most of the contention about her biases concern her Israel advocacy, not domestic conservative causes, d) almost all of her critics on both sides are critics of her Israel advocacy, not other causes.

This whole article is a criticism of Jennifer Rubin. It reads like she's evil. I just deleted a phrase in the intro which said she was a "jewish supremacist." If you can't do better than this you should just delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.87.119 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how is it that the article's discussion of her views conspicuously stops prior to Trump's arise? Even though she's generally considered conservative, she's been one of Donald Trump's most vehement critics at the Post. This seems like it merits some inclusion. 67.188.52.65 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Goldberg's defense of Rubin erroneously claiming that Oslo bombing was the of Islamic terrorists because it was less a defense of Rubin and more a defense of poor journalism. Goldberg's logic basically amounts to believing that any bombing in the world should immediately make one suspect it to be the work of an Islamic terrorist. However, whether or not you believe that to be true, Rubin then made several leaps of logic in her infamous column, mentioning altogether useless information such as the location of Mullah Krekar before engaging in a highly partisan argument on defense spending. To say that this column merits a defense by Goldberg who then attacks the Washington Post for apologizing for Rubin's erroneous reporting normalizes yellow journalism. And considering that Goldberg himself then goes on to cause the reader to believe that the majority of terrorism is committed by Islamic extremists, I feel that this column reeks of conceit and isn't up to the standards of an online encyclopedia. Mentioning Goldberg's odd defense of her gaffe makes the article seem more than a little biased in favor of Rubin, especially in light of all the praise already heaped on her for at least being prolific.Shabeki (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is overthinking. The article has to be W:NPOV which means we need to present links to both sides and let the reader make conclusions. Goldberg does defend her, it's a fact. Fully or partially is an opinion. Not mentioning any defense is one-sided. You are free to reword this, but blanking does not seem to be a reasonable action to me. Mhym (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. BTW, if you do dig up some (unrelated) negative (or positive?) comments on Rubin's work, you might to add them as well. The article as it is is rather small and can use some expansion. Mhym (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now a supposed encylopedia is omitting the fact that a well-known columnist wrote something in defense of Rubin because a Wikipedia editor doesn't think Rubin's writing should be defended? You have got to be kidding me? Yet another reason why Wikipedia is a total fucking sham. As for causing the reader to believe that most terrorism is committed by Muslims, I think the fact that pretty much every notable act of terrorism in the past ten years, except for maybe one, was committed by Muslims would lead one to believe such a thing, rather than Jeffrey Goldberg's defense of Jennifer Rubin. It would seem that Shabeki has revealed his true reasoning for wanting Goldberg's defense removed.

These (unsigned and undated) opinions aren't relevant. -- Jibal (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an erroneous familial relationship between John Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin is stated in this article. Podhoretz is the half-brother of Rachel Abrams. Jennifer Rubin worked with Podhoretz at Commentary. The cite provided as footnote 6 does not support the claim that Rubin and Podhoretz are half-siblings. Can someone confirm that Rubin is Podhoretz's half-sister? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.79.2 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth, family (parents, siblings). College major prior to law school. Mydogtrouble (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing is her dead name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.91.188 (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reversion recently implied that splitting the personal views section into criticism and actual personal views was in violation of WP:BIOL. As per WP:UNDUE, the claims are highly sourced and not the least bit controversial. Moreover, calling for genocide of a people is definitely worthy of criticism. We can call it something different if you wish, but it's definitely worthy of being there.

Open for debate.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Criticism sections should be avoided, but since there is so much, a section could be used. Islamophobia? There had better be multiple RS that use that term to describe the subject. --Malerooster (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, so at least we agree on the criticism part.

You definitely have a point on Islamophobia, which while evident, needs to be substantiated subject to consensus here. Generally it seems as though reputable media outlets refer to Rubin as anti-muslim or outright islamophobe. It seems relatively easy to come up with more sources, but isn't really common sense?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 04:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraceful. You're describing a rant by an unknown author in a collaborative blog as "reputable media"? You have enough edits to know much better than that. If I were an admin I would block you on the spot for six months al teast for your horrific BLP violation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to whether you are referring to MJ Rosenberg or David Dayen, although I suspect you mean the latter. I invite you to look up either/both analysts and then get back to me on how "unknown" they are. Furthermore, the news outlets they write for are very respected.

