Jump to content

Talk:Tim Pool/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

On Trump family retweets

This short paragraph was recently added and subsequently removed with the edit summary "This looks like SYNTH that takes articles which are not about Pool to make a point about Pool." I revert with a minor alteration in this diff. To the first point, these statements don't constitute synthesis. Synthesis is combining multiple sources and adding novel analysis. This is not done here. These sources state very simply that the Trump family has retweeted Pool and the contents of Pool's tweets, all taken from the articles themselves. Could you describe how this is SYNTH?

To the second half of the edit summary: it does not matter if Pool is not the main subject. Pool is involved, and the fish in this story are very, very big. In the Independent articles, Pool gets some short paragraphs describing his tweets and the fact that the president/pres-son retweeted them. The Intelligencer article describes the Trump retweet as "the most remarkable response... from...the president himself". These are several sentence mentions repeated across multiple articles, multiple sources, and multiple dates. Jlevi (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

First, you shouldn't restore the content before the discussion occurs here. Second, this is a very poorly sourced section. What is the point of the section, that trump "liked" or retweeted something Pool said? That isn't something DUE for inclusion in the article. Also, those articles mentioned Pool's tweets only tangentially. The main objective of those articles was not that Trump like Pool's work in general. Overall it isn't clear why this material would be included (ie UNDUE). That is doubly so when talking about Trump Jr vs Sr. Absent additional editor support this content should be removed. Springee (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
To point one, looks like you're right--I need to revisit BRD and CONSENSUS. Thanks for the note. To point 2, I will reply more extensively in the future. In short, I strongly disagree with this description of DUE. I will revisit this soon. Jlevi (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
> "Second, this is a very poorly sourced section. What is the point of the section, that trump "liked" or retweeted something Pool said? That isn't something DUE for inclusion in the article."
This statement seems to mix two separate things: quality of sourcing and what constitutes due weight. I don't think you're really talking about the sourcing itself--The Independent, Intelligencer, and to a slightly lesser extent Huffpost are all considered generally reliable sources, and they are frequently used to comment on matters of politics and internet culture. I'm pretty sure this isn't the issue at hand, so I will just touch on this briefly.
Probably more to your point, my interpretation is that you are objecting to the fact that Pool is not discussed at great length or as the primary subject in these articles. I am unaware of any policy that prevents inclusion of this sort of detail. WEIGHT requires that an article "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". It has been noted that this Pool article lacked coverage from 2016 onwards. I performed a reasonably extensive search of coverage for the past year, and I found that 1) relatively little coverage centered on Pool and 2) a very large percent of this meagre coverage concerned these couple of August tweets. For this reason, a couple of sentences on this matter seem quite due--they are a primary focus of the last year's coverage on Pool, with no other topic reported in such a wide range of sources.
Regarding "tangential" aspect of this, I don't see this as a problem. If this comes from some sort of policy or guideline, I'd be interested in seeing it. Pool is certainly a small part of this story, but very few individuals loom as large as the president of the United States (and son). In the two independent pieces, Pool gets ~90 and ~180 words on his identity, his tweet, and the fact that Trump retweeted it. In the HuffPost piece, description of Pool and his tweet gets ~100 words and a screenshot of the tweet. In the Intelligencer article, there are ~80 words describing the Pool-Trump-tweet interaction and a somewhat fuzzier long section of analysis. I agree at this point that the PolitiFact article is too tangential; Pool is referenced but not discussed explicitly, and other sourcing is sufficiently strong that we can drop that link.
> The main objective of those articles was not that Trump like Pool's work in general.
I agree. I initially tried to connect together the pieces in the separate articles with a sentences of summary, but I think this may have gone to far. I think the version cut down to two sentences in this version satisfies this contention: [1].
Thoughts? Jlevi (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph is well sourced and relevant. When Trump retweets / likes something, it's not just his opinion as a private citizen, but a statement as a US president. Trump Jr is his surrogate, so also relevant. I suggest including this content; I don't see anything WP:UNDUE here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If Trump and other prominent political actors are talking about Pool's commentary, and it's covered by RS, then I fail to see why it wouldn't be DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is an improvement to the article but since I'm the only objector I will acknowledge there is consensus for inclusion at this time. I do object to the specific Politifac-Rittenhouse citation. As it's just one of many citations it's removal shouldn't impact the wiki text. The problem with that particular "fact check" is it engages not in fact checking but subjective oppion claiming to be a fact check. Politifac's own text confirms that what Trump said was true but then they claim it to be false because they didn't like the context (sorry phone edit so this is an abridged criticism). Anyway, since that source is one of many I hope the removal is a non-issue. Springee (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds fair. And that can certainly be dropped--it's the most tangential source by far. Jlevi (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Outdated tag

