Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Shot three "protesters"

The section on Kyle Rittenhouse says he "shot three protesters." Propose this change to "shot three individuals" as it is not clear that all three individuals were protesters. 2001:B011:4007:1933:41D0:FDA6:835A:8514 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree, but that's not what the reliable sources say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of divorcée

In 1979, Carlson's father married divorcée Patricia Caroline Swanson, an heiress to Swanson Enterprises, daughter of Gilbert Carl Swanson and niece of Senator J. William Fulbright.

Regarding the NYT Manual of Style and Usage:

divorcé(e). The term conveys a whiff of censure. Write instead — and only when pertinent — that a man or woman has been divorced or that a previous marriage ended in divorce.[1]

Anecdotally, in the US, the term divorcée fell out of wide usage about 25-30 years ago. It is quite rare that we see it used like this, primarily due to its negative connotations of the stigma of not just failure, but in this context, licentious or dissolute behavior. I would like to suggest that we remove the term and follow up with noting the previous marriage and or divorce. I realize this is less efficient and more cumbersome, but there's a psychological impact here we should strive to avoid. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed here and here. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Who fired him?

In the body there is some contradiction. One paragraph says the decision to fire was made by Rupert Murdoch while another says it was made by Lachlan Murdoch and Suzanne Scott. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have the same question. See the paragraph above. Let's discuss it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I should have looked at the other threads before I posted lol Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Russian TV

Right after his dismissal was announced in russian media was published that "Соловьев.Live" has offered a job to Tucker Carlson https://radiosputnik.ria.ru/20230424/karlson-1867457795.html 217.209.196.139 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

And? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

such reporting is being used to set-up a "ha ha, look, Tucker really was a Russian stooge after all!" accusation. so while amusing and to be honest quite believable, the Wikipedia is not a venue for gotcha editorializing. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

well, if he took the job, that's a different story =D Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, and when he does we can mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please no straw man. RIA is not a reliable source, and that's the end of this discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OANN also immediately, publicly offered him a job. God only knows who else. Not worth mentioning unless and until he actually takes one of these offers. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

He might return to CNN or MSNBC, who are eager to improve their ratings. TFD (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Riddled with inaccuracies

lots of sources saying he promoted conspiracies when in reality he offered opposing points of view. Sources cited are known to be hostile to his or anyone else point of view. 2606:A800:CD80:1A22:411A:C348:4577:E68D (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide links to reliable sources that refute the assertion that he promoted conspiracy theories? Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Point is, they just made things up.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-fired-worst-things-he-said-racism-immigrants-1234722751/

https://niemanreports.org/articles/fox-dominion-lawsuit/

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/25/here-are-falsehoods-we-found-in-tucker-carlsons-fi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/fox-news-propaganda-eric-alterman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

https://hearyourselfthink.org/fox/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

None of the links provided by the anons are actually cited in the article. The Nation is accepted as reliable on Wikipedia. While Rolling Stone on political matters is considered unreliable, most of the citations from Rolling Stone in this article are easily replaceable by other reliable sources or simply complementary to other cited reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you implying Fox and Carlson don’t make things up? 69.181.192.29 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood the point of the comment. Anyway, please ignore any unconstructive topic in the talk page. WP:Don't feed the troll. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I read the link. Still confused about your response, especially if you just misunderstood. Please explain the complaint, as the aim here is to reply to the poster. 69.181.192.29 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The poster is complaining that all sources are hostile to Carlson thus the article is "riddled with inaccuracies", so it doesn't matter how many more sources you provide to prove a point. The poster is clearly here just for pushing a biased POV which is considered an abuse of Wikipedia talk page, and the best way to deal with these kind of behavior is simply to ignore them, aka don't feed the troll. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

From the article:

Charlotte Alter of Time wrote in July 2021 that Carlson sometimes tells "outright falsehoods" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Birth location

I think there’s a possibility that we have misinformation in the current article regarding his birth place. Most reliable sources say Carlson was born in San Francisco, not in the Mission. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that he was born at the Children’s Hospital in 1969.[2]. The list of children's hospitals in the United States has an entry for UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital in Mission Bay, San Francisco, but that is a relatively recent development site which didn’t break ground until 1999, and didn’t open until 2015 in Mission Bay. The history and locale of the original Children’s Hospital is located here but is mostly offline in the UC Berkeley library archives. As far as I can tell, given this limited information, Tucker Carlson was born at the Pacific Dispensary for Women and Children, which was known as the Children’s Hospital of San Francisco in 1969. Its old location is at 3700 California Street, which is now known as the California Campus of the California Pacific Medical Center. It would be helpful to have other people look into this and confirm the error. For now, I will simply remove the Mission District neighborhood and replace it with San Francisco. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This [3] has the same conclusion: the Children's Hospital building was 3700 California from 1911-1991. 73.93.5.246 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and great find. You’re a star. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1227121/bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s an example of citogenesis, which is a very common phenomenon. In other words, someone misunderstood that the Children’s Hospital where Tucker was born was not the current Children’s Hospital in Mission Bay (which opened in 2015), added it to Wikipedia, and then copied it to IMDB. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

New source: NYT "often racist comments of his primetime show"

NYT today would seem to justify stronger language than "have been described as racist" in the article, but I leave it editors for familiar with this page: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/business/media/tucker-carlson-dominion-fox-news.html. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Coverage in general would justify stronger language, but Wikipedia has a strong right-wing whitewashing cabal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.213 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

lol. if both the far-right and the far-left are angry at our coverage, than that means the Wikipedia is right where it needs to be. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit gaslighting. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.143.192.197 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The source appears to be analysis or commentary, which means it is not considered reliable, per WP:NEWSORG. In fairness, would anyone want to describe much of the legislation that Biden has supported (such as the 1990s crime bill) as racist, just because many commentators describe it that way? There are of course experts, people who have studied and teach and write books and articles on racism, whose writings could be used as sources. TFD (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this news report from the New York Times would add weight to our coverage of Carlson's racist comments. We can certainly use it to describe them as "racist" in wikivoice. –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Another source https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/tucker-carlson-fired-fox-news-fake-populist-genuine-racist.html And another https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/tucker-carlson-firing-fox-news-white-nationalism-succesor.html And another https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tucker-carlson-fired-worst-things-he-said-racism-immigrants-1234722751/ And another https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/racism-the-real-reason-tucker-carlson-was-fired/ar-AA1ao2fo?li=BBnb7Kz And another https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/25/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-trump-legacy "...whose brand of barely disguised racism, anti-immigrant nativism, Republican Party fealty, uninhibited disinformation, Trumpist election denial, and bizarre culture-war monologuing..." https://slate.com/business/2023/04/tucker-carlson-last-show.html INTERNATIONAL: https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-hails-fox-news-for-long-sought-ouster-of-tucker-carlson/

contentious edits

it would appear there's disagreement over culturally specific references to personal character, and snarky rhetorical flourishes. please remember to follow common practice as regards biographical content; it's better to have nothing than something factually incorrect, and loaded language can't be used to mask editorial opinion. Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

this is an entirely useless comment unless you point to specific edits or passages you find objectionable. ValarianB (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Status of views on Islam dispute