It's an objection, but a misguided one at best.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, yo?

Cheers,Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The objection above by Brewcrewer is quite well-guided. You're attempting to promote niche views inappropriately, in violation of more than a handful of WP policies. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  False. Jibal (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(RI) Added "criticism" section as per talk. You'll notice that every single paragraph below that section has "[Rubin] has been criticized" in one form or the other, so per WP:BLP, we are certainly obliged to have that section.

Cheers,Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a forum for you to express your personal view that there is "evidence" of Islamophobia by the article subject. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article takes the tone of a political attack ad and is entirely inappropriate. Brief inspection of the history reveals multiple edits indicative of an effort to ensure the article takes a tone of condemnation. This edit and its accompanying summary provide some hints as to a possible motivation behind such efforts. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article calls her a neoconservative and says her views are widely regarded as neoconservative. None of the cited sources say this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I can't remember contributing to this (though seeing the discussion above and my own contributions, I can't deny it!). What's the problem again with including a criticism section? What parts do you object to so we can work on them?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary should have said "re" and not "ew." Too close on the keyboard!

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment in the above section. The problem is not having a "Criticism" section; but we aren't supposed to populate such sections with niche views about the subject. In particular you seem to have taken considerable effort to make sure the article describes its subject as an "Islamophobe". You have been on WP a long time and you really ought to know better. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to the Islamophobe comment soon. I'm just starting to go through the page history and take exception to this edit. This is supported by multiple sources- many of them notable. BLP states we have to be extra careful with these types of articles, but we are not supposed to airbrush them. I will restore that paragraph shortly, and perhaps expand on it.

I am also seriously concerned with your attempts to somehow make the subject of this article seem much better than what almost all notable sources portray her to be. The neutrality tag in the criticism section, the empty praise section (such section is almost always missing from all WP biography articles), etc. make me weary of a certain POV being pushed here.

Cheers, 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"I am also seriously concerned with your attempts to somehow make the subject of this article seem much better than what almost all notable sources portray her to be." This comment is highly troubling. It appears that you regard her as a "bad person" and think its important that her Wikipedia article reflect as much. I would advise that you stay from editing this BLP and perhaps edit a subject (not a BLP at all) that you can focus on somewhat more objectively. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aua, you seem to be confusing the largely separate topics of WP:Verifiability and WP:Weight at a rather fundamental level. If an editorial "source" such as a Glenn Greenwald Guardian piece has nasty things to say about Jennifer Rubin, that's more of a topic for Talk: Glenn Greenwald than for this page, unless the view happens to be rather widely held indeed — or is at least taken seriously by serious people — which requisite you have comprehensively failed to demonstrate. I'll note, however, that not even the Glenn Greenwald piece actually calls Rubin an "Islamophobe".

I'll put this very bluntly: if there is a critical editorial point of view about a living person that cannot be sourced any better than Al-Jazeera English and a daily newspaper in Beirut, then that view is not widely held or notable enough to command a paragraph of criticism in a BLP about the target of the criticism, here on English Wikipedia. The BLPs for the authors espousing those views are, presumably, thataway. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewer: your comment would be relevant had my comment been "I am also seriously concerned with your attempts to somehow make the subject of this article seem much better than she is." It's beyond mere semantics; a reasonable person reading my original post would understand it as stating we should portray her the same way notable sources do. Not better, not worse. We don't airbrush history here; we go by what RS say, even if we don't like it. I don't feel comfortable engaging in a conversation if you're going to attack straw men inspired by a weak understanding of my statements.

@Factchecker_atyourservice: there are two facts here: 1. she retweeted a post calling for a certain people's genocide, and 2. she took some flack for it. Both of those statements are indisputable. There are really no opinions here; just some good ol' facts. Now tell me which of those facts you disagree with, and we can work from there. Obviously, if an editorial calls her something, that wouldn't really make it here. However, that doesn't apply to the two facts above. That's my issue.