I have removed the outdated tag. This was added by @TuneyLoon:, but no explanation was provided. It is not clear what specific information needs to be added, nor which sources would be used. Feel free to restore, but please give actionable suggestions for how the issue would be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am the one who added the outdated tag. My reason for doing so was because his "career" section basically stops after February 2017, not once mentioning how nearly all the content he's made since are right-wing and pro-Trump. Since I don't watch his videos, I added the tag so that someone more familiar with him could update accordingly. TuneyLoon (talk) 1:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
TuneyLoon Still some work to do in terms of recent coverage (finishing inclusion discussion over Trump tweets, Alex Jones interview, maybe various election conspiracies), but way better than back in August. What are you thinking at this point? Jlevi (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Jlevi Looking pretty good. Haven't looked at the page in a while, but it's an improvement. One thing I think should be added is how, following the election, he made numerous videos and tweets that promote the election fraud accusations. TuneyLoon (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
​ Yeah, I think there are enough sources for that at this point. I'll try corralling them and seeing how much weight they demonstrate together. Jlevi (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Opinion piece" reversions

This removal of content comes with the edit summary "removed opinion piece". The cited sources [2][3] are not opinion pieces. Could the IP editor provide expanded rationale for removal? Jlevi (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And a third source, which says: "...Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, commentators popular among the right." Jlevi (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Added back by another editor. I'll expand the references and consider this resolved. Jlevi (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

what great original research. doesnt have its place in wikipedia, you tabloid lovers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist Claims

The recent claim that "After the 2020 United States Presidential Election, Pool began promoting numerous debunked voter fraud conspiracy theories, falsely claiming that Donald Trump actually won" is based on two references, neither of which supports this assertion.


The first is https://thebulwark.com/youtube-still-spreading-maga-disinformation/. The claim here is that "For instance, far-right provocateur Tim Pool tweeted that in a YouTube moderator clarified to him that he can still say “Trump actually won.” Or “the election was stolen.” Or that there was “widespread fraud” you just can’t say all of those things together." Tim clarifying youtube's rules does not consitute spreading consipracy theories and the article does not make that claim. It might be good cause to investigate whether he is doing so, but that would be original research. In addition, he could be clarifying the rules to help other people to avoid running amok of algorithms. Youtube is notorious for flagging and removing videos for simply saying keywords. For example, it is my understanding that a video could easily be banned for saying "I do not believe that Trump won the election and that it was stolen because of widespread fraud".