The section on the view on Islam is currently tagged as POV dispute. I am pinging the editors involved in that dispute from Talk:Tucker_Carlson/Archive_17#Absurdly_long_article to find out the status and what it will take to remove the tag: User:Thebiguglyalien, User:Llll5032, User:Dlthewave. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave wanted to insert the word WP:RACIST into the prose. When the edit was challenged, they added some tags. Springee was the other party, not Llll5032 (who was just fixing a formatting error). I have not edited this article in the last month and don't particularly care what conclusion is reached so long as it is compliant with WP:BLP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I've removed the tag, as it doesn't seem appropriate. I'm happy to invite more discussion. One thing I noticed, short, narrow sections like this tend to do better when they are merged into larger, broader sections. I would recommend merging this into another section and doing the same with any other small sections. I really don't think we need so many small sections focusing on narrow topics. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Carlson was NOT fired

Despite what leftist outlets are repeating ad nauseam, Tucker and Fox mutually parted ways. The leftist editors keep reverting the wording back to fired in an editing war. He wasn't fired and had the number one show. Still maintaining his support amongst conservatives and Republicans too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.135.34.6 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, he got abruptly terminated by surprise, and so did his lead producer. That's getting fired. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The far/alt-right are so hurt that they use wikipedia to defend their hero. Scyphe (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This may be true, but as editors we have to just echo what the WP:RS tell us. If reliable sources state he was fired, not much else you can do. Now if more information comes out, reliable sources will print retractions or put out new stories covering accurate occurrences. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Carlson’s show was abruptly terminated and he won’t be seen again on Fox. But was he fired by FN? I believe his contract was nearly up. Makes sense for them to keep him on contract until it runs out; likely meaning he can’t go to work for a competitor for some time and bring his audience with him. Has happened before. Clearly his position with the corporation was terminated, they have stated that they have parted ways, and his access to company email was revoked. Termination of a person’s position and firing are not the same as you can remain on payroll if the position is dissolved. I noticed that most of the NYTimes articles have avoided the word fired thus far. I have seen let go, out, dismissed, terminated, etc. In no way do I support the OP’s comments about “leftists”; but seems there are more encyclopedic terms that can be used before we hear more details. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Following up on this, why does his bio box still list him as being employed by FOX? He very clearly is not according to many RS's.

Dismissed Monday morning

I added "On Monday morning" to the lead sentence on Carlson's dismissal. This is verified and reported as significant in the Atlantic reference, among many others. The Atlantic says

His abrupt departure from Fox News, announced this morning, is even more shocking.

My edit summary for the addition was " The cited Washington Post source states

The host himself, whose last appearance was Friday on his nightly show, only learned of his firing in a phone call Monday morning. He and his team had spent the weekend working on their plans for summer shows, according to a person familiar with the conversation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about internal matters. The network was still running promos for Carlson’s show Monday morning.

I think the article text needs "Monday morning" to give context for "effective immediately" -- dismissed always means dismissed, but this appeared precipitous and is described as surprising".

This addition was reverted as unsourced. The Atlantic source appears after the next sentence and elsewhere in the article. I think these words need to be restored to the lead text. Significant media narratives concerning his dismissal have centered on the surprising, pre-emptive action early Monday after Carlson had told his viewers "see you on Monday" late on Friday evening. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have restored your revision. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. 24-BRD in action! for any Admin skeptics out there. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

personality v. journalist

Lead: "television personality"

Infobox: "television journalist"

The former is indisputable, but is the latter sourced? soibangla (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Purely vestigial at this point. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Access to security surveillance video

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in early 2023 gave Carlson exclusive access to 44,000 hours of security surveillance video from the day of the Capitol attack. Carlson subsequently aired portions of it on his show to illustrate his own narrative concerning the event, painting it as "peaceful chaos" and condemning other media outlets as untruthful when portraying the attack as violent.

This section downplays (and omits) the numerous security concerns related to this video exchange, and how McCarthy's release of the video to Carlson could allow interested parties to prepare a new, future attack on the Capitol. Some of these many concerns are listed here. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it make more sense for this to be covered in the J6 article rather than the BLP for Carlson? Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be covered in both articles, in my opinion. However, there's no right or wrong answer to your question. One can argue either way. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously that we will not include this info in the Capitol Riot article because Carlson, an unreliable source, is the sole source of the footage and how short it was trimmed and presented to fit Carlson's misleading narrative. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting and informative, yet also slightly unusual. Then again, ignoring a topic due to controversy isn't exactly unheard of on Wikipedia, and sometimes there is a good reason to do so (this is not one of them, IMO). In this particular instance, I'm merely arguing that we should very briefly mention the national security implications of what McCarthy giving the video to Carlson implies, but I haven't made a strong argument here because I would need to do further preparatory work on putting sources together etc. However, I did bring it up to gauge the opinion of the community in this regard, and I appreciate the feedback. The argument from Kcmastrpc that it distracts from the BLP is one aspect, and yet the fact that this isn't even mentioned in the main article is another. Obviously, I have much more research to do in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m still unconvinced that this is the right place for the inclusion. The implications of such matters are irrelevant unless the concerns actually materialize, which to my knowledge they have not. Should the same rationale that prevented the addition of this matter to the J6 article not apply here? Has the discussion taken place on McCarthy’s BLP (though, I’m not convinced it belongs there either). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I think it's somewhat of a low priority right now, considering how much work needs to be done to fix this article and bring it up to spec. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Expanding personal life

Looking over the personal life section, it doesn't really mention any of his close relationships outside of his family, such as friends. Although Rachel Maddow recently did a somewhat scathing dissection of Carlson's legacy on her show, I also seem to recall her mentioning several years ago that they were friendly with each other, as they are both Bay Area natives and worked together on the same show at MSNBC. I think it would be interesting to delve deeper into his friends and social circle in this section. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

External Link Quality

There are a couple external links whose quality and/or purpose I’m concerned about.

