Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Debate over whether Tucker Carlson is a “conspiracy theorist”

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. There is no debate to be had whether Tucker Carlson is a conspiracy theorist as he no longer has to preface his conspiracies as “just asking questions” on Fox News. Anyone reverting him being classified as a “conspiracy theorist” is doing so because of partisan political views and denial Dwest25 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please offer the sources that describe Tucker Carlson as a conspiracy theorist. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dwest25, that final sentence of yours is wp:casting aspersions and not wp:assuming good faith. It's also demonstrably untrue; large numbers of experienced and well-intentioned editors here regularly protect from BLP violations the articles about people they despise or hold in contempt, and the reason they do it is that Wikipedia follows the sources.

You're inexperienced here, so people are trying to be patient as you learn how we work, but our patience won't last forever. Making accusations of editing outside of policy in aid of personal political views without actual evidence that's what's happening is something that can get you blocked from editing. Continuing to do it after being warned is considered wp:disruptive, also a blockable offense. Stop now. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Where have I made my personal political views known? Acknowledging the fact that Tucker Carlson IS without a shadow of a doubt a conspiracy theorist and providing sources to support that claim doesn’t mean I’m on either political side, regardless of whether it implies it or not. Dwest25 (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dwest25, I don't think I said anything about you making your personal political views known, and honestly from a policy standpoint no one cares what your personal political views are. What I said is you've accused other people of politically-motivated editing. You wrote Anyone reverting him being classified as a “conspiracy theorist” is doing so because of partisan political views and denial. (Emphasis mine). And that is casting aspersion and assuming bad faith, which is not okay here. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So, in layman’s terms, according to you Tucker Carlson isn’t a conspiracy theorist and shouldn’t be labeled as such? Dwest25 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dwest25, we don't care what I think. I'm not even editing here, just adminning. What I would advise is that you find reliable sources calling him that and use those sources to try to persuade other editors here. Valereee (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think; what matters is if that label is widely used (per MOS:LABEL) in articles that can be individually verified as reliable and not WP:RSOPINION or WP:HEADLINE. The majority of articles that label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist are non-academic and are likely to be heavily partisan, lacking objective neutrality. Inclusion of a label either in wiki-voice or via attribution without a significant number of WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources that are objectively neutral is a violation of BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

They don't have to be "neutral". They have to be "reliable" as per our evaluations of reliability. The majority of articles that label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist are non-academic and are likely to be heavily partisan. You said, It doesn't matter what we think. That appears to be your personal evaluation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

O3, can you clarify that what you mean is that the statement "The majority of articles that label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist are non-academic and are likely to be heavily partisan" is the personal evaluation you're talking about, not "It doesn't matter what we think; what matters is if that label is widely used", which is the policy KCM was referring to? Just trying to help parse this for newer editors. Valereee (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Facts matter. In fact, reporting the facts and the truth is as paramount as it’s ever been in the history of mankind RIGHT NOW as we speak - in a time where dangerous debunked conspiracy theories, misinformation and propaganda is at the tips of peoples fingers 24/7 365.

Refer to Alex Jones and Mark Dice’s wikipedia pages. What makes them “conspiracy theorists” and not Tucker Carlson? Tucker Carlson has irrefutably promoted more false conspiracy theories than the both of them combined. He just has a much larger platform to do it. Where is the difference between Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones/Mark Dice? What am I missing? Dwest25 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly how many of these separate discussions about the same topic, are going to be opened on this BLP's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

POV and false neutrality

Regardless of what one might think of Carlson, he is increasingly described in numerous good WP:RS as a "Russian propagandist" and "conspiracy theorist". Notably, many RS also make a point of explicitly stating that Carlson "is not a journalist". The article should reflect this, and not try to claim that Carlson is a "conservative commentator" or any other euphemism that depict him as more respectable or thrustworthy than how RS describe him. Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Commentator and Journalist are not synonyms. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed extensively in the past but if reliable sources are now explicitly saying that he's not a journalist, we can certainly update the article to reflect that. Could you provide a few examples that we can work from? –dlthewave ☎ 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

True, but I see very few RS describing him as "commentator" either. The two terms dominating in RS seem to be "propagandist" and "conspiracy theorist". As it's our task to reflect RS, I would suggest using those terms in the first sentence. I will add some references here in the disscussion. ~~

Plane crash source

I think I found an offically verified record for the plane crash which Tucker Carlson was on. The record also contains a lot of detailed information about the flight. The information Tucker gave matches all the information in the record. As I am currently unable to edit the article, I ask someone who can to add this source to the relevant section (third paragraph under "Career"). Thanks. CyberOne25 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Citation needed" can be solved easily

