Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Pronouns

According to their Twitter bio, they use they/them pronouns and the article should thus be changed accordingly. TuxCrafting (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Found it, yes I think we should, if this is what they want. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should in this case. It's not clear that is really his preference and if it is we should have to cite it purely to an archived page of his twitter feed. Springee (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Its also on his current one as well, and yes we should respect his choice of gender pronouns. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Carlson's website is using he/him pronouns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Given what Carlson's stance is on pronouns,

• Fox News’ Tucker Carlson mocks Gov. Cox for use of pronouns
• Tucker Carlson Says There's No Transgender Community
• Tucker Carlson calls pronoun choice “a war on nature”

and absent any sort of direct or clarifying statement, I'd say leave the article as-is. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Mocking Gov. Cox's use of pronouns, Carlson heavily implies that it's "creepy" to shove your gender in everyone's face, quoting the article: “What a creepy guy, 'My preferred pronouns are he, him, his,' Cox tells a room full of children. So, we’ve got that cleared up. Spencer Cox identifies as a male.” The profile edit was made on the same day. By this logic, this could be a deliberate attempt to un-gender himself that ends up being weirdly progressive. Or, this is just a massive joke to show that... gender is just a social construct and pronouns are made up? Either way, this means that he/they will eventually need to clarify their pronouns, which really just reinforces that fact the it's a preference so I don't see what they're getting at. DashJustice (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we please nip this in the bud? As of this moment, Carlson's Twitter bio reads: "Emmy-award-winning broadcast journalist, graduate of Harvard College & Yale Law School. Frequent visitor to the Aspen Inst. Fully vaccinated. They/Theirs" followed by an emoji icon of the Ukrainian flag. The entire thing is a joke. He has never won an Emmy, and in 2017 he insulted the Emmys for being too diverse/leftist/culturally different from what he'd like them to be, etc. He went to Trinity College, per this Wikipedia article; he did not go to Harvard or Yale, and criticizes them for their affirmative action policies. He hopes that you'll Google "did Tucker Carlson go to Harvard and Yale" so that you find his 10-minute video "Our plan for Yale and Harvard" against affirmative action, where he says: “in real life, let’s be honest, the lack of diversity is the real reason that people go there in the first place. No one applies to Yale in order to learn things, that’s not the point. The point of going to Yale is to cement your position as a credentialed member of America’s ruling class.” (4:20-4:36) "Aspen Institute" might be a reference to skiing in Colorado rather than to the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. He has used his show as a platform to cast skepticism on vaccines and has said it's his own private business whether or not he's vaccinated. He does not support anyone using "they/them" pronouns, much less use them himself. He regularly has segments on his TV show against trans rights, for example, in 2021 when he said "When you say you can change your own gender by wishing it, you’re saying you’re God, and that is satanic" He has, generally, made anti-Ukraine positions, some of which are discussed in this Wikipedia article. (His reasoning/motivation, in part, is that Biden supports Ukraine and Carlson is generally happy to oppose anything on Biden's agenda, but also he sides with Putin for other reasons.) Also, while recognizing that the Daily Wire is not considered a WP reliable source and so it can't be cited in the article, their treatment of the subject does help confirm that this Twitter bio is a joke. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what might be helpful is to state in the article that in May 2022 he put up a Twitter bio that contained factually false information and misrepresentations of his own positions, which he apparently meant as sarcasm. This might help people understand that Carlson's public statements are sometimes sarcastic and therefore it is often appropriate to question whether he meant something literally or is "joking." Whether most people find his jokes funny, or even understand that it is a joke, etc. is another question. But he literally says things that he does not believe or that aren't true and gets away with it because it is "a joke." If we take him at face value, we are being trolled and helping him troll others. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that agrees with you, and then we can discuss it. Until then, I assume we'll just have to ignore his Twitter bio as an obvious joke that he "got away with" (whatever that means). Korny O'Near (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

THis is kind of why I think we must take his word for it, otherwise, people will use the same justification (it must be a joke) to not allow others to use preferred pronouns. We need to show that here on WP we do take the idea of preferred prnouns seriously, not matter who you are. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need to show that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Its called consistency, I can hardly say to user A "sorry but you can't say it's a joke" if we allow user B to use that objection here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it is called "not being suckered in by a troll". I'd drop a c-note on a bet that Carlson's people monitor this page, and if his article was ever changed to "they/them", he'd have a segment up on it ridiculing "how anyone can just pick a pronoun on a whim and people, will jump through hoops to not offend you" or some such. But apart from that, we don't rely on a simply social media bio for things like this. For any BLP, it should come from an actual reliable source. ValarianB (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Whereas now he can say "look at their hypocrisy", as this is how (assuming you are right and his people watch this page) it will be represented. But fine, do not do it. Lat comment on this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it is a lose-lose situation for Wikipedia, as we'll be demonised no matter what decision we make. However Wikipedia is frequently a target by such commentators, typically because it does not conform to their biases. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support they/them - A verified social media bio is a reliable source for a person's preferred pronouns (perhaps moreso than a website which may be managed by others or not updated as often) regardless of their reason for choosing them. In any case, if there's any doubt than we default to gender-neutral. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I will cheerfully invoke WP:IAR to prevent Tucker Carlson from turning his Wikipedia BLP into a clown car fiasco. Literally everything in that Twitter bio is fake. ValarianB (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep using he/him. I'm not willing to feed the troll here. I'm all for respecting pronouns, and I'm willing to err on the side of assuming good faith when pronoun declarations arouse skepticism. This is far past the line. We have other sources, including Carlson's personal and professional websites, that contradict the Twitter bio. The Twitter bio itself is overwhelmingly false:
  • Carlson has never won an Emmy.
  • Carlson didn't attend Harvard or Yale.
  • Carlson is not affiliated with, and is ideologically in opposition to, the Aspen Institute.
  We should treat the "maybe serious" seriously, but this is a farce. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose they/them, support masculine pronouns This is precisely the problem I've always had with MOS:GENDERID. I don't believe we should use the pronouns the individual claims to use. We should use the pronouns that RS uses to describe them. The guideline allows near self modification of their own articles. Technically, under MOS:GENDERID we should change it to they/them, but I'm gonna WP:IAR this flawed guideline because it obviously leads to the propagation of what appears to be sarcasm on Carlson's twitter account. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  There is a balance to be struck there. There was a situation recently I was aware of, where changing GENDERID as you've suggested would have caused us to misgender and deadname a trans person. On the one hand, if this fake use of pronouns does become popular amongst certain bad faith actors, we need to balance our responsibility to minimise disruption on Wiki, against those for doing harm to the subjects of BLPs. While nuking GENDERID would certainly have a minimising effect on this type of disruption, it would also cause an increased level of harm to the subjects of some of our BLPs. As such I don't think that is a feasible solution. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th: How would it lead to misgendering and deadnaming? I'm fascinated to know the example you mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  While I don't want to name names, I'll give a generalised summary of the example. There are more than a few prominent detransitioners, whom are often used or held up by various transphobic groups as one of their prominent voices. These detransitioners will get prime interview spots, be the focal points of certain protests or events, sometimes write books. Sometimes those people will later re-transition, disavowing their actions while they were detransitioned and expressing regret for the harms they have caused. However the same sources that would previously give them interview spots, or push them to the forefront of the crowd, will now ignore that person entirely. As a result it is sometimes impossible for these people to get reliable sources to cover their subsequent retransition. As such, if we were beholden to only what RS publish on a BLP when it comes to gender issues (name, identity, pronouns, etc.) then there are and will in the future be a cohort of trans and non-binary individuals who we would be forced by policy/guidelines to deadname and misgender, because the only reliable sources we have on that person deadname and misgender them.