• Muckrake — appears to be some sort of integration but the articles listed there seem to lack curation and association seems questionable at best.
• Littlesis - what’s the point here other than to expose people who are connected to Carlson?

Is there any reason we should keep these or could we delete them per WP:ELNO and WP:ELBLP? Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Muckrack": seems to be big-data mining, you need to compare to general usage with other BLP

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22muckrack.com%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Muck+Rack%22

• "LittleSis": is a curated corporate and government accountability nonprofit watchdog organization

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson news from Sun Journal, Lewiston, Maine

• Tucker Carlson news from Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine)

@Kcmastrpc: claims "low-quality news aggregator loaded with ads" but actually the local newspaper. Will restore...0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Local newspapers are generally considered low quality, this looks a lot like WP:ELNO #9 given that it appears to be a tag search and the sheer number of ads that are being presented. What does this external link provide that warrants inclusion in the BLP? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"number of ads that are being presented" is not relevant and is prevented by browser security. Every article about Tucker Carlson, at his summer place, is listed, including his grange-stable/studio real estate "battle". .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see how a reader is supposed to know what it is they’re supposed to find in the external link that couldn’t be found in the main article, assuming the information is suitable for inclusion. Regardless of the ads, it’s a "tag" search result page which is not suitable for external links, per WP:ELNO item #9. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Carlson Text(s) promoting racial supremacist violence

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/media/tucker-carlson-text-message/index.html 129.7.105.122 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure we can really say that. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Please explain? Notnews? SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

it is already in the article. ValarianB (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this falls into undue territory. Is very gossipy and given it wasn't a public statement it's just part of the noise around Carlson. Springee (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Right now article currently says "in one such message Carlson expressed racist views by criticizing three Trump supporters". Cited source[4], doesn't actualy use term racist, but does mention "the text message revealed more about his views on racial superiority." & "sharing his private, inflammatory views about violence and race." We should probably reword the sentence in article imo. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, RS say that it may be significant because of the wording he used. So if it is DUE, our wording should be NOTCENSORED. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I had only read the NYT source we used in article, if other RS use the term racist, then we just need to use those in article too if we are going to say racist views. I am going to just add this CNN article in as citation to avoid the appearance of OR. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is more borderline WP:HEADLINE personally. If we do include it, we must absolutely NOTCENSOR. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

BLP-violating revert

Here, claiming that Carlson was fired as fallout from the Dominion settlement, which is not supported by sources. I am quite tempted to revert again and claim WP:BLPRESTORE exemption, but I'll pose this here first. ValarianB (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I would defend a BLPRESTORE. Sources do not conclusively support this claim, and the reasons vary depending on the timeline and the media narratives. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted in an admin capacity. This is a BLP violation. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

looks like someone didn't take no for an answer last night, but appears to be solved now, thanks. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree I always lean on the side of WP:BLP protections. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory information in the article

We’ve got contradictory information in the article, in the section “Departure from Fox News”. The last sentence of the first paragraph says “The decision to dismiss Carlson was reportedly made by Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the board of Fox News Channel's parent company Fox Corporation." The last sentence of the second paragraph says “The decision was eventually made by Murdoch's son, Lachlan Murdoch, and Fox CEO Suzanne Scott to oust him."

Which is it? We need to resolve this contradiction - or else allow for both somehow. MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They probably both needed to be mentioned as potential possibilities. There's not a RS consensus from what I've seen on who exactly fired him. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they're all correct. Here's how the Washington Post puts it together:

"When Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott called Carlson Monday morning to tell him he would be “parting ways” with the network, the host repeatedly asked why, according to people familiar with the conversation. Scott would only tell him that the decision came “from above” — meaning Rupert Murdoch and his Fox Corp CEO son Lachlan. Scott and Lachlan Murdoch had made the decision to fire Carlson Friday evening, three days after the settlement, and Lachlan spoke to his father about it on Saturday, according to two people familiar with the discussion."[5]

How about we replace the stuff now in the article with info based on the WaPo summary? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times says it was Scott and Lachlan, omitting WaPo's inclusion of Rupert: "The decision to let Mr. Carlson go was made on Friday night by Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corporation, and Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, according to a person briefed on the move. Mr. Carlson was informed on Monday morning by Ms. Scott, another person briefed on the move said."[6] Sounds like WaPo has more sources than NYT? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think I've fixed it - by putting all the information into the second paragraph, and citing the Washington Post for names and dates. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is any of this content in our article. Why are we speculating on the internal management and decision authority inside a corporation, and what difference does it make to the subject of this page? It's all UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Does it matter if Tucker was fired by Rupert vs. Lachlan vs. Suzanne Scott? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think so. The higher up the chain that decision was made, the more extraordinary the situation is shown to be. I don't think Rupert Murdoch generally gets involved in the firing of staff. (and personally, it seems unbelievable to me, that Lachlan would make the move to fire this guy, and not pick up the phone at some point to talk it over with his Dad, there's just too much money involved, but that's all just personal speculation on my part, and can be ignored for article-purposes :) ). Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Tucker on Twitter

There is an incredible number of viewers leaving Fox because of him and an even greater number of people looking at his first Twitter thing.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

a bigly number of people, i bet. have a source? ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Far right" in opening sentence