As a reasonable person, you probably wouldn't really object to the above. I'd expect you to go ahead and object to the weight of the issue. I don't think that's valid either. She is as known for her opinions as she is for the criticism she receives for them. Googling her name and then going through the first 30 results or so would reveal how a good portion of what you'll find is rather critical. Her time at The Post didn't win her any friends.

I'm more interested in discussing the content here than wiki-lawyering and attacks on editors.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question inserted later: are you really calling it an indisputable "fact" that Rachel Abrams called for Palestinian genocide?Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, kindly reread what I wrote. The fact is that she retweeted something calling for the genocide (blog post linked in that retweet). It's a stretch to say she called for it, but it's a fact she retweeted it. Wouldn't you agree?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try again; reading comprehension failure on your part. Are you really calling it an indisputable "fact" that Rachel Abrams called for Palestinian genocide?

You keep saying something to the effect of "virtually all notable people call her an Islamophobe" and then you resort to a citation to one of the biggest muckrakers in Western journalism and two rando's writing in the Arabic press. And that first and most notable piece you have offered — relative terms, mind you — doesn't even USE the word Islamophobe!

But you knew that already, because I told you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your tendentiousness is off the charts. Please direct your ample English comprehension skills toward a response to the policy objections already very clearly made by multiple editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must be missing something, but can't find "policy objections already very clearly made by multiple editors." It's already been agreed we need to have a criticism section. There is, however, a dispute on how to populate it. I take particular exception to removing one paragraph on her retweet and explained how it's factual and is sufficiently notable. What is your point of view? How will you defend the removal? What policies are you exactly invoking?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly start with the section "Very serious POV problems" and keep reading until you see the policy objections. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason to delete so much notable and well sourced criticism and the addition of an empty praise section is just plain odd. Sepsis II (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example of notable and well-sourced criticism that I removed? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly start with the section "Very serious POV problems" and keep reading until you see one example.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More tendentiousness. As I already stated, that is a niche view and it is not notable enough to go in this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our BLP policy absolutely opposes utilizing opeds and blogs to trash a BLP. I commend FCAYS for cleaning up the article in order for the article to comply withWP:BLP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not mean whitewash any criticism. If you cared about BLP you would have deleted FCAYS's BLP violation on this talk page. Sepsis II (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lolwut? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a niche view. You might want to google "Jennifer Rubin Rachel Abrams" and get back to us. It's not a matter of "opeds and blogs."

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Google it bro" is not a reliable source or a policy argument. Show me reliable sources with notable opinions or stop talking. Simply claiming that better references exist and alluding vaguely to them is not constructive. The views you keep inserting are fit for the BLPs of the authors espousing them. Reverted. I note again that this specific issue was first raised to you nearly a year and a half ago, and you're still playing tendentious. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding new comments, but none have any significance; you seem to have a deep and unexplained prejudice against certain notable and widely utilized authors and sources. You've offered no reason to back up your deletions and reversions, as such, please stop reverting per BRD. Sepsis II (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain edit warring to keep a niche view in a BLP inappropriately. I note also that you and Aua have removed ^{[failed verification]} tags and other markup from content you're not even disputing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the incident is discussed at WashPost.com, Salon.com, The Nation, HuffPost, Slate.com, Politico, The Wire, Al-akhbar English, and many, many other websites. Pick your favourite to discredit, but you can't deny she retweeted a despicable tweet, and then took flack for it.

Here's to hoping we stop arguing about this. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18 months and thousands of words later, you finally put some effort into responding to objections about the sourcing.

Again: your tendentiousness is off the charts. You should have made this response to User: brewcrewer back in January 2013. Instead, you simply shut down the discussion with dismissive comments, and here you are again, attempting essentially the same filibuster against another editor.

In any event, none of the sources you listed describe the tweet as a call to genocide.

So really this is just more source misrepresentation from you in an effort to push a niche POV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see signs of progress on this, so that's good. As to your point:

Salon's ref says: "To make her genocidal wishes even clearer, ..." referring to the post.

Al-akhbar ref says:"Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin promotes call for Palestinian genocide."