  In the case of the individual I mentioned, they notified us directly by making an edit request on their Wiki article. As we didn't have any sources to verify the claim, were unlikely to get those sources due to who previously published the RS on the subject, and as they could no longer access the social media accounts they were previously active on, they were forced to identify themselves (I believe) through VTRS, before we could update their article and pronouns. With the text of GENDERID as it currently is, if that individual had retained access to the social media accounts they were previously active upon, it would have been relatively straightforward to update their article. If the text of GENDERID was removed, then any other detranstioner who retransitions, and who was previously notable, would also likely be required to identify through VTRS or some other means before we could stop deadnaming and misgendering them on their article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th: sorry for the late response to this. The issue described is certainly interesting, to say the least. It raises a conflict between what is true and what is verifiable, as well as concerns over WP:SELF. I don't know what the solution is. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  The current GENDERID guideline strikes a balance that is acceptable most of the time. It's an issue here because Tucker is more likely than not acting in bad faith when he declares usage of these pronouns. However we cannot make things more difficult for those who are acting in good faith, because some occasionally act in bad. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly support masculine pronouns/oppose they/them - this is very obviously part of an entire fictitious act. It's called understanding context and connotations rather than a simplistic "pronoun-slash-pronoun in profile = gospel truth". Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose they/them - Per others, this seems like it's either a joke in very bad taste by Carlson, it has some other negative meaning that I wouldn't wish to elaborate upon further without reliable sources to support. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• He/him, not they/them: conclusively refuted by Tuckerlieberman in this comment above. This is satire, and we don't report satire as fact. — Bilorv (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

refs

References

Strongly oppose they/them it is most likely a joke by Carlsson NesserWiki (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns as news

1. "Perhaps the most noteworthy part of the tinkering into Carlson’s Twitter feed is that his bio states he is “Fully vaccinated” and his pronouns are “They/Theirs.”"
2. "Given that Carlson’s bio has included “They/Theirs” pronouns for nearly two weeks, the move was likely made in a mocking manner by the conservative host."

So at some point the social media profile manipulation itself may warrant a mention. ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Tucker Carlson goes by they/them pronouns as stated in their Twitter bio.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor 2600:1700:4DF0:9BB0:9F8:A36C:3FEC:6FFF (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Buckley School reference missing

There is no reference that I can find in the article that shows definitively Tucker Carlson went to The Buckley School. The article clearly states he went to St. George's in Rhode Island. Sounds like a troll. Bodding (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

CaliIndie added the picture on 12 February 2021 with text about La Jolla County Day School, the text and file name were changed to Buckley later the same day by CaliIndie and Druschba 4. CaliIndie was blocked in March 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Of further note, CaliIndie uploaded the image to Wikimedia credited as "by BuzzFeed News from 32 Awkward Yearbook Photos Of Media Personalities, but BuzzFeed News does not name any school, sourcing it only as "Via classmates.com". I think the Buckley School mention can be deleted from this article as unsupported. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Because I was pinged: I renamed the file on Commons according to [1] and the next two versions. I have no connection to the articles subject at all, so unfortunately I can't contribute anything content wise to the discussion. From my point of view, there was nothing formally wrong with the rename request. If there are incorrect information in the file description, this can be changed by anybody. I'm also happy to move the file again if the title is wrong. In this case, ideally a new request should be made on Commons with the correct title for the file (since I'm not the right person to make up a better one) with a link to this discussion.

Please ping me again if I'm needed here, I don't have this discussion permanently under observation. Sorry for any inconvenience. Best regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Of note, it was added to Buckley School (California) by an IP editor less than a month ago. ValarianB (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please change Tucker's pronouns to They/Them/Theirs as they have come out as non-binary. (https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) 172.249.160.155 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed. Tucker Carlson has done no such thing, his social media bio was changed to mock non-binary individuals. ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

How do we know that? They would not be the first person to come out by simply editing their pronouns on social media.

Until any statement from them, which indicates otherwise, we should treat this is a genuine. Patwis (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This. And I mean that fully genuinely, because it's the principle here that counts.

If other people can hit trans people with the "But you're changing your pronouns just for attention" card, it would be silly to extend the same principle to Tucker Carlson.

Yes, I also believe it is 100% "satirical" by Tucker, and by that I mean a cheap joke.

But, out of principle, acknowledging the pronouns as genuine is the correct thing to do. SennyK (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

We will absolutely not, in any way shape or form, be doing any such thing in this article. Zaathras (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Patwis: and others, We're going to break this down line-by-line.

Emmy-award-winning broadcast journalist, graduate of Harvard College & Yale Law School. Frequent visitor to the Aspen Inst. Fully vaccinated. They/Theirs

1. Emmy-award-winning - Carlson has never even been nominated (searchable database)
2. graduate of Harvard College & Yale Law School - Carlson graduated from Trinity College.
3. Frequent visitor to the Aspen Inst. -The Aspen Institute is an internationally-renowned progressive nonprofit, i.e. the literal opposite of Carlton's belief system.
4. Fully vaccinated - The Fox News host proudly announced at a church event this month that he’s unvaccinated against COVID-19.
5. They/Theirs -Tucker Carlson Says There's No Transgender Community

People need to apply more critical thinking to this subject. ValarianB (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for breaking this down. Patwis (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly correct, although him saying there's no "transgender community" seems to be a comment on the word "community", not a dismissal of transgenderism. This might have been a better link for Carlson's view on pronoun statements. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronouns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Carlson now identifies as They/Theirs. This bio needs to reflect that. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What "needs" to happen here is that you read the preceding discussions on the matter. ValarianB (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It is in all likelihood a joke I doubt Carlson is actually non binary NesserWiki (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not only a joke, it's designed to outline how arbitrary these pronouns are, and the effect they have on people. If you look at it now, the pronouns on his twitter bio are She/hers, and he's likely to change them regularly. Questioning whether or not he's sincere in doing so could be considered transphobic, so tread carefully. Nicolasconnault (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Mocking gender and pronoun use is prima facie transphobia. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity we must "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources".