"Far right" appears multiple times in the article as well as the lead. I feel that it's prominent enough to appear in the first sentence description per this edit. Are there any policy-based objections to this? –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right" is a contentious label. The lead currently says Carlson has helped to promote far-right ideas. That seems consistent with sourcing. Claiming that Carlson himself is far-right would basically mean you need to have sources consistently define him as such. I don't think we have that in this case. Since his promotion of far-right ideas is already part of the lead this seems like a needless attempt to shoehorn a contentious label into the opening sentence of a BLP article. Remember, it's not policy based objection to the actions. You need policy based support. Springee (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it's automatically a contentious label; it's a term frequently used in academia to quantify both political movements and individuals, including Carlson. See eg. [7], US Fox News talk show host and far-right pundit Tucker Carlson... Simply having people who disagree with a label is not enough to render it contentious to the point of unusability; it would need to be a label inappropriate for use in high-quality writing. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a contentious label. That doesn't mean a high quality source could never use it (though I'm not sure an obscure article that has been cited zero times counts as quality). Springee (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Most everything Carlson says is contentious. I have always assumed purposely. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think "far-right" is well-sourced and should be including. Those claiming it's a "contentious label" are confusing "contentious" with "negatively-tinged". Just because they don't like the fact that "far-right" tends to connote a negative perception of someone doesn't make it "contentious". There are plenty of people described as "far-right" on Wikipedia if reliable sources describe them that way. Tucker Carlson is one of those people. Wes sideman (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

wrong. If Antifa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) is not "far left" then tuck is definitely not "far right" - it's quite simple. 75.105.36.127 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We actually do not have any body or lead content that describes Carlson as far-right. Both the body and lead mention that he gives mainstream coverage to far-right views. I don't think those things are synonymous. For someone as well-covered as Carlson, I think it's fair to expect sources that explicitly say "far-right" and body content that summarizes them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs). I do not think we should be adding far-right. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"far-right political commentator, writer, conspiracy theorist" - is very biased - Tucker Carlson is Center right. He calls BS - he is right about BLM, Covid-19 Vaccines, and the Ukraine war - jury not out on Jan 6th but videos are telling - Anyone who thinks he is a far right conspiracy theorist must be extreme left (fake wanting to help people to bring about Utopia but only wants control) - and also wants the World to be ruled like 1930's Nazi (socialists) Germany and 1930's Stalin's Russia/USSR - Those calling Carlson far-right as sourced have a screw loose. 73.20.34.120 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much summed up the extreme right position and made the point that Carlson is far-right. But, our opinions don't matter. We print what RS print. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC).

If you think that is far right you genuinely have absolutely no idea what far right means. Britannic16 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

And most don't call him far-right. Even in recent times we don't have a majority calling him far-right. Also, we should evaluate the quality of evidence presented by sources when they use contentious labels. Springee (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

SWo do any sources contest this, not not say it contest it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have things that way. Take an extreme case, if one source says he is a martian and no sources deny it we don't conclude that it must be true. To put this sort of label in the opening sentence we need to show that it's a common description and baked by good evidence. I don't think we have that. Springee (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but we do not have only one source. As such this is not an isolated opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

But do the majority of sources describe him as such? If not then we shouldn't use that contentious label in the opening sentence. I could be wrong but I think this was previously discussed with sources. Perhaps that was a BLPN. I'm on my phone so searches are difficult. Springee (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"But do the majority of sources describe him as such?" I'm not familiar with that standard. Is it a policy/guideline or something you came up with? –dlthewave ☎ 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE suggests that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person. Additionally, MOS:LABEL suggests that a contentious label be widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. I concur with the perspective shared by User:Springee as it is well supported by policy, and has been successfully argued at many RfCs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave, skipping over the issues Kcmastrpc rightly notes, let's turn this around. How many source is sufficient? Would you argue for this if only 1 RS used the label? Is that your standard? What if it were 2? How many is enough in your view? What about 1% of source? Is that your standard? How would you propose we decide? Springee (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you genuinely think the Nazis were left-wing just because they had “socialist” in their name proves that you have no business discussing politics in any capacity. Do you think North Korea is a democracy because their official name is the DEMOCRATIC People’s Republic of Korea? Unreal. Jrhjazznblues (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't figure the abuse of LABEL into my equation here, but do look at RS descriptions. Given how deceptive Carlson is (his lawyers say he lies and his show is just entertainment that should not be taken seriously), and how the latest Dominion vs Fox News revelations show he doesn't even believe (violently disagrees in private) what he says in his show, we can't know if he is really far-right or just uses his show to push such views. Therefore, I support Firefangledfeathers. We should describe him as a Fox News host who "gives favorable coverage to far-right views". I say "favorable" because he does not contradict those views and actually pushes them. That's why people think he's far-right. His actions speak loudly, but given that his private views and public actions are often contradictory, we can only describe his public views on this point. If we get evidence of his private views, then we can add that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe how this is handled by Andy Ogles BLP should be an approach we model here. It does not belong in the lede sentence; however, describing how his critics label his talk show views is appropriate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. What critics are we referring to? Since when does opinions and critics have encyclopedic value? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Their opinions have value when given in the context of a news report, when printed in a reliable source. You are well-aware of this, having been told countless times at the Ruble talk page. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing written would be too extreme for this bizarre crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

hence why RS call him far-right, his extremism. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Include What does it matter what he may or may not believe himself? He is a far-right commentator, writer, and conspiracy theorist because his commentary, writings, and conspiracy theories are far-right. Julia Childs first TV show was The French Chef; but she wasn’t French. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It matters that the majority of sources talking about him don't use that contentious label. What has been in here for some time is a more encyclopedic entry (and better adheres to IMPARTIAL and LABEL). Springee (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Include "far-right" per Aquillion's earlier points. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE: "... avoiding subjective or contentious terms." I acknowledge that one might contend it's not subjective or contentious. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Episodes 2 and 3 were just posted recently on Tucker Carlson's Twitter. Please include details about these episodes and their viewership numbers. 2603:8000:6001:8E45:8C2B:6C05:B936:F8E2 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Serious Neutral Point of View issue

I maintain that if the label of "far-right" is to be applied to this individual - in the first-sentence of the lead paragraph (i.e. accepted as an axiomatic truth, not subject to opinion or open to debate) - then, at the very least, one right-learning source must be provided to offer some semblance of neutral balance. As it is, the sources provided (NYT, NBC, Guardian, CNN) are all notoriously heavily left-leaning, penned by journalists who are naturally hostile to his particular branch of conservatism (undoubtedly on the hard/populist right). It's sad that I even have to point this out. The rest of the lead quite rightly mentions how many of his opponents on the left label him as a right-wing extremist, however, this is their opinion. Opinions are diverse on this issue, heavily divided by political affiliation and Wikipedia should always strive to maintain a neutral point of view - regardless of the views of its editing community. His info-box also doesn't deny his conservatism, which presents another issue; is Wikipedia now equating conservatism with the far-right? - signed in as user: 'VideoGamePlaya' — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. I believe the only way for a lead to infer such a contentious label is through one of only a few mechanisms:

• Clearly established editor consensus
• Reliable sourcing indicating the subject refers to themselves as such
• Court of law convicting someone as such, eg: murderer, rapist, etc. (obviously doesn't apply in this case)

So far, none of these apply so the overwhelmingly contentious MOS:LABEL should stay out. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not what you did, you removed far-right, you did not add an alternative sourced to right wing sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course I removed the term "far-right". When applied here, I consider it highly contentious and largely subject to political opinion. That's the whole point of my above paragraph. If it is to be included, my own personal prerequisites for such are listed above. As it is, these parameters have not been met - hence my removal. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? - User: VideoGamePlaya

Then why even mention "one right wing source", why not just say "it is contentious"? Discussion is easier when it is focused, and we know what point we are addressing. Now do RS consider this term (when applied to Carlson) contentious, do any RS dispute the idea he is far right? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Because if even a single right-wing source can be found (although I still would consider one to be woefully inadequate), then some semblance of balance would have been achieved and an argument could then be made to apply the term far-right without breaching a neutral point of view. As it stands, this is not the case. And despite my efforts, I have not been able to find any sources from major right-learning publications describing Mr Carlson as such. Indeed, the inverse is true. They virtually always describe him as a conservative at best and a populist at worst. People are innocent until proven guilty; there does not have to be a right-learning source that exists which dispels the notion of them being far-right - instead, a right-learning source must be found that asserts he is far-right. User - VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: For example. See Paul Joseph Watson's article. He is described as far-right there, and some of the sources provided include right-wing publications such as The Daily Telegraph.

Irrelevant, we do not judge sources based upon their political leaning, but on their status as RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Then, by your logic, the very concept of a neutral point of view is by extension irrelevant. Just because a source is reliable does not mean it isn't subject to political bias. There are left-wing publications that lean left and right-wing publications that lean right. Both express different opinions. Whether or not Mr Carlson is far-right is not some axiomatic truth established by selectively accumulating sources from his political opponents. It is a contentious label, heavily divided by politcal opinion and for neutrality to be reached, the same far-right assertion must be found from reliable sources that edge towards Mr Carlsons own position on the politcal spectrum. This should be apparent to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No as it says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". that is almost what I have said, we reflect what RS say. If RS do not see a controversy there is not one. If we do not go with what RS say, and reflect what RS say then we are in fact violating wp:npov in the name of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, "all the significant views". The only people that appear to make this claim are the left-wing publications. There exists, to my knowledge, no right-learning sources that assert the same thing because they do not believe it to be true. This is neither "fair" nor "proportionate." I've also just read your profile, where you openly declare yourself to be a left-wing UK Labor Party supporter. It's obvious now you yourself have your own political motivations for labeling Mr Carlson far-right, so I will end this discussion here and simply hope that non-biased minds prevail. As it stands, the contentious allegation seems to have been removed, and I hope it remains so until balance can be achieved. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice try, but anyone who actually reads what I said won't believe for a moment that I've attacked you personally in any way, shape or form. I quite rightly highlight that your open affiliation with left-wing politics will, by nature, influence your opinion on this matter. There is nothing personal about it. Again, good day to you.

Actually, I was just about to also point you to WP:NPA as yours was a clear violation. Discuss edits, not editors. The lead was balanced and should be returned as WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to him as far-right. 16:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret.

I'm not interested in what you were "actually" about to do, either, my friend. I actually respect the fact that Mr Slater is open about his political affiliation. However, I maintain the view that it heavily influences his opinion here, and I have simply listed that as my reason for ceasing participation in this discussion, as I believe it to be pointless. As I ceaselessly point out, this issue is heavily divided along political lines. What I said regarding his politics was indeed highly relevant to the discussion, and perfectly legitimate, and in no way, shape or form represented a personal attack - and I will not apologise for it. Good day to you both - User VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not relevant to the discussion. I personally don't think Hitler was a nice guy. Doesn't mean I can't edit his article in a neutral manner. This page is for discussion of this article. It is not for a discussion of your unsupported opinions about another editor. You will not last here long if you don't understand this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am entitled to give my reason for leaving a discussion, and neither you, nor anyone else will prevent me from doing so. I simply believe there to be a conflict of interest, quite reasonably, which renders further discussion fruitless. I am entitled to my opinion, and, again, I have not attacked anyone personally. I have not attacked Mr Slater's politics, which I wholeheartedly respect, nor anything else. And your attempts to portray me as doing such have floundered. Also, your threats mean nothing to me, as I know I haven't done anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You should not have brought Slater's personal politics into this discussion. Would you like us to discuss your personal politics? Everybody has bias, WP:NPOV states that we reflect what the sources say neutrally. We don't add WP:FALSEBALANCE to "even out" reliably sourced criticism of a subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As I ceaselessly point out, I did not bring Mr Slater's personal politics into the debate. I did not use Mr Slater's politics as a means to discredit his opinion, an opinion I value as much as the next man's. Nor did I not attack Mr Slater's politics. Indeed, I said I wholeheartedly respected them. Nor did I attack the fact Mr Slater has chosen to reveal his politic affiliation. Indeed, I said I appreciated it. I simply said I personally believe that an obvious conflict of interest exists here, one which is irreconcilable, and one which leads me to believe any further participation with the debate would be fruitless and a waste of time on my part. It was simply a just reason given to end my personal involvement here. Please demonstrate (using quotation) where I have personally attacked Mr Slater. If, for example, I had revealed my politics, and then tried to edit an opposing politic figure's page as an axiomatic extremist, you would be within your rights to have the same reaction. And it simply would not be a personal attack. Which, by default, has to involve an attack on one's person. User - VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are describing is a personal attack on Slater. Saying that their political preference presents an obvious conflict of interest is an attack, a more mild one than others I've seen, and just plain wrong. Editing this page is not a privilege granted to only his supporters. Comment on content, not contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone's political preference presents a conflict of interest, when debating a highly divisive political matter, would only be a personal attack, sir, if what you said afterwards resembled the truth even remotely! "Editing this page is not a privilege granted to only his supporters." I have not insinuated, even for the briefest of moments, that Mr Slater is not entitled to give his opinion here on account of his politics - and I resent, oppose and detest with every fiber of my being your insinuation that I have done so! That is a greater personal attack than anything I have said! Free speech is something I hold very dearly, above all else, and I would never deny a man his opinion, under any circumstances. You have absolutely no evidence to assert such a vile allegation when everything I have said is to the contrary. The conflict of interest is simply my reason for withdrawing from the debate, an opinion I should surely be entitled to give in any society that calls itself free. Mr Slater, is, of course, free to remain here and debate with anyone who decides to resume this discussion. But I personally believe it to be pointless, given the revelation that, by the nature of his politics (and which I don't hold against him), he is inclined almost by default to oppose anything further I have to offer. My points had been made. It was time to end it, and I provided the reason for leaving - the honest one. I maintain that there has been no personal attack on Mr Slater himself, and I still vehemently reject any insinuation that have done so. - User: VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that Carlson is far right, but, "He is known for circulating far-right ideas into mainstream politics." Some of these ideas are later mentioned in the body of the article, such as white nationalism, the replacement theory and George Soros conspiracism. I don't know if Carlson himself believes any of those things, but he provides a platform for far right extremists to express their views which then enter mainstream political discussion.