The second reference is to a tweek by former journalist Carlos Maza. Twitter is not a reliable source. He links to a washington post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/postal-worker-fabricated-ballot-pennsylvania/2020/11/10/99269a7c-2364-11eb-8599-406466ad1b8e_story.html, that does not support his claims. It discusses a man who made a claim about election fraud, recanted it and then recanted the recantation. There is no mention of Tim Pool. Even if Tim covered it, it is a fact that this guy said those things. Furthermore, if we use this to prove that Tim is pushing conspiracy theories, should we not also put the same accusation on the Washington Post who published the information?Seraphael7 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here, some of which is incorrect regarding Wikipedia's policies. Dismissing Maza as a "former journalist" won't work here, since Pool could be even more easily dismissed with that label. Twitter is not universally unreliable. This tweet is probably not reliable, but all sources should be judged in context. Conspiracy theories are pushed through "just asking questions" type vagueness. The Washington Post article is not vague, it is reporting. Pool's social media activity is talking-head summary of, and commentary on, sources, many of which are unreliable tabloid drek like the Daily Mail. This commentary is usually much less clear than the sources themselves. Is Pool vague about these theories? Vague enough that he can use sources to imply something nefarious, while still plausibly denying having promoted any particular viewpoint? I'm just asking questions...
Anyway, the tweet is not useful for this article, and the Bulwark story is not saying that Pool pushed any particular conspiracy theory. It is, however, calling him a "far-right provocateur" which is supported by a few other sources. Pool is being quoted as a YouTube using far-right provocateur, and he is quoted because of how badly YouTube has managed to prevent conspiracy theories. The disputed edit was not exactly a huge jump, but it's still WP:SYNTH. The specific reason Pool is quoted is probably too minor to belong in this biography of him.
It is, however, an example of how sources have evaluated his political rhetoric since the election started. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Other cases

I'll bring up a couple other sources that describe Pool as a promoter of conspiracy theories. Most of these are passing mentions, and it seems like prior consensus pointed to the need for more cohesive coverage on this topic for inclusion. At the same time, as Snooganssnoogans notes, this is a fairly marginal individual, so I think it worth at least noting changing coverage of Pool, even if it is minor for the moment.

Sources from that October 2019 conversation:

Since then, a number of sources have continued this type of description:

The strongest cases regarding conspiracy content are from The Daily Dot and the Washington Times. An additional relevant question is of due weight. At this point, a major point of coverage on Pool appears to be with respect to his support for fringe claims. Here are some publications in the last year that don't in the most direct possible way touch on this matter:

These links may also help expand the article. Jlevi (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

xx already-used articles. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Add [4] Jlevi (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Daily Dot for claim that Pool said Trump would win every state