We should change this bio accordingly. Secarctangent (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope. At some point between this discussion being opened and today, Carlson has now changed his pronouns on Twitter to she/hers. When contrasted against Carlson's other commentary on trans and non-binary issues, this appears to be either a joke or a deliberate attempt at trolling by Carson and I do not see any reason to indulge him in this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would ask that you please use her pronouns. Secarctangent (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't oblige trolls who mock trans people. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tucker Carlson now uses She/Hers pronouns, and should be referred to as such in her Wikipedia article^[1]

Original (example, full article not included due to length):

Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson (born May 16, 1969) is an American television host, conservative political commentator and author who has hosted the nightly political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News since 2016.

Carlson began his media career in the 1990s, writing for The Weekly Standard and other publications. He was a CNN commentator from 2000 to 2005 and a co-host of the network's prime-time news debate program Crossfire from 2001 to 2005. From 2005 to 2008, he hosted the nightly program Tucker on MSNBC. He has been a political analyst for Fox News since 2009, appearing as guest or guest host on various programs before the launch of his current show. In 2010, Carlson co-founded and served as the initial editor-in-chief of the right-wing news and opinion website The Daily Caller, until selling his ownership stake and leaving in 2020. He has written three books: Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites (2003), Ship of Fools (2018), and The Long Slide (2021).

An advocate of former U.S. president Donald Trump, Carlson was described by Politico as "perhaps the highest-profile proponent of 'Trumpism'", while also noting that Carlson is willing to criticize Trump when he believes that the former president is straying from that ideology. He is also said to have influenced some of Trump's decisions as president, including the cancellation of a military strike against Iran in 2019, the firing of John Bolton, and the commutation of Roger Stone's prison sentence in 2020. According to The Washington Post, Carlson has been a leading voice of white grievance politics. His remarks on race, immigration, and women – including slurs he said on air between 2006 and 2011 (which resurfaced in 2019) – have at times been described as racist and sexist, and have provoked advertiser boycotts of Tucker Carlson Tonight. It is one of the most watched cable news shows in the United States.

Carlson is a vocal opponent of progressivism and critic of immigration, and has been described as a nationalist. Formerly an economic libertarian, he now supports protectionism. In 2004, he renounced his initial support for the Iraq War, and has since been skeptical of U.S. foreign interventions. Carlson has promoted conspiracy theories about topics such as demographic replacement, COVID-19, and the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack.

New:

Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson (born May 16, 1969) is an American television host, conservative political commentator and author who has hosted the nightly political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News since 2016.

Carlson began her media career in the 1990s, writing for The Weekly Standard and other publications. She was a CNN commentator from 2000 to 2005 and a co-host of the network's prime-time news debate program Crossfire from 2001 to 2005. From 2005 to 2008, she hosted the nightly program Tucker on MSNBC. She has been a political analyst for Fox News since 2009, appearing as guest or guest host on various programs before the launch of her current show. In 2010, Carlson co-founded and served as the initial editor-in-chief of the right-wing news and opinion website The Daily Caller, until selling her ownership stake and leaving in 2020. She has written three books: Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites (2003), Ship of Fools (2018), and The Long Slide (2021).

An advocate of former U.S. president Donald Trump, Carlson was described by Politico as "perhaps the highest-profile proponent of 'Trumpism'", while also noting that Carlson is willing to criticize Trump when she believes that the former president is straying from that ideology. She is also said to have influenced some of Trump's decisions as president, including the cancellation of a military strike against Iran in 2019, the firing of John Bolton, and the commutation of Roger Stone's prison sentence in 2020. According to The Washington Post, Carlson has been a leading voice of white grievance politics. Her remarks on race, immigration, and women – including slurs she said on air between 2006 and 2011 (which resurfaced in 2019) – have at times been described as racist and sexist, and have provoked advertiser boycotts of Tucker Carlson Tonight. It is one of the most watched cable news shows in the United States.

Carlson is a vocal opponent of progressivism and critic of immigration, and has been described as a nationalist. Formerly an economic libertarian, she now supports protectionism. In 2004, she renounced her initial support for the Iraq War, and has since been skeptical of U.S. foreign interventions. Carlson has promoted conspiracy theories about topics such as demographic replacement, COVID-19, and the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack. ToasterLightning (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: prior consensus (see especially the discussion on Archive 16) has established that the article should continue to use the existing pronouns, as the pronouns in the Twitter bio are most likely being used as satire. Since this would be a controversial change, new consensus would need to be established first. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"New consensus" meaning what, exactly? Shall we take a vote here on the wikipedia page? Or will transphobes like you keep Tucker's professed pronouns off her wikipedia page? 142.161.51.242 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. His use of "she/hers" is a parodical fiction, intended to mock. Another user even broke down every line of Carson's bio and showed how each is a false claim. Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

How do we know it's parodical? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity we must "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources".

I don't think we have discretion here to ignore her public pronoun statement from her own account. Secarctangent (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Separately, it is genuinely mildly hilarious that someone whose wikipedia account is named after a fictional character with 7 brothers, each with a same spelling but slightly different name pronunciation, is in a discussion about names. Secarctangent (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid the real "genuinely mildly hilarious" thing here is that you think your brigading with your friends here is actually going to be successful. (Spoiler alert; it will not be). Zaathras (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I would politely suggest that you not accuse me of behavior in violation of WP policies unless you have evidence thereof. Do you have any such evidence? I turn the floor over to you to provide any evidence, whatsoever, that I have coordinated to engage in "brigading" with literally any other human being on this thread. Secarctangent (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Go troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

On Tucker Carlson's Twitter, you can see that the pronouns she/hers have been added in the bio. Her pronouns should be added to help clarify her identity and ensure people use her preferred pronouns. This would also mean the rest of the site would need to be changed from he/him to she/her.