Incidentally, neutrality does not mean that we balance facts presented in mainstream reliable sources with false information from right-wing commentators.

TFD (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. When I first made this post, the very first sentence labelled Mr Carlson a member of the far-right as though it was an axiomatic truth. The article in its present state, at least for now, however, doesn't have any issue with neutrality. - User VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The current state is euphemistic. And, Wikipedia is not about "truth". It is about verifiability according to reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion above regarding describing Carlson as far-right in the lead. I think the confusion in this discussion is that the term was added to the article on 13 June by an editor with perhaps two dozen edits [8]. So it was recently in the lead. The sourcing added in the subsequent edits are mixed with some calling Carlson "far-right" while others described the audience/reactions etc as far-right but didn't call Carlson himself far right. Regardless, this is an issue discussed above. I restored the stable version of the lead. Springee (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am the user you are referring to who made the edit, and I would urge you to reconsider and put "far-right" back into the first line of this page. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe him as either far-right and/or a right-wing extremist, and his views make this abundantly obvious. The arguments made by "VideoGamePlaya", who originally removed far-right from the first sentence, are specious at best. If we followed his logic, we'd need to remove "far-right", "white supremacist", "Neo-Nazi", and any other "contentious" language from the first sentence of the pages of almost every other living right-wing extremist on Wikipedia, as right-wing sources (very few of which could accurately be described as reliable sources, anyway) rarely use this language to begin with. Also, "VideoGamePlaya's" idea that all "left-wing" sources ought to be counterbalanced by right-wing ones is absolutely ridiculous. All sources have bias, but every source I used was a reliable one, and I could easily find a dozen more that unambiguously refer to Tucker Carlson as either far-right and/or a right-wing extremist. This should not be even be an argument. Even "VideoGamePlaya himself admits that Carlson is "undoubtedly on the hard/populist right" which shows that even he doesn't believe that Carlson isn't a far-right extremist, he just doesn't want him labeled as such. Jrhjazznblues (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I respect your argument, sir, but your manner and tone, less so. That aside, the very reason the term is, as of now, still not included in the first sentence is purely down to the fact that the majority of reliable sources do not refer to him as far-right. The definition of conservative is much more broadly found, and near-universally more apparent in right-learning sources. The overwhelming majority of sources which do refer to him as far-right are from left-learning publications, heavily biased by their respective journalist's political beliefs and who have a clear incentive to label him as an extremist. That isn't to say these views aren't valid, of course they are, but they don't make a contentious issue an axiomatic truth. To present these views as an absolute fact - not subject to opinion or open to debate would be a blatant violation of the neutral point of view policy. Instead, these views from his opponents are covered later in the lead, where they belong. And yes, I do admit Mr Carlson is certainly on the hard/populist right of the political spectrum. However, this is not the same as far right and the two terms are not interchangeable. I consider Tucker Carlson to be on the hard right as I consider Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn to be on the hard left, not the far left. "he just doesn't want him labeled as such." Do not presume to tell others what I think, sir. Allow me that privilege please. User - VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Calling Carlson "far-right" in the opening sentence is such a non-starter when it comes to the article as it exists right now. Discussing it before someone puts in the work to find the sources and summarize them in the body is a waste of time. I tend to see that the highest quality sources include some nuance in how they describe Carlson's political position and influence. Consider this NYT piece, which calls him "a conduit between the far right and the mainstream". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we now have five sources describing Carlson as a "right-wing extremist". Is that sufficient? –dlthewave ☎ 19:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If this were 5 of 5 sources, yes. However, this is 5 of many, many, many sources and often we are dealing with sources that are mixing their own opinion in with facts. They also are often not clearly defining right wing extremist, they are stating it to set the state for their readers. Such sources aren't good sources for such a claim about a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We have top-tier reliable sources (CNN, CNN, The Guardian, The Independent using the term in their own voice, in news reports. None of these are opinion pieces. "Far right" and "right wing" are much more common that other terms in recent reporting. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