In the section "Vladimir Putin interview" there is a "Citation needed"-Template. The bbc.com/news/world-europe-68223148 source after the following sentence does give the needed citation: "outspoken defender of Mr Putin since the war began". This is literally in the text, at least in the 20240222164654 Internet Archive version. You may delete this Talk thread after solving the "Citation needed" in the Wikipedia article. --2003:6:33AE:3D51:B446:1EC7:749:9951 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Carlson's graduation

"Despite being listed as a member of the class of 1992, Carlson did not complete enough credits to graduate and did not receive a diploma."

This claim is supported by a single source, a book, with no accessibility except you go out and get a hold of it.

Multiple sources—Britannica, New York Times, inter al.—state that Carlson did graduate; in summary, in 1991 he left college with a B.A. in history. JohndanR (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed that inaccuracy with a credible source. Not to mention this citation used a few sentences later > https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/tucker-carlson.php mentions him graduating. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just deleted the ref-tags because they do not work correctly in talk pages --2003:6:33AE:3D51:B446:1EC7:749:9951 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's uncommon for BLPs to explicitly call out an individual did not graduate; rather, that fact is not mentioned at all.

As mentioned above, multiple reliable sources state Carlson did graduate; some author, whose source is unknown, made contradictory claims. Wiki may consider going so far as to call out this discrepancy, but completely erasing prior assertions because someone claims they aren't true is not encyclopedic. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused, if he was listed as a member of the class in 1992, how can he have graduated in 1991? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The theory of he finished in fall of 1991 he could be part of the class of 1992 since the official graduation is in the spring.

Looking at the original question, if only one source claims he didn't graduate and most say he did I would ignore that single source absent strong evidence. Carlson is the story of public figure who's credentials would be strongly questioned if such a gap was found. Springee (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Springee, @Kcmastrpc keeps reverting my edit, i don’t want to start an edit war. I was hoping you could take the reigns on the final say of what the outcome is on this one my friend! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was mistaken, I didn't realize you were trying to restore the more accepted position (for some reason). I've restored your changes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s ok! See you around. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Friends with Tucker updating? Weird 2603:7080:EC01:DA49:2034:6631:8AEA:2C7B (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

Refer to the sentence: "Carlson traveled to Russia in February 2024 to interview President Vladimir Putin, whom he "has been an outspoken defender of".[213]" in the section: Vladimir Putin interview.

This sentence is convoluted, uses quotes needlessly, and is perhaps ungrammatical. The use of 'whom' seems incorrect. I suggest changing it to:

Carlson traveled to Russia in February 2024 to interview President Vladimir Putin whose Carlson has been an outspoken defender[213].

or

Carlson has been an outspoken defender of President Vladimir Putin[213]. He traveled to Russia in February 2024 to interview Putin.

for better readability. The.real.curious.george (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The use of 'whom' is correct in the sentence, and, IMO, the current sentence reads better than the two proposed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You should at least consider using "of whom" and make the sentence less clunky. See https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/623470/is-this-use-of-whom-grammatical/623474#623474 for a good discussion. Many seem to think that your current choice makes the sentence clunky (although grammatical). The.real.curious.george (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

His father owned property in...

There is a grammatical error in the sentence listing the locations of his father's properties. The land in Nevada and Vermont is described as "property" (and obviously is on the mainland) while the Maine and Nova Scotia properties are islands. The transition from the two mainland properties to the two island properties requires the word "and" between "Nevada" and "Vermont", thus distinguishing all four locations properly.

Clearly this is very minor, but the extreme restrictions on this article dictate that I explain this edit. I expect anyone reverting the edit to explain why it should never have been made. Rontrigger (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Carlson should be described as "far right" since sources describe him as such