WashPo: "The language is so over the top, though “child-sacrificing savages,” “devil’s spawn,” “pimped out by their mothers,” “unmanned animals” it’s easy to how some people might see it as an endorsement of genocide. Furthermore, other posts on Abrams’s blog also refer to Palestinians with a broad brush."

However, I do see your point. Maybe some people might not see it as so. Do you think we should have something to the effect "JR retweeted a RA's tweet with a link to a blog post that some viewed as promoting Palestinian genocide?"

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 04:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I started off typing "none of the new sources" you listed describe the tweet as a call to genocide, but then I realized half the sources you listed weren't new, so I left off the word "new" and that changed the meaning.

So you've got one well-known Western muckraker publishing a polemic that uses the adjective, and two nobodies publishing in the Arabic press. You've got yourself a niche view that has not been widely adopted by notable people publishing their views in reliable sources.

Your only RS containing a truly notable opinion is the Pexton piece which calls the claim "nonsense".

Personally, I think you should go insert this material in the Glenn Greenwald and Al-Akhbar (Daily Newspaper) (Beirut) articles and be done with it. I suppose we could reflect the view that some Post readers accused the paper (and Rubin) of condoning genocide against Palestinians, and the ombud replied that this was nonsense.

But given that the view that Jennifer Rubin supported a call to Palestinian genocide is so clearly a niche view, IF we give any weight to discussion of this "controversy", it shouldn't be much at all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Blumenthal, one of the nobodies in the Arabic press, isn't exactly a "nobody."

In any case, we have a few notable sources calling it genocide. Now, I agree this view might not be what everyone's thinking, but it's definitely out there. I think the current wording of the article: "which some have interpreted as a call for genocide against the Palestinian people" is very fair. Some people did interpret it as such and we have sources.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's a nobody, and it's a niche view. You've had 18 months to come up with sources demonstrating the view is notable or widely held enough to go in this particular BLP. You haven't, and it's not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just keep making wild claims and expect us to agree, also, niche, you keep using that word yet I don't think you know what it means. I'm not sure what you are expecting, do you require the head of the NYT, Obama, Oprah, to denounce this blogger? We have well known, international sources, if you keep up this baseless revert war you will be reported. Sepsis II (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report away. I'm clearly in the right here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a note at WP:BLP/N to bring some fresh eyes on this dispute. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a highly unfavorable opinion of Ruben (and will not be contributing) but Wikipedia standards are not being met. Criticism must be far more neutral and well sourced. "which some have interpreted as a call for genocide against the Palestinian people" is very much not up to Wikipedia standards. It is a niche view, not notable, and I can't think of any possible sub-article it should be used in either. ("List of raving insults of Jennifer Ruben"? I don't think so!) Please re-commit to neutrality. Yes, it's difficult. 24.148.194.151 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that we should avoid weasel words and I have changed that section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent attempt was somewhat less inappropriate than previous revisions, in that it removed the unsourced POV-pushing editorializing that "nor did she apologize to the Muslims" etc etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you simply mass-reverted it anyway. Which makes it obvious tendentious editing. You're in danger of violating 3RR here and I suggest that you open an RFC. Three separate editors have reverted your edits and you obviously don't have consensus for your edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the recent edits to compile these attacks as "political views" makes things significantly worse on a whole, and I'm generally in favor of removing a lot of what we see here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North: sorry, are you saying I should allow inappropriate material into a BLP because multiple editors want it there, and because their most recent attempt at POV-pushing doesn't violate policy as badly as previous iterations? WP doesn't work that way. It's not a democracy. When you're wrong, you're wrong, and having friends on your side makes almost zero difference. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article which obviously violates BLP, or would justify use of the 3RR exemption. Everything is sourced to reliable sources.

Issues of undue weight are ones for editorial judgment and consensus - and I agree with Thargor that there might be too much of it. But the solution is to discuss what you believe should be tweaked and removed - not to engage in a revert war when you obviously do not have editorial consensus on your side. I note that you have violated the 3RR and have reported accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated quite clearly what needs to be tweaked and removed, and I have removed it. There is no need to "discuss" endlessly with editors who wish to clearly violate policy.