The Daily Dot is the source for a claim added to the article which claims Pool would win all 50 states. Not that Trump would win but that Trump would even win states like California and NY. [[5]]. DD is a questionable source for contentious claims relating to BLP (per WP:RSP). In looking at the DD article it has only one sentence simply making that claim and including a hyperlink to the DD's source. The DD is crediting the claim to a youtube video by a channel with less than 9k subscribers. That seems like a classic case of a nothing claim being amplified by a third tier source where writers are likely getting paid via clicks and length vs quality. I think this is UNDUE for the article but wanted to get other views as well. Springee (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pool is a political pundit and this reliably sourced content informs readers what kind of pundit he is (one that offers ludicrous takes about politics). It's consistent with DUE and NPOV. I don't see a reason to exclude it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Dot is neither reliable nor DUE for claims about people. This isn't internet culture. Additionally, there is clearly a difference between a rhetorical claim vs a claim that is meant to be taken literally. Regardless, the original context of the claim has been stripped away. There is no reason we should give credit to an insignificant youtube channel for something like this. This statement is clearly UNDUE.
Tim Pool is pretty much only an internet culture phenomenon. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
You are confusing someone who's commentary appears on the internet vs internet culture. If the DD were talking about the rise of youtube political commentary that would be fine. Instead we are using the DD as a source to add weight to a claim made by a youtube channel with less than 9k subscribers and no history of reliability. When you watch the channel it's clear the person has simply taken a examples of Pool uttering a few words as with all context removed. This is absolutely not something a good article should ever contain. This is the sort of thing that muck raking articles do when the intent is to disparage the article subject. Springee (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Tim Pool is an internet culture phenomenon. He made the claim on his show, didn't he? (IIRC). --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Daily Dot is RS for internet culture. But, per RSP, we are supposed to "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." In this case, then, let's consider: is it DUE? Well, is it reported by any other RS? No, it isn't. So what's the argument that this is DUE? Certainly one story about a mistaken prediction does not inform readers "what kind of pundit he is". That's absurd and obviously not true. If that were true, then you could say something similar about the hordes of pundits who have made false predictions about Trump over the years. Nate Cohn said Trump was done for in 2015, for example, which turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Does that show us about "what kind of pundit" Nate Cohn is? No, of course not. So that's a terrible argument. So are there any other arguments that it is due? It seems undue to me as it is sourced to DD alone. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between speculating on who will win momentum-driven multi-candidate primaries months prior to the primaries and estimating just prior to an election that one of two candidates in a general presidential election will win 50 states when there is no one indication whatsoever that will happen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
DD cited a random youtube channel as their source. That person just showed clips out of context and in a way that readers can't trace the claim to it's source. This isn't reporting, this is a joke. If this is a significant claim then other sources will pick it up. So far none have even though the YouTube video dates back to November. This is a nothing claim in a low quality source. Not due at all. Springee (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
My objection to your argument was that obviously one prediction--even a prediction that turns out to be embarrassing--does not inform us of "what kind of pundit" made that prediction. Your reply to this objection is not responsive; the fact that one prediction is "worse" (in your opinion) than another has no bearing on my argument. My point is that one prediction, no matter how embarrassing, does not make a representative sample, obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This particular piece of punditry by Pool is of the same quality as the rest of his punditry. It's a perfectly representative sample. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Please provide a source for that claim about a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Several other sources describe conspiracy-pushing by Pool in the context of the 2020 US presidential election:
  • MAGA Is an Extreme Aberration (The Atlantic, Jan 2021): "Their false claims about election fraud were amplified on the incredibly popular YouTube channels run by Steve Bannon, Steven Crowder, and Tim Pool..."
  • Trump Allies Claim Biden Is Attempting To ‘Steal’ Election And Warn Of Armed Revolt (Forbes, Sep 2020, staff content): "The conspiracy theory[of mail-in voting fraud] was also pushed by allies of Trump on the internet fringe: One video posted to Facebook by right-wing journalist Tim Pool warning of a “leftist revolt” if Trump wins racked up more than 100,000 views..."
There are a handful of weaker sources that make similar statements. The statements by TDD describe a specific election narrative that Pool uses that fit into the wider context touched on in these other articles. Jlevi (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The current content just says he made a 50 state victory prediction and sources it to DD. If you want to propose different content then that, have at it. I'm arguing that the current content/source does not belong in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The text says, "Pool claimed that Trump would win the election in a 50 state landslide."
Pool is shown in the Youtube video saying, "I think it's fair to say Trump will win re-election. I think Trump might have a massive, massive victory which shocks the Left. I think we are looking at a Trump victory man. Trump 2020 landslide. Even with everything going on with Covid I think that is what we can expect. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump had a 49 state landslide. I think we could see a 49 state landslide. We may be looking at a Mondale-Reagan type scenario where Trump landslides 49 states. And we may see a 49 state landslide maybe a 50 state landslide. That would be amazing. I think we might be seeing a 49 state landslide."
So the text is false. There is a distinction between claims about what will happen and what could happen. It's ironic that in an article where we are trashing the subject for making false claims, we are making false claims.
TFD (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


Views section to be removed

Since the section is undue and doesnt support NPOV and WPBLP I suggest its complete removal. For contributors offended by this i suggest to read the BLP guidelines first. Pages of other journalists or can be taken as exemples, To spread perceived opinions is explicitely, on its face, a contradiction of the NPOV (neutral point of view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well remove it then. The "skews towards liberal" has totally flipped now and it no longer accurate. He now grifts conservatives. 2A02:8108:96C0:986:DACB:8AFF:FE37:79E7 (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories

Should the article include one sentence about how Tim Pool pushed Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories (as per reporting from NBC News[6], Yahoo News[7], New Republic[8], Daily Beast[9])? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Previous RfC here:[[10]] Previous question

