Talk:Robert C. Hockett

Tucker Carlson incident

I found this on the page:

>His most widely publicized media appearance was on February 8, 2019, on Tucker Carlson Tonight. There Hockett represented that his Client, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had not proposed government subsidies for those "unwilling to work." The law professor and philosopher categorically denied this portion of the World War Two-scale proposal on which he consults, claiming the provision was a fraud released by Republicans. Within days, Hockett had reversed his position on the facts of the matter, after receiving public praise from his media associates for standing up to Carlson, who was correct about what the document said.

...which (a) is un-cited; (b) seems to violate NPOV; and (c) is poorly written.

I edited it to this:

>On February 8, 2019, Hockett appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss the Green New Deal championed by Ocasio-Cortez. There Hockett represented that his client, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had not proposed government subsidies for those "unwilling to work" as part of the Green New Deal. Hockett further asserted that this and other controversial elements of the plan originated on hoax documents created by unspecified Republican opponents of Ocasio-Cortez. On February 11, 2019, The Washington Post noted that a summary of the Green New Deal proposal released by Ocasio-Cortez's office had in fact claimed that the plan involved subsides for those unwilling to work, but that the official resolution submitted to the House of Representatives did not include this element. The Washington Post further noted that "Hockett, erroneously said on Fox News that the 'unwilling to work' line was from a doctored document." Hockett attributed the dispute with Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson to their reading different drafts of the Green New Deal proposal.

...which I think is an improvement (bare URLs not withstanding).

within minutes (seconds?) User:Drmies deletes the whole thing. Deletes the link to the Tucker Carlson video. Deletes the Washington Post(!) and HuffPo, both discussing the incident. No message to me. No discussion on the talk page. A few comments in the edit line are apparently enough to override the Washington Post on the newsworthiness of an event. "yeah not a resume," {true} "or repository for media mentions" (debatable)

I'm going to restore and User:Drmies is going to delete it again. I have better things to do than argue with strangers on the internet

Wikipedia is becoming a waste of time.

This sort of conduct is a big part of why Wikipedia is losing editors. Devote half an hour to getting the facts straight and citing reputable sources, and someone just clear-cuts it without offering a clear reason why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.164.30 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References