Please also note that misrepresenting sources is against WP policy, and material that misrepresents its sources should not be allowed to remain simply because it has a footnote attached to it. Even less so where the article is a BLP. Also, content policies are far more important than editor-conduct policies, and you look like you're gaming 3RR to file that charge anyway. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs)

Obviously, you don't get to unilaterally decide what's going to be tweaked and removed. You haven't attempted to explain what material "misrepresents its sources," you've simply baldly asserted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you could bother to read this Talk page for the first time ever, you would see that I have identified source misrepresentation, though perhaps not all of it. For example, see the comments below regarding Morocco. Or the fact that the disputed prose says, without substantiation, that she is "widely regarded as neoconservative". Or the questionable practice of putting charged words like "Islamophobe" in the mouths of sources that don't actually use those words. Any of this ring a bell? Shall I go on? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that your reverts have had nothing to do with content about Morocco that nobody has reinserted because yes, that's obviously an unreliable source and it shouldn't go back in. Your revert also undid several fixes that I made to material you questioned - replacing reliable sources, rewriting to avoid weasel words and improving the support for the statement that she is a neoconservative.

Nor have any of your reverts in the last day been about anything remotely resembling "Islamophobe," because that text does not appear in either version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet in the very same edit you restored loads of clear policy violations. Maybe you should make smaller edits, read the material you're inserting, and see how it compares to the sources. And if there's a point of dispute, we can identify the specific point of dispute and talk about it. You know, instead of making a wholesale reversion based on zero analysis and restoring objectionable content, getting all mad when this is (predictably) reverted, and then attempting the bring admin sanctions on the other editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every accusation is a confession. Jibal (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following:

Rubin has also been criticized for supporting an effort to cover up human rights abuses by the Moroccan government. Rubin is listed as having met with registered foreign agents for Morocco's government, and according to an investigative report by Samia Errazzouki, Rubin's "posts on Morocco have constantly spoken highly of the regime's 'reforms.'"

Has this been covered else where? --Malerooster (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the source not being a reliable source to begin with, and besides it clearly being a political polemic rant, "supporting an effort to cover up human rights abuses by the Moroccan government" is an extremely debatable and POV-pushy paraphrase. These were the reasons I removed the material. It has since been tendentiously reinserted repeatedly, against policy, by POV warriors here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue this, so it may be better to avoid characterization of other editors' motives. Obviously there is a dispute here, and it would be best to pursue dispute resolution rather than continue the edit warring, as you and others have continue doing here. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is possible these editors have sincere and reasonable motives for this wholly inappropriate editing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if other editors would compile reliably-sourced positive/supportive responses and commentary about Jennifer Rubin's views and writing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't really supportive comments, but an overabundance of poorly-sourced/barely noteworthy negative ones. The balance of the article will be out of whack without some pruning of the negative stuff to what makes sense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is due weight. If the overwhelming majority of reliably-sourced commentary about Rubin is negative... then it's not undue weight if there are many more negative responses to Rubin's views than positive ones. I am sensitive of the fact that we should strive to fairly represent viewpoints in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. We hardly have any positive discussions of Rubin except from John Podhoretz and Fred Hiatt, and I'm sure there's a few others at least. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism doesn't become notable merely because it exists. There are countless nobodies and extremist cranks churning out hate pieces about Rubin. Proceed with caution. We might take a good hard look at eliminating most of the references to The Atlantic since this BLP is not supposed to be a laundry list of complaints made by a single liberal/progressive publication. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic is not a "liberal/progressive publication," it's a well-respected mainstream magazine not noted for extremism or ideological bias on either side. I note that one of the only statements of support for Rubin comes from Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg. Conor Friedersdorf was formerly a writer for the late, lamented conservative web-magazine Culture11. He's hardly a liberal or a progressive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following: Heather Horn wrote a blog post on The Wire criticizing a column by Rubin as "illogical, poorly-argued, and anti-Semitic". This doesn't seem that notable and it has zero context, not even mentioning which column. The subject of the article has received a lot of criticism but this seems like piling on and not really needed. --Malerooster (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the article, but for the record, there was previously more context which I removed for the sake of not having heaps of pointless copy sniping at article subject. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been running into this problem whenever I try to find someone who likes her writing. It is really hard to find those people on either side. I mean, really hard. What i have been doing is adding her own words as a sort of balancing mechanism - but it would be helpful if someone could list supporters names and URL's of supportive texts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshin47 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about Fred Hiatt's "stature" are unsourced and irrelevant. His statements amount to PR defenses of an employee. They are notable, but he has a significant bias in the matter and his statements are not somehow automatically more important or more worthy than statements made by outside commentators. If you insist on block quoting Hiatt, per NPOV we must blockquote the critics as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just no. On Wikipedia, the amount of copy that is commanded by any given person's opinion is largely determined by how Big And Important that person is. Since Fred Hiatt is Bigger And More Important than those other commentators, some of whom are barely if at all notable, he gets more copy. You want a top editor from one of the most respected newspapers in the world to receive equal billing with some cranks making snipey blog posts, and Pat Pexton, the customer service representative who tried so hard to get Rubin fired that he got himself fired instead. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, Hiatt is not "bigger and more important" than those other commentators. You've not cited any sources which say he is.