First, none of those sources are bias free per Adfonts. To put it in perspective, Adfonts rates Fox Business News as no more biased. Additionally, occasional use is not the standard. To use it in wiki-voice we need to show it is basically a consensus among sources. Also, while those sources aren't marked as opinion we have long acknowledged that even RSs commonly mix opinion with factual reporting. If CNN says "Prof X says Carlson is Y" that is factual reporting. When CNN says he is then we are in the realm of CNN offering the opinion of the writer or editorial staff. That is opinion and exactly the sort of thing we are warned about when using news sources. Given this is a BLP I hope you understand and agree that caution is warranted. Springee (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If CNN says "Tucker Carlson is a right-wing extremist", that is also factual reporting. Frankly I don't care what Adfontes says (and the community doesn't either), there's no sign of bias in either of these articles. We don't get to pick and choose just because we don't like what they have to say about the subject. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that is an opinion mixed with factual reporting. If they are going to claim it as fact then they would need to define right-wing extremist and explain why he is one. Conversely, if this is a fact as you claim, why isn't it the common description vs one used, with respect to the number of Carlson stories out there, rarely? To turn your last sentence around on you, you don't get to pick which sources we use because you like what they say about the subject. Springee (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"If they are going to claim it as fact then they would need to define right-wing extremist and explain why he is one" That's not a standard and never has been, we can trust reliable sources even if they don't lay out their entire thought process. But you already know that. Which descriptor would you say is most appropriate for the opening sentence and why? –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, what do you claim is the standard? My point is we don't use offhand utterances of a label as RS fact. That is an opinion put forth by the writer. To make it a fact you would need to have some sort of standard and evidence. This is of course a very subjective thing when the range of "right" spans from just right of center to Nazi and the span of left ranges from just left of center to the Khmer Rouge. It's often hard to say where the line is between normal and extremist and it's often context dependent. AOC is far-left in US national politics but not when compared to the political left of some other countries. Since you want to discuss standards, can you point to some BLPN discussions to help us establish what standard should be used? Perhaps you can a BLPN discussion to find out what standard of usage by sources would be sufficient to place a contentious label in an opening sentence or paragraph, especially if you wish to do it in Wikivoice. While not ideal, Google suggests "Tucker Carlson" appears in over 170,000 news hits. I'm guessing more than just the ones you presented will claim right-wing extremist but will a majority? Springee (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Curiously, whenever I click the link of that Nigerian site that Dlthewave added today, Norton tells me it is thwarting an attack. Anybody else have a similar experience? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I tested it soon after you posted and got some sketchy-looking popup ads, but it seems to be back to normal now. Looks like something that would have gotten in through their advertising platform rather than an issue with PM News itself. I changed the link to an archived version which should solve the problem.

Political party

50.32.237.28 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2023 (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. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

White supremacy section

In the Racism and white supremacy section, the following text is included: In February 2022, Carlson criticized President Joe Biden's nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, calling her "ignorant of the law", in contrast to many legal analysts who have described Jackson as highly qualified. Carlson used language such as "defile", "humiliate", and "degrade" in reference to the nomination's effect on the court, likening the nomination to affirmative action and the Rwandan genocide due to Biden's public pledge to nominate a Black woman. One commentator, Jennifer Rubin, characterized these remarks as an example of white supremacy.

The source only mentions the allegations of this single commentator. I don't believe the allegations of a single commentator merit inclusion in the article, never mind give the comments enough weight to be included in this section. If this is indeed to be included in the white supremacy section then I would expect additional sources to mention that this is white supremacist. A look for sources to back this up shows only opinion pieces and no reliable sources to back up the claim that this is white supremacist. Willbb234 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree and would like to mention two other things. First, if mentioned, the article should explain why she considers this an example of white supremacy. Second, the opinion expressed should come before the comments. Don't leave the reader in suspense until the final sentence. TFD (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to be any additional context to provide here, at least from the reference in this case to Jennifer Rubin. The Guardian is referencing a six word tweet. That's pretty lazy (but all too common) journalism, where you just need to fill up space and so you turn to your twitter feed. GMG^talk 12:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree as well, a single source with a single commentator's comments doesn't merit WP:DUE Weight. I say remove it. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A single commentators opinion lacks weight, especially considering the contentious nature of the allegations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Chex, there are several factors contrary to your conclusion here. First, this analysis is being presented by a secondary source. So it is not just one person's opinion. Second, Ms. Rubin is a notable expert analyst on such matters. Her view would be OK content if attributed even without the secondary source. Third, this article is full of associations between Carlson and white supremacy, scattered in many sections. THEREFORE: this is valid content and can be restored, although I would change "one commentator" to "Washington Post columnist" SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the comment is undue. This is exactly the sort of low quality journalism we should avoid. It's reporting on the opinions of commentators. It's a major issue with Fox but also an issue with other sources. Springee (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please rebut my comment above, "chex...", which contradicts the assertions you've just made. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition to her column in the Washington Post, Rubin's comments are covered by The Week, The Guardian and Black Enterprise. MSNBC covers the viewpoint as well. Looks WP:DUE to me. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I hate to revive this since it appears to be a settled discussion, but we need to consider how the article currently looks. We have "Racism and White Supremacy" as a subsection under the heading "Political Views", and it's just a summary of two comments he made with zero added context or third party commentary (despite the fact that the many sources cited contain plenty of material to include) neither of which are overt enough to fall under WP:OBV. The removed paragraph was the only one where Carlson's remarks have been explicitly characterized as white supremacist. If wikipedia is going to insinuate that the subject holds racist and white supremacist views, which is what the structure of the article suggests (and which I personally would agree with), we will need reliable secondary sources explicitly describing his views as racist, otherwise we have a severe BLP violation on our hands. As things stand, the above discussion concluded with the removal of the only such instance the article had. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Overly biased

Not a forum EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the most biased Wikipedia listing I have ever read. It cheapens the entire platform and makes me question its use as a source of information. 71.80.98.102 (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC) I agree but as a BLP we can't be too harsh on him. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) You're going to need to give examples of what edits on this page contradict wikipedia policy. AstralNomad (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC) These detail-free IP posts are nothing more than concern trolling and can be safely deleted rather than responded to. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Israel

Tucker Carlson has become widely known as a leading American critic of military aid to Israel. Definitely merits inclusion in the lead. I'm struggling to see where the opposition is coming from. KlayCax (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the reliable source saying he is widely know as such? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Reception" section

Is it unusual for a BLP to have a "Reception" section? Should its content be moved to other parts of the article instead? Llll5032 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring over "conspiracy theorist" label

I've fully protected to the version before the edit-warring started. Muboshgu, I trust you consider yourself involved here and wouldn't use your admin tools to continue this edit war.