Should we include some mention that Pool was accused of promoting the claim that Seth Rich had leaked the Clinton campaign's emails to Wikileaks? One suggested wording would be: "According to NBC News, Pool has "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks.[1][2] Pool has disputes that he promoted the conspiracy theory.[3]"

Previous closing was consensus against inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes. Pool is a pundit and this is punditry of his that has been notable enough for reliable sources to cover. I fail to see how it's undue, as this has been covered by RS and it fleshes out what kind of pundit he is. It's certainly not a NPOV violation. Pool explicitly says he believes it's likely that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker and praises the crackpot conspiracy site InfoWars for its reporting on the issue.[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - Not only that. Those sources you listed seem to say that is his notoriety. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Edit to add that the Yes is for the leak conspiracy. No on murder conspiracy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • You are endorsing an edit that fails verification? Why? Springee (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Explain how it fails verification? "Tim Pool, a YouTube personality who has pushed the false conspiracy theory that former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks, also plans to attend the event." from NBC News and "YouTube personality Tim Pool, who helped push the false conspiracy theory that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks" from Yahoo News. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
        Now I see your objection. I conflated the RfC with the previous one you posted right afterwards, which wasn't helpful. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes There are several sources reporting on the issue, although I think wording that avoids quotations marks would be preferable. It seems to be fairly relevant to how reliable sources describe him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    Wally, it looks like I wasn't the only one confused by the insertion of the previous RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    This RfC is about the same topic as last time. The conspiracy theory that Seth Rich leaked the emails only exists because he was murdered. Snooganssnoogans linked to Murder of Seth Rich, which is about all the conspiracy theories related to Rich's murder. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    If it's about the same theory as last time then on what grounds should the previous RfC be overturned? What has changed since the last RfC was closed as "consensus against"? Also, Pool's statement that was used to support this claim was that he wasn't sure if Rich was the source of the email leak or not. He said nothing about why he might have been murdered. I would not assume that someone who says "it's possible Rich leaked the emails" is also saying "X hand him murdered for the leak". The current proposal is we say Pool promoted a conspiracy theory as to why Rich was murdered. None of the sources support that. I'm not sure any of the sources actually even link the leaked emails to a motive for murder. Springee (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    Springee, I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea that "The current proposal is we say Pool promoted a conspiracy theory as to why Rich was murdered". Snooganssnoogans has already explicitly said that this is revisiting the last RfC when he created this one [12]. If you believe that it is too short of a time between RfCs, that is fine for your opinion, but I personally disagree. However, I don't think you should misrepresent what the RfC is about. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    Snoogans said "sentence about how Tim Pool pushed Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories". Once the word murder makes it in the obvious assumption is this is about who murdered Rich and why. Note that this confusion was part of the 2019 RfC. If the current question were "Pool promoted the theory that Rich was the source of the DNC leaked emails" that would make it clear we are only talking about the leaking of emails. Of course that would then be the same question as last time with no new sources provided. Springee (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    Springee, I think you make unwarranted assumptions. The question is quoted above. Feel free to make it bold or a different color if you think it would help. I'm not interested in further discussion though. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No and this is a disruptive RfC First, the proposed sentence fails verification since NO source presented says Pool makes any claim as to why Rich was murdered. Thus the proposed sentence cannot be accepted. Second, this RfC presents no new discussion or sources since the last one thus there is no reason to think the previous consensus was incorrect. The previous consensus, which I agree with, said the primary issue was that all the mentions were in passing and all in context of larger articles. Third, the original source for the claim was a Twitter user who cut a but of video and then claimed Pool said something a plain language reading of the presented video doesn't support. Fourth, the fact that here we are 16 months later and nothing has become of these claims. This clearly had no staying power. If it wasn't DUE then it certainly isn't more DUE now. Springee (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The proposed sentence is "According to NBC News, Pool has "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks. Pool has disputes that he promoted the conspiracy theory." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - it's obviously in the sources so it's not clear what the objection is. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No. The closing editor should consider the consensus arrived in the 2019 RFC in addition to this RFC, as this RFC proposal and the 2019 RFC proposal aren't significantly different. Outside of the 2019 RFC, the sources seem to be passing mentions that wouldn't pass WP:TRIVIALMENTION and are not WP:SIGCOV. Given that there are no other sources for this topic since 2019, this may have concerns with WP:RECENTISM, specifically WP:10YT. We have an extra duty of care under WP:BLP, and I believe this doesn't meet WP:DUE. Andromadist (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No because the only thing that has changed since 2019 is that a few users who gave "no" !votes have been banned. Also, we should learn how to spell "WikiLeaks". Connor Behan (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No for mostly the same reasons as laid out by last time. The sources provided hardly differ from the last RfC (The difference is here The New Republic and Yahoo News is provided) but I am not going say that Yahoo News is reliable enough for this exceptional claim on a WP:BLP, the same goes for The Daily Beast (Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons per WP:RSP). This demonstrates that this aspect is clearly WP:UNDUE weight for this WP:BLP page. I also concur with Springee about the verification issues and the somewhat disruptive nature of this RfC given that little has changed sourcing wise.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Largely per Springee & Spy-cicle. I am also not seeing much has changed since the last RFC on the topic after reading that over. PackMecEng (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No per Springee, disruptive RfC. Where are the new sources? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No per Springee. We need more than a few passing references to include such a contentious edit into a BLP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • There was a RfC on this in 2019. However, it's worthwhile to re-visit the topic, given that a large share of the votes to exclude this content were by blocked sockpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and other editors who have been banned or retired. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not a valid reason to reopen the RfC. The previous RfC was closed stating, "There is consensus to exclude the accusation, even after the views of SPAs and discounted. ". Additionally, the blocked editors were in good standing at the time. This comes across as trying to game the system now that the balance of editors has shifted. That is not how we should be doing things. Absent some new information why would the previous result not stand? It wasn't a no-consensus, it was consensus against. Springee (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Proposed sentence fails WP:V The claim in the proposed sentence will also fail verification. Snoogans has repeated a problem that came up in the 2019 RfC. There are in effect, two conspiracy theories associated with Seth Rich. One is that the Clintons (or someone related) had him murdered. That is the text being proposed here. The other theory is that Rich was the source of the leaked DNC emails. Of course some theories link the two. Looking at the sources provided, they are talking about the email leaks, not a murder. Three of the four sources say pool was pushing the email leak. The DB is vague and doesn't specify (high quality reporting there). Since the proposed sentence fails WP:V the RfC is pointless and should be withdrawn. Springee (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The proposed sentence is "According to NBC News, Pool has 'pushed' the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks. Pool has disputes that he promoted the conspiracy theory." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pausing RfC