Your unsupported and nonsensical assertions about Conor Friedersdorf and Patrick Pexton are similarly irrelevant. Neither of them are "cranks making snipey blog posts" - both are well-respected journalists published in significant reliable sources.

You don't get to just declare that a person's editor (who has a clearly-vested public relations interest in defending their employee) is entitled to more space and prominence than external commentators. That's prohibited by the neutral point of view policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fred Hiatt is bigger and more important than everybody else mentioned in the article, including Rubin. You are also mistaken in thinking the NPOV requires us to give more weight than they are due simply to achieve some false sense of parity or equal footing between the sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument by assertion is interesting, but not in any way compelling. You keep asserting something that you don't bother to support with reliable sources.

Once again, neither Patrick Pexton nor Conor Friedersdorf can be referred to as "some cranks" - they are both well-respected journalists and you may not shrink their POVs just because you don't like their POVs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no comparison between Hiatt and Friedersdorf. It's silly to even suggest they are on equal footing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look, another reliable source specifically telling Hiatt that Rubin's terrible. But I bet Daniel Drezner is just "some crank" too. Oh, he's a tenured professor, author and writer for Foreign Policy and now for The Washington Post itself. Whoops, sorry your narrative is so broken. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this somehow renders your argument about Friedersdorf and Hiatt sensible? Silly, poor logic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a single reliable source which says that what Hiatt has to say is more important than Friedersdorf or Pexton. Your endless argument by assertion is hilarious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that generally, sources are not extensively used to establish who's entitled to how much weight. It is more of an informal process.

In any event, I am confident that the vast majority of other WP editors would agree with me that Hiatt's education, pedigree and professional experience are much more serious and substantial than Friedersdorf's, and that these are the relevant guideposts when determining how much weight to afford his published opinions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no one agrees with your numerous bad faith fallacious arguments, even if they pretend to. Jibal (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a citation for this and should it say "claimed"?--Malerooster (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about the anti-hamas retweet is a broken link DemonDays64 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. The Washington Post reorganized some pages on its website. I revised the link and now it should work. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gamaliel. I still do not believe that there is a good reason for removing the content on John Bolton. The Federalist is an opinionated source, yes, but such sources may be used on Wikipedia as long as they have a reputation for generally being factually reliable, which as far as I know The Federalist does. The source's discussion about Rubin's views on Bolton are notable for reflecting her frequent criticism of members of the Trump administration and in recognizing very common accusations that she changes her positions in order to be opposed to Trump. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these accusations are very common, then there is no need to rely on this one particular source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We only rely on the one source for the John Bolton claims, which there is nothing wrong with. There are other incidents of flip-flopping that are cited to other sources, and the article had one or two more that you removed in other edits. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response, I missed it on my watchlist. I have no problem on relying on one high-quality source that establishes a pattern. This source does not meet that criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, as I said, The Federalist is a conservative source, but biased sources are allowed so long as they are factually accurate. I have seen no evidence that this source is not factually accurate. Display name 99 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search shows plenty of criticism of Rubin from other conservative sources like Fox News and the National Review. Why do we need to rely on this inappropriate source? Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we use reliable sources. Using the Federalist is akin to using graffiti from a bathroom wall. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how it is it inappropriate? And how is it unreliable? I have asked for evidence of this numerous times and cannot receive an answer. Display name 99 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample discussion of its flaws in the archives of WP:RSN. Gamaliel (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, scanning the section headers, I see nothing about The Federalist. There is no consensus as to its reliability on WP:RSP. Display name 99 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 There's a search tool for that noticeboard. The Federalist was last discussed, I think, last fall in regards to originating a conspiracy theory about deep states and whistleblower rules. [1] Not as bad as some, but not great either. Chris vLS (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to the contrary violates BLP. FollowTheSources (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does judging that - in light of her self-professed alienation from the word "conservative" and the sources such as the journal 'Democracy' noting her alienation from the conservative movement - descrbing her baldy as a conservative without further detail violate BLP? NPalgan2 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because she's a never-Trumper, she's been attacked[2] by Republicans as "not a conservative". This is similar to the notion of a RINO.