Just as an aside I'd suggest finding some reliable source actually calling him a conspiracy theorist and then discuss quoting and attributing that quote rather than edit-warring over calling him that in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, of course I have WP:INVOLVED myself and will not continue an edit war. Yesterday, I reverted an IP that removed content that I thought was settled on the talk page by consensus. Seeing after that it wasn't settled, I didn't jump back in to restore it again and have no intention to do so – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that the way I wrote that seemed to be not assuming that, I just wanted to explain why full protection seemed like the way to go, didn't want to make it look like I was advantaging one point of view over the other! It wasn't an attempt at cautioning you, more to communicate to others. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No offense taken. I see in the edit history that the content had only been added a couple of days prior. I should have checked more closely before reverting the removal. Consensus is required. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ever since Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox News as a result of knowingly lying to his audience, which was a large factor in the 787 million dollar settlement Fox had to pay for spreading known misinformation, Tucker Carlson has had free range to be his own boss and say what he wants without the fear of repercussion. Tucker Carlson has continued to spread countless conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false, in which he continues to spread as if they weren’t proven false, as this is how he makes his living. People like Alex Jones and Mark Dice are correctly described as “conspiracy theorists” in their wikipedia bio’s. There is absolutely no reason to dispute whether Tucker Carlson is considered a “conspiracy theorist” or not at this point in his career, whether you are partisan to his opinion or not. There are more than enough credible sources to confirm that Dwest25 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Labelling of Carlson as a conspiracy theorist in the lead

I included that in the lead because reliable sources state that Carlson perpetuates conspiracy theories, and it is mentioned several times in the article body. It gets more attention than Carlson being a writer, which is already included in the first sentence (as opposed to somewhere down the line). There's also sources specifically calling Carlson a conspiracy theorist e.g. here.

BRD states: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." None of three users who reverted has done this. Two gave no reason, and one claimed that Carlson being a conspiracy theorist wasn't factual, despite the article body backing it up, and additionally attempted to disguise their revert as a minor edit. If you disagree with this edit, please state a reason for that, and don't cite BRD while not adhering to it yourself. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message", I suggest you revert. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." - I suggest you come up with a reason why the revert was done in the first place, which has not been given. Cortador (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was, you are edit warring, and you need to get a consensus." per WP:ONUS it is down to you to get consensus", that can't be more clear. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

104.52.158.23 and EvergreenFir gave no reason for their reverts. 86.8.81.241 called the revert a "factual correction" and tried to hide it as a minor edit. The addition was not factually incorrect - the information is already in the article - and at most, they could have contested whether this information should be in the lead, which they didn't do. StardustToStardust and you likewise didn't give content-based reason for the revert, and based your reverts on the previous, insufficiently explained reverts. If you expect me to consider this a dispute, I expect this to actually be disputed, not reverted without explanation. Cortador (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No we gave polcy-based ones. Which you are in breach off. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Policy-based reasons that only arose because no content-based reason were given, and are therefore insufficient. Cortador (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Restored per MOS:LABEL. This is a contentious label and as such, it ought require significant weight from sources that aren't opinions or political hit-pieces. If there are scholarly articles that explore how and why Carlson is a defacto conspiracy theorist then I might change my opinion on the matter, but giving undue weight to the opinion of left-leaning news sources on this is why there are legitimate concern with bias on political BLPs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"Left-leaning news sources"? Are you prepared to argue that it's left-leaning to identify demonstrably false statements, defamatory narratives etc.? What is political about that? SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead already states that Carlson "has promoted conspiracy theories", and it is mentioned throughout the article. Please explain why this, in your opinion, is given undue weight and isn't neutral. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

When assessing the neutrality of an article, it's important to consider the overall balance and context of the information presented. If an article consistently highlights or emphasizes a particular aspect of a person's actions or beliefs, such as promoting conspiracy theories, without providing a broader perspective or context, I believe it could be seen as giving undue weight.

Neutrality in journalism generally involves presenting information in a fair and balanced manner, allowing readers to form their own opinions based on a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The sources cited labeling Carlson as a conspiracy theorist, in my opinion, don't do this. These articles have a tendency to disproportionately focus on Carlson's promotion of conspiracy theories without adequately addressing other aspects of their work or providing counterarguments, as such, I believe one could argue them as being biased or lacking in neutrality. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You are free then to rewrite the main article body. Unless that has been altered, the lead will reflect the article body. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

We mention it in the lede, right now. A case needs to be made for the change of wording. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made the my case: this is what Carlson is known for now, after being a former talking head and above being a writer. Cortador (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it is mentioned in the lede. By the way, he is still a talking head, and is he more known as a conspiracy theorist than as a writer, source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the "spread conspiracy theories" is already part of the lead. Labeling a BLP subject a conspiracy theorist requires a much higher weight of sources. Currently the sourcing doesn't rise to this level. Springee (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The source is the article body, which should be reflected in the lead. Carlson's writings is covered in three short paragraphs - one of which is about a book he didn't write, but contributed to via interviews - whereas the conspiracies he pushes are mentioned throughout the article. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• I reverted this since iam not seeing consensus for being in the lead sentence.--Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I can understand an editor who wasn't aware of this discussion might not have realized this was discussed and didn't (in my read of above) have consensus prior to the recent addition. That said, those who think it was DUE should make the case here. Springee (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• When I restored the content, I wasn't aware of this discussion, so I won't revert the deletion. I do think we have abundant enough coverage in the body and lead to justify labeling him a conspiracy theorist at the beginning of the lead. There is no question that it's an accurate description backed by myriad RS.

The current way of spreading mentions throughout the article has the effect of hiding the matter. It should be consolidated into a section labeled "Promotion of conspiracy theories" and then we should label him a conspiracy theorist at the beginning of the lead as this is what he's known for. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that the edit-warring has paused, a few comments. Some of this results in the imprecise definition of conspiracy theorist. Does it include those who push them? Our category definition says yes. But Wikipedia is not RS. IMO he is because of his very heavy usage of the literary technique of suggesting a conspiracy by asking a question (which advances a conspiracy), and then ending it with the idiom “I’m just saying.” Which is a way of saying something without taking the blame for saying it. (Coincidentally this idiom was oft used in the 1943 Ira Wolfert book Tucker’s People.) I think this is clearly conspiracy theory weaving. But I’m not RS. If we cannot use the term, I think we can certainly say conspiracy theory promoter/promulgator, or the like at the beginning, as he has probably been one of the most effective in recent history. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ever since Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox News as a result of knowingly lying to his audience, which was a large factor in the 787 million dollar settlement Fox had to pay for spreading known misinformation, Tucker Carlson has had free range to be his own boss and say what he wants without the fear of repercussion. Tucker Carlson has continued to spread countless conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false, in which he continues to spread as if they weren’t proven false, as this is how he makes his living. People like Alex Jones and Mark Dice are correctly described as “conspiracy theorists” in their wikipedia bio’s. There is absolutely no reason to dispute whether Tucker Carlson is considered a “conspiracy theorist” or not at this point in his career, whether you are partisan to his opinion or not. There are more than enough credible sources to confirm that. Dwest25 (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)