Snooganssnoogans, why did you open a RfC without any prior discussion of this topic? This is not good practice per WP:RFCBEFORE. You haven't offered any reason why the previous consensus to exclude should be overturned. I've commented out the RfC number since there has been no talk page discussion prior to opening this new RfC. Springee (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Consider checking out the additional sources listed above on this matter, as well as the short discussion between TuneyLoon and myself about whether addition of commentary on a different sort of conspiracy content is DUE at this point. It's possible that the scope of this RfC should be expanded beyond Seth Rich conspiracies in particular to conspiracy-peddling in general. Jlevi (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Those appear to be the same sources as last time. Do we have any new sources? As I recall none of the sources actually provided a sound claim that Pool promoted the Rich conspiracy. That alone was a problem. Regardless, I don't wish to relitigate the claim since I don't see why we should ignore the prior closing. Springee (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Just a passing by editor: I checked the sources that were linked. The sources don't seem materially different from the sources cited in the 2019 RfC closure where they concern Seth Rich. They may build a stronger case for a general discussion of the subject and their conspiracy theories as a whole as you mention, but this RfC is specifically targeted at the Seth Rich conspiracy. I don't see this RfC as being different enough from the 2019 RfC to justify revisiting it. Andromadist (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The reason why the 2019 RfC was started was because discussions had failed to resolve the issue. WP:RFCBEFORE does not order users to waste time and engage in pointless discussions before every RfC. Given that the previous discussions had failed and a RfC was started to resolve those disputes, it is ridiculous to expect that another discussion short of a RfC would resolve the dispute. That is why a RfC is warranted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The 2019 RfC ended in a consensus against inclusion. How is that a failed to resolve the dispute? And yes, RFCBEFORE does say you should have talked about it first. It appears your motive is not that the facts have changed but rather than you feel with a different balance of editors you may be able to get a different outcome for the same question. Repeating the vote until you get the vote you want. That doesn't seem like a good reason to me. Springee (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
To put it a different way, if you are claiming the reason why consensus may be different this time around is because new sources make it clear this should be covered then it's possible that these sources will be so compelling that there will be no need for an RfC. You can't know unless you present them. If you just believe a different discussion would lead to a different result without new sources or a change in policy or our guidelines and where the previous RfC had a lot of participation and the !votes of socks was already largely disregarded, that's much more questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
They are all passing references on articles about a different topic. Per weight, we are supposed to base articles on information that has prominence in the literature about the subject, not comb the internet for things we find important. TFD (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved with prior RfC, @Nblund, 173.176.159.21, Becritical, TheRedReverend, Spy-cicle, Grayfell, Seraphael7, Connor Behan, Chetsford, SashiRolls, Cook907, SharabSalam, Markbassett, and GPRamirez5: and ping closing editor DannyS712. I've excluded an editor who was later blocked as a sock master. Springee (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't think this material meets the standard for a BLP. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Tim Pool calls for the impeachment of the Queen on March 9th, 2021.