We should definitely continue to report on these attacks, but we can't side with them. In other words, we absolutely do want further detail, but we also want to avoid weasel words. FollowTheSources (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good article.[3]FollowTheSources (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy is a progressive/liberal journal, but it writes that 'Jennifer Rubin seems to have come closest to giving up on the whole enterprise' of conservatism, and anti-Trump conservative writers like Jim Antle and Ross Douthat have questioned whether the label conservative still fits her. And WashPo used to describe her as a conservative, then as writing from a "center-right perspective", now they just say she "provides insight into the conservative movement". So I would question whether we should still be using wikipedia's voice without further detail to call her conservative. I would compare her to some of the people in the Intellectual dark web who still identify as 'eft-wing' when they spend 100% of their time attacking the left. "identifies as conservative, but has become alienated from the conservative movement and republian parrty in the Trump era" or something like that would be my preference for the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article in the Washingtonian you linked says "As National Review’s Charles C. Cooke detailed in a December piece, Rubin’s fealty to her previous ideas has eroded as she has beaten on Trump." So the Washingtonian also accepts that she's been moving leftward. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being to the left of far right does not mean being left of center. It's not for us to decide whether she qualifies as a "real conservative". We just report what the sources say. FollowTheSources (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Democracy_(journal) count as an acceptable source/ I'm not saying the lead should say "Rubin is not a conservative" - but the lead should somehow reflect the sources noting the ambiguity of her current position. And you still haven't explained your "violates BLP" claim. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source for what, though? For her actually not being a conservative? Or for her not being conservative enough for some?

Look, there are definitely times when an article has to say, "X is Y" even when X does not publicly admit to being Y. This is often the case with people or organizations that hold views which are not socially acceptable. This article, however, is not one such case. There is no great shame in being conservative or not.

What we're doing now is leading with the facts and then summarizing the controversy. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a BLP noticeboiard discussion.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to the contrary violates BLP.

This is a complete fabrication ... there is nothing in WP:BLP that supports this sort of claim; quite the contrary ... it is not up to editors to say what people "are", only to report what is said about them. This is especially true for a complex and undefined term like "conservative", which means many things to many people. Jibal (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jennifer Rubin (Blogger). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Jennifer Rubin (Blogger) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Home Lander (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(the previous section refers to a redirect discussion; this RfC is about a move) Should Jennifer Rubin (journalist) be moved to Jennifer Rubin (Blogger)?

Rubin did not go to any journalism school, and does not possess a journalism degree.

However, a journalism degree is not a prerequisite to be a journalist. So what is a journalist? According to the [American Press Institute], "Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information." Rubin is clearly not engaged in any of these activities. She is engaged in opining about news, not in reporting news.

Her Twitter handle is [@JRubinBlogger] and her bio is "Conservative opinion writer at @WashingtonPost, MSNBC contributor." No mention of journalism, and rightfully so.