Source: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?t=YphTKBER4E-xWD5jJfD8qg&s=09 74.215.62.167 (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See prior discussion above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, doing so would give Carlson added fuel, to mock the "leftist" Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

his objection to illegal immagration not immagration of people who do it legally and lawfully its the inlawful where any objection may lie

thank you Alicervelli (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: He has also used the great replacement theory to justify opposition to legal immigration.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Paradise PD

He is depicted in this show, a lot. Why doesn’t it say it in here at all. #letthetruthbeknown #paradisePD 2605:C900:8007:DF60:29B7:DCD6:C693:8085 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not say it in here at all because no one has found the gumption to find an acceptable source and add it to the article. Don't just complain... be the change you want to see! Le Marteau (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Drinking

I removed some recently added "material" about a friend saying he was a heavy drinker but quit. This should be looked at from a NPOV and due weight. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal life section

Do we need half the section on "personal style and habits"? Can somebody trim this stuff and add it back into one section. He eats junk food and doesn't exercise? Really not that notable. Dead head? ok I guess. What else? Malerooster (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the previous version of the personal life section without the habits sub-heading. Some recent additions are WP:PRIMARY sourced and may not be due. Llll5032 (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources about his trademark "I-don't-get-it, all-those-long-words, I-will-drool-on-my-tie-now" facial expression? Or pictures of him doing it? The one marked "Carlson at the Immigrants' Rights rally" gets close, but there must be better ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I restored the previous version and condensed the language. Llll5032 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Kanye West interview section

Zaathras, this is yet another outrage of the week. This article is far too long already and this is just the sort of content that bloats the article but almost certainly doesn't pass the 10 year test. I get the view that this is an example of Carlson amplifying fringe views. However, if the intent is to include this as such an example we need a RS that is saying as much and then it would have to be included in a section about that, not in it's own section which suggests the interview itself was significant. IE, this is a supporting example of a bigger thing, this interview itself is not a bigger thing. Absent consensus to keep it in the article is should be removed. Springee (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The outrage over Kanye's antisemitism is longer than a week, and Tucker's milquetoast handling of it, by omitting the bits that made Kanye even more bigoted, is well-sourced. Zaathras (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think West's recent comments will have lasting weight with respect to West's BLP. But I have trouble seeing how it will be lasting with respect to Carlson. Springee (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is not about Carlson. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Carlson's interview conduct received attention from a lot of WP:GREL sources in the United States [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and Israel [10], so I think WP:WEIGHT suggests that it should be included. The paragraph could be rewritten to make the context clearer. Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

How much of that is really about Carlson vs about West? Springee (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Some RS cited in the section focus at least as much, or more, on Carlson. Llll5032 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Deference and admiration toward some authoritarian foreign leaders

The passage "On Tucker Carlson Tonight he has shown deference and admiration toward some authoritarian foreign leaders, notably Viktor Orbán of Hungary and Vladimir Putin of Russia" was removed with the rationale "it seems we would need better or more sourcing for this. Is this new?". Malerooster, what is the specific concern about the sourcing and what do you mean by "is this new?"? Did you consider adding a "better sourcing" tag or searching for sources yourself instead of removing reliably-sourced content? –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't restore disputed content until there is consensus to do so. I object to this recently added content on several grounds. First, Britannica is not a good source for controversial claims in a BLP. Britannica can be a good source for basic facts and as a guide to what a professionally editted encyclopedia felt was due. However, using it's not a good source for either vague or potentially controversial claims. That gets to the second issue which is this is a vague claim about Carlson. This is clearly a case where the details are important since they could range from "he admired that Putin is happy to have opponents killed" to something much more mundane. Given that this is a leading statement that could imply something about a BLP subject that isn't true, either the detail must be included (which opens the material up to DUE considerations) or it needs to go. Any such content is going to need more sourcing that just a WashPo "angry at Carlson again" article. Springee (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Dlthewave, i meant by new, was this "material" just added recently, or has it been in the article for awhile? If it was just added, and editors are questioning it, then there should be consensus for its inclusion, thats all. This seems to be a somewhat controversial claim, so it needs better, or more sourcing it seems. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "controversial"? Are there reliable sources that mention differing viewpoints regarding his comments about foreign leaders? –dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversial in the spirit of LABEL. The implication of this text leads readers to a value laden conclusion that may not be true to Carlson's comments or actual position. As another example, someone in 1938 might claim, "Hitler isn't that bad" while arguing for the US to avoid getting tangled up in a second European war. While such a statement can be twisted, especially in retrospect, to say they supported Hitler, what they were actually supporting was a view that we should stay out of that war. History has suggested that those who suggested as much in the US in 1938 or even 1940 were wrong. However, those who suggested something similar about SE Asia in in 1963 were probably right. Again, context matters in such cases. Springee (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This one isn't sourced to WaPo but are you saying that this needs a BETTER source than the WASHINGTON POST? What would that type of sourcing look like? –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct here, this wasn't sourced to WP. You made several edits and I confused which one had which source. It was only sourced to Britannica. If that is the only source then we have a weight issue. Even if it was sourced to WashPo, the sentence as added is still a problem. It suggests something without providing correct detail. Imagine if someone said, "Well Hitler was right about that topic." and we included in their article that "X has said they agree with Hitler" with no other context. It seems like the sort of thing that could be taken to mean something that wasn't the correct context. Now what if we found the full context to be, "X said Hitler was right to view smoking as harmful to one's health." So basically X agrees with Hitler and the American Lung Association. Saying that someone's views align with a despised person/group without providing context is a classic smear technique. While that isn't always the intent of a writer, the fact that it's a potential and reasonable reading violates IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the intro to the Foreign Policy section which provides the necessary context in the Hungary and Russia sections. I'm not sure that we need to include all of the details in the opening paragraph, as long as they're included below. Lastly, we can trust reliable sources to analyze statements correctly and not say silly, misleading things like "the American Lung Association agrees with Hitler." –dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For WP:CONSENSUS, we could try a summary statement with more refs and details about areas of agreement. Llll5032 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I can see this if worded carefully and if it's clear what he did/didn't agree with. Also at this point this article is way too long. We should take an approach that anything added is accompanied by an equal amount of consolidation/removal. Some of this could come from refinement where we do more to summarize and in the process cut things like individual quotes or individual opinions. This is especially true of pile on type information. Springee (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I will try a WP:BRB edit. I agree that the article is very large. Some of the size is due to WP:OVERCITING to justify edits disputed under WP:WEIGHT. Llll5032 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this [11] addresses my concerns. It does provide more sourcing but it still asks our readers to then dig into the references to figure out what really happened. To use an extreme example, lets assume Carlson shot and killed a writer known to dislike and write very negative things about Carlson. Also assume the shooting was a legitimate self defense case (like even the WashPo and CNN said it was clearly self defense). If we were to add something like "Carlson shot and killed Mr Smith who wrote many negative articles about Carlson [source]" it could easily mislead readers into thinking this was something other than self defense unless the reader looks into the sourcing. We should do things like that (even though it's very common both in the press and on Wikipedia). This is a case where we either really need to put the details in (and perhaps dump some other content in the process) or just leave what is otherwise a vailed accusation out of the article. Springee (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I added two more sources for the main claim, from the Washington Post and The Independent. Llll5032 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think adding sources addresses the problem. We either should say what specifically was said or remove the whole thing. We don't have to quote Carlson but we should provide an impartial paraphrase. Springee (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you've thrown out a lot of hypothetical scenarios where this type of statement could be misleading. Circling back to the topic at hand, do you think that the actual sentence in question is misleading to our readers or implies something that's not entirely factual? If you think some critical detail is missing, why don't you add it? –dlthewave ☎ 00:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absent the additional context around what Carlson did I do think this can mislead readers. Springee (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Springee, I don't know what context you want to add. Can you add it? Llll5032 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've got some RL commitments but I will give it a shot. Springee (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Noted for false and misleading statements