Source:

https://twitter.com/timcast/status/1369341240479784972 64.121.192.121 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Belwine (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

In political views to add that Tim Pool calls for the removal of the United Kingdom's Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, after racist remarks were made by people in the Royal Family towards Meghan Markle and her mixed-race son.

Tim pool calls for removal of Queen Elizabeth II Lazarus Women Power (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus here is clearly established - this single tabloidy gossip source stretching the bounds of credulity with an obvious joke tweet is insufficient to justify inclusion. If you'd like to open a formal RFC to gain more uninvolved perspectives, you're welcome to do so, but I wouldn't expect anything to change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
What consensus? You and perhaps one other editor keep stating that there is consensus of YOUR view while a multitude of others disagree. This is NOT consensus. This is you piledriving your opinion as greater than all others. Amandyke (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Amandyke (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
See the discussion above. Springee (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee you should absolutely recuse yourself from this as you are the other party claiming consensus by simply saying "there's consensus". Clearly there is *NOT* consensus given the exhaustive back and forth above and the confusing double-standard of whether or not NewsGuard certification makes for a reliable source. Either it is or is not, given that it *is* considered a reliable certification for other uses claiming it is not in the case gives massive pause to certain editors neutrality in their insistence that, in this case, NewsGuard certification is not reliable. Amandyke (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Amandyke (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Nah, that's not how any of this works. This is a WP:BLP, and there is no consensus for including this material. To put it another way, among unblocked editors, consensus is against inclusion. Newsguard cannot be used to establish significance. Just because Newsguard thinks an outlet is reliable in some abstract sense doesn't mean it's not also trashy clickbait. It's not enough to be technically correct, it has to be encyclopedically significant and proportional to the topic. This is already stale gossip, and unless a reliable source explains why it matters, it doesn't. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Cat stuff

This is disrupted by the current edit war over the queen thing, but I'm including sources here for future reference:

Original reporting. Referenced by all the other reports I've seen so far.
Short summarizing of the details from TDB. Mostly just suggests people read TDB.
Adds background info to supplement TDB reporting. Pretty extensive.

I'm in no rush to add this while this story emerges. Some of the details in these articles may be useful to reference past events, though.