Her Facebook page username is also [JenniferRubinBlogger].

Her [Washington Post] profile says "Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post." and her articles go into the [Opinion section] of the Post.

She is a conservative political columnist, an opinion author. She identifies as a blogger and as far as I know has never identified herself as a journalist.

People in the industry agree she is a blogger:

"Donald Trump's ascent to the presidency has been littered with surreal moments -- the pre-dawn tweetstorms, the unannounced Kanye visits -- but don't overlook the case of Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger at the Washington Post." - [CNN] (Dec 2016)

"The right demanded that one of their own fill it, and attorney and blogger Jennifer Rubin was hired away from Commentary." - [The Atlantic] (Nov 2012)

"Trump calls Washington Post blogger 'a real dummy'" - [Politico] (Jan 2015)

(Plenty more examples (preponderance of references), obviously)

Hence the move would bring the Wikipedia entry in line with her own self-identification as well as the definition from API, the authority in the field (described by The [Washington Post] as the nation's "most venerable press-management and training organization"). 130.226.41.9 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Columnist. I would not be opposed to changing it to "Columnist", which is broader and more accurate of her role than "Blogger". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans In that case, how about Jennifer Rubin (Opinion Writer) or Jennifer Rubin (Political Commentator), considering there are news columns as well? I feel these are broader and would continue to apply even if she loses her regular column at The Post.130.226.41.9 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Columnist is a more apt description of her job. Blogger to me is too vague and also innacurate because her columns do appear in print. -- Calidum 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Columnist. seems fine to me. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Columnist Not a close call in terms of the general consensus of WP:RS. Washington Post's bio page [5], most New York Times coverage [6][7] (one blogger [8]), most Fox News coverage [9][10][11] [12][13](although they sometimes call conservative credentials in question by saying she is a "self described conservative blogger"[14][15]), RealClearPolitics [16], San Francisco Chronicle [17], Washington Times [18], Politico is split with columnist in 2018, blogger in 2015, Salon [19]. This is not surprising: she has a column in the Washington Post, she is a Washington Post opinion writer, not a Forbes-style contributor. RT on the other hand prefers blogger, but sticking to WP:RS, columnist is fine. Chris vLS (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the above discussion, I've moved the page to (columnist). -- Calidum 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to more accurately point out Ms. Rubin's current views. They were reversed because one individual didn't like the source but as you see elsewhere, Ms. Rubin concedes she is a "Cuomo Democrat" and no longer a conservative. I also took away a comment from Rubin saying she graduated number 1 at Berkeley as it is unsubstantiated and seems unlikely given that she didn't clerk with a federal judge. 2joeblogs (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edit called her a "liberal" (which isn't supported by the source, she merely said she'd rather be called a liberal or a Tory than a conservative) and added a mocking comment from Fox News which added nothing. Black Kite (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This request is too convoluted, with multiple components. I'm not sure why you would attempt to effectively circumvent the very reason for the protection via an edit request. Pertinent items in dispute ought to be discussed with the aim of reaching consensus. An admin is not going to take sides by editing the fully-protected page in support of any of the disputants. El_C 02:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add {{barelinks}} but I can't. Please fix this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I converted one ref and added Bare URL inline to another. Let me know if there are any others, but I can't see any more. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit request that was consistent with Jennifer Rubin's positions and the rest of the entry. It was backed up by sources. An unobjective source changed and his/her reason for doing so did not pass the smell test. Please allow my revisions to go through. 2joeblogs (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - As noted in the page history, several other editors do not agree. You need to discuss your changes with other editors and get a consensus. Circumventing page protection is not the purpose of the edit request template. This is the second pointless edit request you've made; if you misuse the template again, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, Rubin called Melania Trump a red headed / hatted whore. She corrected herself from "headed" to "hatted". Perhaps there will be transcript, soon. Charles Juvon (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today on washingtonpost.com, she references "the Trumpian, red-hatted horde". Charles Juvon (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/%7B%7Bpath.prefix%7D%7D/transcripts continues to be a 404. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Right Turn" blog that is linked in the article seems to no longer exist. It redirects to the main Washington Post website. AdamJWise1 (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]