The passage "(Carlson) is often noted for false or misleading statements on his show", sourced to Brittanica and WaPo, was removed from the lede without a clear explanation. As one of the primary things that Carlson is known for, this seems relevant to the lede, especially since it's sourced to a top-tier newspaper. Malerooster, what are your concerns? –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Britannica is not a good source for controversial claims about BLP subjects. Using WashPo as a source for such a generalized, subjective claim in Wikivoice is also an issue. This sort of generalized, negative, subjective claim about a BLP needs very strong sourcing. Additionally, it's inclusion really doesn't help the article. Springee (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It is notable that Britannica put a statement like this in its second sentence, while we are discussing suitability for only the fourth paragraph. Since WP:TERTIARY says "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight", it is useful for the purpose of deciding suitability for the top section. Llll5032 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this should get consensus before being restored. Springee (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRB edits (specifically, refined bold edits after a revert) also conform to policy and often achieve consensus faster. Llll5032 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Its LEAD not lede, they are different and we should not be writing in the style using lede. We would need multiple reliable sources for the claim that "the primary thing that Carlson is known for". Just having an opinion piece pointing out mistakes would probable belong in the article about the show and not the LEAD section of a bio. Post some citations here and we can discuss. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused about the assertion that this is a "controversial" claim; is there a prominent opposing viewpoint among reliable sources or is this merely a "controversy" among Wikipedia editors who don't like to see negative things written about right-wing figures? In any case, there are numerous sources cited in the article that mention false and misleading statements made by Carlson. They don't all need to be cited in the lead but here they are: Politifact, CNN, Politifact, NY Times, WaPo/AP Fact Check, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, FactCheck, Politifact, WaPo, AFP Fact Check, Forbes, Politifact, CNN. Given the amount of coverage of false/misleading claims within the body of the article, I'm concerned that we might appear biased by omitting this from the lead. –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BRB here is a rephrased version with more references, all to WP:GREL sources. We could add refquotes if they are needed for verifying the claim. Llll5032 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that is better (note, I saw the updates after making my comments below). I would change one thing. While many sources do agree the statements are false or misleading, we should be impartial in presenting that in Wiki voice. It would be better to say, "Carlson has been accused of..." or something that makes it clear this is an attributed claim, not a claim of fact in Wiki voice. While "noted" can imply attribution vs Wikivoice, it can also imply this is a fact. We should be careful when claiming statements that have some level of subjectivity are provably true or false or misleading etc. If I recall one of the things we say about Carlson is that often what he says toes the line where it isn't actually false but can allow someone to jump to a false conclusion. Kind of a Motte and Bailey issue. Springee (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Accused" would add too much MOS:DOUBT but a different wording for "has been noted for" could be warranted. Llll5032 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that accused is too much doubt. Perhaps "his comments are described as..."? Springee (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is the sentence with "described as" and other edits. Llll5032 (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed "described as". There's no reason to water down the fact that Carlson made false and misleading statements. –dlthewave ☎ 07:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the correct compromise is to removed the sentence entirely and restore status quo? Springee (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Llll5032, I appreciate that this is not in the lead [12]. I still feel it has a sourcing issue even with the 3 provided sources. The issue being Britannica appears to be the only one making the broader claim regarding the introduction of far-right talking points into the mainstream. The other two sources might be examples of that but do they say he is introducing these concepts to the mainstream (vs just talking about them) and do they make vs just support the broader claim that appears to only be sourced to Britannica? This is why I still object to the change. I suspect there are better sources that say something similar but right now I still think this has a sourcing issue. Springee (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is an improvement as well, however I disagree that attribution is appropriate here. We should follow the lead of reliable sources and state facts as a facts, rather than couching them as an "accusations" which might be perceived as casting doubt on the accuracy or objecivity of the sources. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a BLP and the concerns here are similar to those at LABEL. For example, if someone says "Carlson's statement is antisemitic" do we take that as fact it is? Do we assume the person who made that claim is correct? This is an area where there is far too much subjectivity so we should always err on the side of attribution and taking things out of wikivoice. That helps Wikipedia maintain IMPARTIAL presentation. Springee (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Could your objection be addressed by changing the word from "introducing" to "circulating"? Llll5032 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think something like circulating would help but we still have the issue that the key point of the sentence is sourced to Britannica. The other two sources say "Carlson discussed X and Y". I believe those points are later in the subtopic. Britannica is the source that says his is doing the same over a broad range of topics. That is the part that needs to be sourced to something better. If this is meant to be a summary of the content below then we should drop the sourcing and just summarize the below content (being careful not to introduce generalizations that would be OR on our part). Springee (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed some refs and language based on what WP:GREL sources said directly, and switched to "circulating". Llll5032 (talk)