Jlevi (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a great case where we should consider RECENT. This may turn into something later but in the short term we have the rather tabloidish sources talking about it. That's a poor sign it would (as of now) pass the 10 year test. Springee (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. TDB is a reliable source but the headline seems rather sensationalistic and it would be nice to see some more sources that aren't just rewrites of the TDB piece. I think Pool's views are important to document, but drama about internal workings of their website is of limited relevance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The cat is kind of a distraction, although it is an attention grabbing headline for sure. This Wikipedia article currently mentions Subverse/SCNR and names Pool's partners, per one of these sources, but doesn't mention that he also fired both of them. This seems odd. Whether or not the cat stuff specifically belongs can wait for more sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The cat thing is a non-story and merely gossip. It should not be included in the article. Innican Soufou (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, the cat is a distraction, but the sources are still covering something a bit more complicated. Pool has spent multiple years trying to build a media company, first under the unfortunate name "Subverse" (not that Subverse) and later as SCNR. The apparent collapse of that company is more likely to have encyclopedic significance per reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The gossipy cat story is tabloid nonsense and should not be included in the article. Innican Soufou (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You already said that. The cat is just one part of a larger story covered by multiple reliable sources. None of these sources are tabloids. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Those sources are almost exclusively blogs that, in this expert's opinion, are pretty much tabloids. I also think that the junk, non-news stuff about someone not picking up their cat in a timely manner should not be included. Tabloid gossip articles aren't good sources for inclusion into a wiki article. Innican Soufou (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
None of those are blogs as Wikipedia understand that term. This is not a vote, and your expert opinion is not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand your opinion on this. I'm just stating that the gossip surrounding the gal not picking up her cat from Mr. Pool isn't important and shouldn't be added to the article. Since it's gossip and tabloid-y. Innican Soufou (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This comments strongly suggests you haven't actually read the sources you are dismissing as tabloid gossip:
When Molli tried to get her cat back by sending Pool an email offering to send people to pick him up at the house anyway and to pay for a veterinarian visit so the cat could be cleared to fly on an airplane, Pool referred her to his lawyer.[14]
It is simplistic and misleading to reduce this to a "gal" not picking up her cat. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If you bothered to read anything more than your single tabloid gossip blog, you'd find that there was much more to this non-story. Mostly that the broad refused to pick up her cat in a timely manner and decided to, instead, make baseless claims and accusations about Mr. Pool. However, seeing as this is not an appropriate place to shine your opinions, seeing as this is Not A Forum, I know you'll do the right thing and Drop The Stick. We all know it's not worthy of inclusion in the article and I'll leave it there. Innican Soufou (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Friendly BLP Reminder

Let us take a moment to recollect the following information we have so graciously available to us over at our BLP policies section:

  • Avoid self-published sources—even books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets unless written or published by the subject of the article.
  • Avoid gossip & feedback loops
  • No original research
  • REMEMBER THE STEPS FOR COVERING PUBLIC FIGURES
  1. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy,
  2. relevant,
  3. and well documented;

it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

  • Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources.
  • Linguistic tone is paramount to a good article
  • Balance criticism and praise alike
  • Avoid making the page an "attack" page.

მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Another reminder, WP:NOCON, Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. We have no consensus here. Springee (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP does not mean that everything embarrassing or controversial that the subject has said or done must be whitewashed, which seems to be the current state of this article. There's no valid reason to exclude Tim Pool's repeated predictions of "49 state landslide" win by Trump in 2020, for example. — Red XIV (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
If reliable, independent sources mention his failed predictions, or anything else he might find embarrassing, we evaluate those sources on a case-by-case basis. If you know of such sources, please present them here. I've looked for recent sources, but have not found very much. I think the lack of sources is likely because Pool isn't all that noteworthy outside of his specific youtube bubble. Since his Sweden trip in 2017, most or all of his noteworthy activity is social media-based punditry.
It's also worth noting that LiphradicusEpicus has (ironically) been blocked for personal attacks. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Pool/Archive_5&oldid=1051212993"