I still don't think this is a good sentence and I'm not sure that a blog entry from an old but little known group's "The Hate Report" is a source we should be using for a BLP article [13]. Again the problem is we have subjective assessments but we are treating them as fact. While Reveal might do some good digging, it's harder when they start offering their subjective interpretations of things that are already in the public domain. A lot of that article seems to be a guilt by association. If the bad people like Carlson it must be because he is bad etc. Also, I think at least some of the things they list are comments where context could be important. I've given this example in teh past, there is a big difference between being against fighting in a war because one is a coward vs one sees the conflict in question isn't reasonably winnable. During the lead up to the Vietnam war people who were opposed to the war were often called out for cowards. Some probably were. However, others looked at the facts on the ground and felt this wasn't a good idea and thus opposed on those grounds. At least some of the things Carlson has said are presented in a way that is not impartial to his statements. That is, rather than try to understand if his statements can have validity in some context, they are assumed to have negative context and presented that way. Reveal seems to be doing a lot of that. Again, if we are going to include such broad statements they need to come from neutral and importantly very strong sources. Springee (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Would adding WP:INTEXT attribution for the WP:GREL sources supporting the statement assuage your concerns? Llll5032 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not so much here. In a case where we are saying "Carlson's comments are antisemetic" it makes sense to attribute as it says who is providing the judgement to support the claim. However in this case the question isn't if he said something that was supportive. Rather the question is what was the context and the scope of the comment. This requires more detail. Above I said used an example that Hitler was right about smoking. Well now editors can say "Springee agrees with Hitler" and be factually correct but would still be misleading if they leave out the "about smoking part". Because the facts aren't in dispute but the context I think the only correct solution here is add the context. Springee (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Springee, are you suggesting that we should add examples of Carlson's comments to that sentence? Llll5032 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with this one it's an all or nothing. That said, given the article length, we should remove soothing else if we add this. Springee (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Writing too long in a summary paragraph would violate WP:PROPORTION, but here is an additional sentence and a half of details. Llll5032 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I still think Britannica should be removed. Per RSP it's not a great source and we shouldn't be using it to make value laden claims about a BLP subject. I also think we need to change the language closer to accused vs statement of fact given that these aren't always hard facts. If this were a news article I would say something like "sources say Carlson has done X". That keeps it out of Wiki voice. Overall I don't think this is an improvement to the article as it reads similarly to many of the other criticisms in this article. Is there other content that perhaps we can trim to keep the overall length the same as where it started? I think the West stuff should still go as several editors are concerned it's less about Carlson than West. I suspect some of the older "Carlson said X that was condemned by Y" could be removed as well. Springee (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed that Britannica was a WP:GREL source, so thanks for pointing out its unclear rating at RSP, Springee. Are you aware of other neutral WP:TERTIARY sources that could be a guide for WEIGHT in this article? Regarding West, the above discussion appears to include two editors in favor of keeping, two with concerns, so perhaps other editors would like to discuss it and a consensus could develop. Regarding length, in my opinion some of the smaller changes in Nielsen ratings could be moved to the Tucker Carlson Tonight article, and perhaps some redundant refs could be removed. Llll5032 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding: In my opinion, the WP:TERTIARY entry and the discussions at RSN linked from WP:BRITANNICA would suggest that we should not use Britannica as the only source for a claim, especially if it conflicts with any WP:GREL secondary RS, but that it is good for adding WP:WEIGHT for placement of statements in this article. I moved Britannica to the end of cited refs for claims within the article. Llll5032 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the Nielsen stuff is more about the show. Then again, much of the content here is really material from his shown and probably should be in that article rather than here. Moving some of the material that is specificially about "he said X on his show" to the show's page would be one good way to reduce this article without just dumping content. Still, I'm sure a lot of the content here could be condensed. I also understand that this is one of those articles were a lot of editors have the part they added and culling the excess content opens people up to accusations of trying to remove to whitewash rather than improve the overall article. Springee (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PRESERVE limits some of the options. I think the views material should stay in this article, but that is only one editor's opinion. Llll5032 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the reliability concerns raised at RSN apply to this particular Britannica source. The first issue is that in 2009-10, it accepted submissions or edit suggestions from the general public. That doesn't apply here because it was written by senior editor Brian Duignan in 2022 and the history shows that it has not been edited by anyone else. The second concern is that tertiary sources in general should not be used for claims that are contradicted by better sources. Do we have reliable sources that contradict the fact that he's made false and misleading claims? If there's a specific concern about this article, I would suggest raising it at RSN, otherwise it's perfectly fine to use. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You can disagree but the concerns are still here. It doesn't matter that we don't have contradictory sources. It matters that we have a general claim that isn't supported by a RS. Please note that this is a recent addition that was disputed by myself and Malerooster. Llll5032 is making a good faith effort to find a compromise solution here. Springee (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is your concern with this source? –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP is a pillar of Wikipedia. We should not be using lower quality sources to make value laden claims about a BLP subject. Additionally, I know that you are particular about only using quality sources, even in cases where wp:V was obvious. This is a yellow source. Using it to make claims that carry strong, negative connotations about BLP subjects is something that we should avoid. Springee (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing "lower quality" about this source, as evidenced by the fact that nobody has been able to articulate the reliability concerns. The reasons why the prior issues don't apply here have been explained in detail above, so "it's a yellow source" doesn't really cut it and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why and how we label things in the Perennial Sources list. We can safely disregard that "it's a lower quality source" argument unless it's supported by actual facts. –dlthewave ☎ 13:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That is your opionion but this isn't a case of factual errors but of weight flour including their assessment. Springee (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, weight shouldn't be a concern since we have NYT Ave WaPo saying the same thing along with multiple other sources describing false/misleading claims in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so long as those sources support the generalized claim yes. But in that case we don't need to cite an encyclopedia Springee (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Besides Britannica, we cite at least two WP:GREL sources that make the whole general claim, [14][15], plus there is the range of individual claims in other parts of the article. There may be more sources that make the general claim; I have not yet seen any sources that contradict it. Llll5032 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't view the NYT article due to the paywall. If the WashPo says this then we can use them as the source rather than Britannica. Springee (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you still using "paywall" as an excuse, Springee? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Because when I click the link provide I get a paywall. Springee (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns

Tucker Carlson has stated in her Twitter bio that she prefers to use she/her/hers pronouns. https://web.archive.org/web/20221231060735/https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson

Am I misreading this or should we update her article to use her preferred pronouns? IsLilyYaGirl (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's Twitter bio is mocking transgenderism and pronoun choice, every piece of info in it is a lie. This has been discussed extensively above, and in archived discussions. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. My bad. IsLilyYaGirl (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are Tucker Carlson's views on Russian invasion of Ukraine censored here?

A full paragraph has been removed, unclear why. The paragraph in question. Ping @Slatersteven
MahaNakhon (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

First of that is not censorship, we already mentioned his support of Putin and Russia. The issue (as I said) was I was unsure that what you were adding was well writen, aI am unsure we need a whole section on this. Thus I felt there was no point in trying to rewrite something I was not even sure should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply @Slatersteven. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the defining events of 2022. Furthermore, Carlson is outspoken about it and his views have generated considerable media attention. That should be reason enough for a separate section. Tucker's views on 2020 election aftermath, a less prominent event in the global scheme of things has its own headline. Other less prominent events as well.

By using the same logic that similar information has been mentioned elsewhere in this article, we could remove a lot of other paragraphs with their own headlines.

As for the paragraph not being good enough, may I ask what specifically was not good? Not seeking any argument here, but I am genuinely curious.
MahaNakhon (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What drew my attention was [[16]] which did not in fact add claritry. I have said many times, we do not need everything Carlson (I found it also found it odd you refer to him as Tucker in your edits, not Carlson) has said, and if anything we need to trim such content to a few choice examples. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Referring to people by their first name is common in my country of residence. My mistake. Assuming that the text is coherent and well written, could we make a separate paragraph? With a separate headline, the text becomes easier much to find and comprehend compared to "it is probably mentioned somewhere in the article". I think a separate headline is warranted, my arguments were presented above. Let me know what you think.MahaNakhon (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I am unsure we need this much detail, on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo

The second paragraph of the introduction has a typo. I in the opening describing him as a supporter of Trump, ism, the word "as" should be "was." Maletype (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Just like I have a typo.

The sentence states that Carlson "as" willing to criticize Trump instead of "was" willing. Maletype (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"as willing" is correct because the statement is summarizing politico's position at that point in time.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Trans comments cited to marginal sources

Dlthewave, first, per BRD you should have started a talk page here before restoring disputed content. Second, you have said the sourcing for the claims was sufficient because it was Yahoo News. Please review the original stories that Yahoo is replubishing. One is sourced to Insider which is a yellow source and in this case is really about responses to the Grammy Awards show rather than Carlson himself. The single quote without full context is not a summary of Carlson's views which is what this section should contain. The other cited source is The Advocate. Not an impartial source and not one we should give much weight to. Even HuffPo is questionable for this sort of content and cherry picking quotes is not OK. Please justify why you restored this poorly sourced content. Springee (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the current summary, Carlson has spoken strongly against trans rights, calling transgender people "a challenge to the perpetuation of the species", is simply incorrect - he said that a rise in transgender identification, if it keeps increasing, is a challenge. It's like the difference between "smoking is bad for society" and "smokers are bad for society". The HuffPo article doesn't back up this incorrect summary either, except in its headline, which can be safely ignored. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I see your point. Is this an improvement? –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I think the misquoting is much worse that you saw. Please see my comments below. Springee (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I support including these quotes as they illustrate Carlson's views toward transgender people. If there's anything that can be done to put them in context or describe his views more accurately, let's make those changes instead of wholesale removal.

This particular use of Insider seems appropriate: They're simply reporting Carlson's views and comments. If there's something about this article that would make it unreliable or unsuitable, I'm open to reevaluating.

As for The Advocate, it's a perfectly reliable source for LGBT related news. As a reminder, weight is based on reliability not impartiality, so I'm not sure why it would carry less weight than any other. Again, is there anything about this particular article that's inaccurate or unreliable? –dlthewave ☎ 22:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly inaccurate or unreliable in these sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave, did you actually verify this content before restoring it? All three sources are seriously misrepresented here. Basically you have just restored and now defended some BLP violation and some seriously misleading quoting of a BLP subject. The HuffPo quote is presented totally out of context and cut off in a way that is clearly false to what Carlson said. The version of the quote you restored was, Carlson said and increase in transgender identification is "a challenge to the perpetuation of the species". What you left out, and HuffPo didn't emphasize in their headlines but did include in their article body was this was Carlson summarizing the POV of a guest. The guest made some statements that included statistical claims. Carlson responded, "It’s a challenge to the perpetuation of the species is what you’re saying" (emphasis mine). To the discredit of HuffPo their headline suggests this is Carlson's personal view and that is how it was added to the wiki article. Note this is one of the reasons why the HuffPo is often a poor source. At least the article included some of the context which was completely left out when the quote was added/restored here. The Advocate isn't a strong source and shows it by taking comments Carlson made and theorizing they mean something bynd their plan language statement. The text you added treats that conjecture as fact. It seams reasonable to say The Advocate supports the claim that Carlson doesn't support gender affirming care for minors. However it is at best misleading if not an outright lie to take a statement that it isn't surprising that a hospital performing this care may receive threats to actually mean Carlson is advocating for those who might make such threats ie supports bombing of hospitals. That moves into the area of slander. Since you restored that quote perhaps you can try to explain how this, "while signaling support for them receiving bomb threats" is a reasonable claim in the source. Even the The Advocate isn't taking it that far or that specifically. They are showing themselves to be a low quality source by suggesting a claim that such an outcome is likely to the the same as advocating for an outcome. That is seriously logically flawed and the sort of logical jump we shouldn't ever accept for a "reliable" source. Finally, the quote presented in the Insider is not accurately summarized in the Wiki entry. Comments along the lines of "what would those who stormed the beaches at Normandy think" are typically commentary about how lousy some modern thing is. They are not literal statements that the speaker thinks those who stormed the beaches did it to protect XYZ reason. Thus it is not reasonable to take the sarcastic quote from the source, ""Yeah they stormed Omaha Beach for that: Trans ideology plus Satanism, popular entertainment," said Carlson." and interpret it to mean Carlson "professed a belief that "trans ideology plus satanism" is the true reason why the United States Military stormed Omaha Beach in World War 2". At best these are low quality sources presenting content in ways that can be misleading. Even worse, the way these sources were summarized when added to Wikipedia are not true to the source articles. It's not clear how much quality content can actually be extracted from these sources but the content that was restored is misleading at best and possibly a slanderous BLP at worse.

Springee (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked over the three issues Springee presents here and I agree the HuffPost source is misleading and should be removed.

As for the article saying while signaling support for them receiving bomb threats, I think it should be reworded to more closely follow the source which reports Tucker said "that hospital employees were criminals who shouldn’t be surprised they 'are receiving threatening phone calls." It could also be mentioned that he said they're "playing the victim".

The last issue about storming Omaha is misleading and can probably be removed as well.

Here's what I'd propose replacing the text with.

Carlson has a history of speaking out strongly against trans rights. He has claimed that hospitals providing gender-affirming healthcare are criminals and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls.

––FormalDude (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I think the degree to which The Advocate distorted Carlson's claims to suggest he is supporting bomb threats is unacceptable in anything we would claim is a RS. We certainly would jump all over that sort of distortion if it came from Fox News. On this alone we should exclude the use of that source as unreliable. Beyond that, his claim is that providing gender affirming care to minors is the issue. Anything that implies he is saying this about adults is a distortion of the comments quoted from Carlson. I don't think what looks like a screed from the Independent is a good source for much of anything. However, if we take for granted what it says as accurate then we still shouldn't say trans "rights" as it's not clear that, for example, gender affirming care for minors is a "right". Saying that he spoke out against trans issues or trans positions is more accurate. Finally, I think the way that suggestion says " and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls" is an issue. That suggests that he is saying threats are the correct thing to do. No where does Carlson suggest or advocate making threating phone calls. He does say such threats are, in essence, an expected outcome of the action but that is not the same thing as advocating. If someone says, "if you walk down that crime ridden alley at night you should expect to get mugged" that doesn't mean they think it is right or proper that you would get mugged.

Zooming out, I think the bigger picture here is Carlson has been vocal about what he feels are the excesses of the trans movement and he has made it clear that he thinks things like taking kids to drag shows is a form of sexualizing children or exposing them to sexualized content while they are under age. He thinks that gender affirming care should be illegal for minors. Both of those statements summarize positions he has taken on trans issues and I would support including both. Importantly both summarize without resorting to hyperbole, especially hyperbole that contains false characterizations as some of the sources have been shown to do. Springee (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I just looked at the PinkNews article. While they emphasize the "playing the victim" quote they don't provide the full passage from which it was taken. We have already seen that the HuffPo presented a short quote out of context in a way that altered it's meaning. I don't think we should assume PinkNews wouldn't do the same. Many sources can rightly say that Carlson uses an inflammatory rhetorical style. However, when sources use the same sort of style to characterize Carlson's positions we shouldn't treat them as reliable for what Carlson said or meant. Springee (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

How does The Advocate distort Carlson's claims to suggest he is supporting bomb threats? The disputed text did that, not the source. Hence my suggestion to adjust the text to more closely follow the source.

For everything else, you seem to be reaching. The Advocate doesn't say his claim is about minors, he says it hurts children. We can add that to the proposal. Gender affirming care for minors is a right. Rights are any legal, social, or ethical principles. There's nothing wrong with "and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls" because that's exactly what the source says, the implications you suggest are your own.

New proposal:

Carlson has a history of speaking out strongly against trans rights. He has claimed that hospitals providing gender-affirming healthcare are criminals who harm children and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls.

––FormalDude (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct about The Advocate. They didn't specifically say bomb threats, they only said "engage in threatening behavior". Again, suggesting that Carlson is encouraging threatening behavior is really stretching what Carlson is quoted to have said. That sort of distortion is not something RSs do. The Advocate article does make it clear this is about minors, not adults. The opening sentence says hospitals that provide car to trans children. The hospitals mentioned are various children's hospitals. Minors are children are mentioned throughout the whole article. Even the quoted Walsh tweet says minors. That this is about minors is clear. We should not call gender affirming care for minors a right. Some want it to be a right, others don't agree. This is certainly not legally settled as Oklahoma, right or wrong, is showing. Here is how I would make the proposed text acceptable (without citing the Advocate as that article fails RS):

Carlson has a history of speaking out strongly against what he views as the excesses of the trans movement. He has said that hospitals providing gender-affirming healthcare to minors are criminals who harm children.

This version makes it clear that the access to the care in question is in dispute and that he feels that care provided to children is a crime (implied, should legally be a crime). I removed the threats part as it becomes a difficult to handle passage. Saying that he isn't surprised they receive threats isn't a shocking statement. He isn't saying they should receive threats. The only reason why we are talking about this statement is because a source incorrectly tries to claim saying something is an expected outcome is the same as advocating for it. That isn't OK in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I support FormalDude's suggested version. This adequately summarizes his views without leaving anything out; there's no need to omit details because of wordsmithing challenges. Springee, may I ask which source supports "what he views as the excesses of the trans movement"? –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Advocate does not fail RS, and you left out the rest of that quote which finishes engage in threatening behavior with a wink and a nod. That is common secondary analysis stating that Tucker's claim is indirectly influencing his audience, it's no distortion, and not a reason to disqualify the source especially when it's not being included or used to verify any text in the proposal. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Advocate is taking a reasonable thing that Carlson said and falsely claiming it is incitement. That is not something any reliable source does. As such that article at the least, and if this is a pattern, then the whole source, is not reliable. I did leave out "engage in threatening behavior" since the way it was presented was ambiguous. As presented it can imply Carlson was going to call them or encourage others to call them. That is not true to the Carlson quotes from the article. Again, huge difference between saying and outcome is likely and saying you support that outcome. That last part doesn't summarize his position on the subject. If you want to say this is a common rhetorical style of his (he used a similar statement in the Rittenhouse case) that would be fine. However, it's false to, as The Advocate has done, suggest it was incitement. Springee (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, they are not saying Tucker supports the outcome, or even implying it. a wink and a nod means indirect communication. They're saying he indirectly influenced viewers–that is not incitement and not false. I think I've exhausted the point. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The nod and wink part means they saying this is intentional. That is Heck of a claim and not one a reliable source would make. Springee (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave, did you actually read The Advocate? Claiming it was referring to affirming care for adults (ie not making it clear this was about minors) is grossly misleading and not true to the source. I don't recall which source I used for that summary language but I'm certainly OK with changing it to something else. I will note that you restored claims which clearly fail WP:V. So long as you are challenging where phrases came from, why not challenge, "has a history of speaking out strongly against trans rights". Since you say you are OK with FormalDude's version please be consistent with your concerns. Springee (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can certainly add "to children" or "to minors". –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is an improvement but still has issues. First, The Independent - Voices sure looks like an Op-Ed/opinion article vs factual reporting. Note that when you go to The Indepedent's home page "Voices" appears in a tab with Editorials and Letters. That already makes it an issue for factual claims about a BLP (though I think the general claim is true). The other issue with that is include "Trans-rights" as what are wants vs rights is not established in law etc thus we shouldn't state that in Wiki-voice. The other issue is the inclusion of "and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls". Again, what he actually said is they shouldn't be surprised that people do that given the issue at hand. To present it in any way that suggests he is advocating or endorsing the behavior is absolutely not acceptable. So in the end we still have problematic sourcing and a contentious claim that is poorly supported. Springee (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, most of this[17] is fine but trans-rights does not appear in The Independent so we shouldn't use it. Regardless of the less than objective nature of that article (it clearly mixes a lot of OpEd/author opinion with some statements of fact), it is talking about trans issues and kids. The statement "Trans-rights" fails WP:V. Springee (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Independent says LGBTQ rights activists are all frequent targets of Carlson’s vitriol and goes on to list multiple instances of his attacks on trans rights, I think we're fine. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Activists are not rights and the the transgender rights movement, which is where you linked trans rights, wants these things to be rights. It doesn't say they are rights. Also, it needs to be clear that gender affirming care refers to minors, otherwise it can be read as gender affirming care to adults can hurt minors. Springee (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"it needs to be clear that gender affirming care refers to minors" Then why don't you fix it? –dlthewave ☎ 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)