As of now, the lead states that Carlson is "conservative" and " circulating far-right ideas". I think he should just (either instead of additionally) be described as "far right", sice this is what plenty of reliable sources use e.g. Sky News, Politico, The Guardian, The Independent (here and here), the WSJ, and CNBC. Cortador (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not also say he is a conservative? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, either additionally or instead, and instead because not one of sources actually calls Carlson conservative. Two sources in the article, from 2009 and 2017, describe him as such, but it seems that this descriptor isn't used any more, as Carlson has drifted further to the right. That said, we can use both descriptors if there's consensus for that. Cortador (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Re the suggestion "it seems that this descriptor isn't used any more": I googled "tucker carlson" "conservative" today and within the first page of hits got things dated 2023-2024 from Barron's Britannica Politico Al Jazeera Washington Post. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Both descriptors are fine then. Cortador (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that conservative and far-right do not mean the same thing, at at least not in reality. In the world of mainstream establishment mouthpieces, anything that doesn't adhere to the narrow dictates of their peculiar brand of leftism is, in their mind, far-right. It's become an extremely overused and meaningless term and should be simply dropped from all Wikipedia articles. Zyloba (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPSOURCES, some of the sources you listed while credible, other editors have noted as either bias and/or opinion pieces. If you must include “far-right” why not say something along the lines of “The Wall Street Journal, describes Tucker as Far-Right.” Due to the fact that it’s all opinion. That’s just my view. Interesting point you brought up my friend! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a single source I have listed above is an opinion piece. I don't know why you think that a WSJ descriptor should be attributed; as per the list you linked to, the WSJ is generally reliable and the notes do not mention attribution. Cortador (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I was using the Wall Street Journal as an example. Each source you listed whom calls Tucker “far-right” is an opinion of the Author(s) of said article. It’s not a fact that he is or isn’t. We have to be in line with WP:NPOV Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, those are no opinion pieces. They are news articles. Cortador (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please understand the difference between reporting of facts and opinions mixed into factual reports [1] (and from a WT editorial on the topic [2]). That sources call him far-right might be encyclopedic but the problem with so much of this is we are telling vs showing. If nothing else, we can take a wait and see approach. Just because we have recent sources that are making these claims doesn't mean we should instantly change the article, especially when the term is a contentious label. If nothing else, it's poor writing style (see IMPARTIAL). Springee (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

According whom is the label "contentious"? Cortador (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether something is contentious or not depends on whether the sources are in disagreement about it, per WP:NPOV's avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts and Avoid stating facts as opinions; if high-quality eliable sources state something without any indication that it is controversial, and no other sources contest them, then it is not contentious and should be stated in the article voice. (This is a frequent problem people have when interpreting related policy, since everyone has their own "gut feeling" about what terms and words and descriptors they find controversial and in what context - but it's important that we rely on the sources, not on our gut feelings.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not what LABEL says. From LABEL, "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." Since our Far-Right topic says it's associated with Nazi's, yes, far-right is always a contentious label. Springee (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but calling him a "conservative" is blatantly false as the guy is basically a right-wing populist and hasn't held conservative views for a long time. But I suppose if enough sources are using the word "conservative" incorrectly there's no sense in arguing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you said is correct, but do you have any evidence that the sources are in disagreement about this characterization of Tucker? If not, then by your own logic, there's nothing controversial about it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

See AllSides: "Far Right Also known as the extreme right, ultra right, or radical right, this term is most often used pejoratively to refer to politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the mainstream political right. Sara Diamond made a similar comment in her book, Roads to Dominion, p. 5.[3]

The term is used because unlike other ideological groups, such as liberals and conservatives, they do not have a shared self-description. For example, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada calls himself a liberal, while no one calls themself far right.

Therefore, we should be cautious in using the term and make sure if it is used it is to enlighten readers rather than shame the subjects of articles.

Descriptions of political positions by journalists should be seen as analysis and therefore not rs. Journalists are experts in telling us what happened today, but they are not political scientists, sociologists or historians.

I don't see the problem with conservative. While most experts agree that American conservatism is misnamed, it was the term adopted by the radical right in the U.S. in the 1950s. I don't see a big difference between Carlson and the Birchers, McCarthyists and other extremists who first called themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The implication with far-right politics is that it covers ultranationalism and authoritarianism. Is Carlson a nationalist? Does he support political violence? Because ultranationalists generally do. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Determining whether or not Carlson meets the criteria for the far right is synthesis. What matters is whether experts have come to the same conclusion. MAGA supporters blame the Democratic Party for violence by BLM demonstrators. Americans historically have portrayed their opponents in extreme terms, which is ironic considering how little difference there is except in such as issues as which bathrooms transgendered students should use. TFD (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Americans historically have portrayed their opponents in extreme terms" Far from unique to Americans. What you describe is demonization: "propaganda or moral panic directed against any individual or group, for the purpose of defamation, character assassination and/or dehumanization." Anyway, the ultranationalist type has some common features across continents. The typical "we are going to regain our past greatness" bullshit.  :

• "Janusz Bugajski, summing up the doctrine in practical terms, "in its most extreme or developed forms, ultra-nationalism resembles fascism, marked by a xenophobic disdain of other nations, support for authoritarian political arrangements verging on totalitarianism, and a mythical emphasis on the 'organic unity' between a charismatic leader, an organizationally amorphous movement-type party, and the nation"." ..
• "Roger Griffin has stated that ultranationalism is essentially founded on xenophobia in a way that finds supposed legitimacy "through deeply mythicized narratives of past cultural or political periods of historical greatness or of old scores to settle against alleged enemies"."

Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually describing opponents in extreme terms is largely unique to Americans. For example, the Founding Fathers insulted each other as royalists and jacobins. But over in France, where there actually were royalists and jacobins. Similarly, there actually are communists, fascists, socialists in legislatures outside the U.S.

It doesn't matter whether you believe Carlson meets Griffin's definition of ultra-nationalism but whether experts do. However, it is doubtful. As pointed out in a paper from the Carnegie foundation, "The Paradoxes of American Nationalism", American nationalism is qualitatively different from nationalism elsewhere. It "is defined not by notions of ethnic superiority, but by a belief in the supremacy of U.S. democratic ideals." We would expect for example a U.S. nationalist to denounce Putin as un-American. Biden supporters. who meet the definition of American nationalists, denounce Carlson for LACK of patriotism.

The problem comes IMHO in trying to explain the politics of the U.S. in the 2020s by referring to the politics of Italy in the 1920s. TFD (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually describing opponents in extreme terms is largely unique to Americans.

If you sincerely believe this, perhaps take some time to familiarize yourself with the views of one Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Or do you think there is nothing "extreme" about labeling your opponents as Judeo-Bolsheviks? Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If the example you come up with is HItler and Mussolini, then it must be pretty unusual. But the reality is that Hitler and Mussolini's most hated opponents were in fact Bolsheviks. The official name of the Russian Communist Party at the time was the All Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

Note also that the Communists referred to Hitler and Mussolini as fascists.

Calling people communists or fascists (or royals and jacobins) when that in fact is what they are is not describing them in extreme terms. It's only extreme when those terms are used against opponents who are not fascists and communists. That's why describing opponents in extreme terms is largely peculiar to the U.S. It's because there are no actual communists or fascists in the political mainstream. TFD (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson is better described as a "far-right conspiracy theorist" than as a conservative political commentator. As the third paragraph shows, Carlson has pushed, among other things, the far-right, racist conspiracy theory of the Great Replacement. The fact that there is even a debate about calling him conservative, as if he was in the same political camp as Mitt Romney of John McCain, only shows the extent to which racist and anti-democratic ideas of the far right have been mainstreamed into conservative discourse. Describing Carlson as conservative is *not* a politically neutral move but has the consequence of normalizing his extreme positions. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162211070060 ) Fstengel (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that expertise plays a role in the discussion, I should probably add that I have a PhD in political science and work on Trumpism, populism, etc., and among political scientists it is not debated whether people pushing the Great Replacement narrative are part of the far right. Just because it is being mainstreamed by people like Carlson does not make it less extreme.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13548565221091983

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13684302211028293 Fstengel (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these research papers appear to have been peer reviewed or critiqued, so I do not believe their use to support an argument is valid. Additionally, even if they were, their abstracts clearly indicate that the Great Replacement narrative has been coopted by more mainstream conservatives. Are you suggesting that because Carlson has promulgated some of these talking points it makes him "far-right", or are you arguing the opposite?

the paper shows that the conspiracy theory is a flexible political discourse that can be used strategically by both far-right and mainstream right-wing actors.

First, such ideas are no longer limited to the outer fringes of the public discourse, as the proponents of this conspiracy can now be found in mainstream politics, the media, and the general public. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say "coopted"? Why not just face the fact that formerly moderate right-wing conservatives have become radicalized by Trump and far-right media and moved far to the right? Radical, and rather rapid, changes to the right-wing media landscape have changed the Overton window of political discourse, and the far-right has become the face of the formerly moderate right-wing. It hardly exists anymore. The far-right has become the mainstream for them because there are hardly any right-wing sources left that are anywhere near the center. They have abandoned that sphere to please Trump and keep their audience. If someone like Carlson is pushing far-right ideas, narratives, and conspiracy theories (and they are), then they are now far-right and should be described as such. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's rosy retrospection. In reality, Republicans have long played the race card, villianized minorites, interfered in democratic processes and intervened in numerous countries abroad. And who do you think appointed Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court?

John LIndsay, Lowell Weicker, John Anderson, and LIncoln Chafee left the party long ago. TFD (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some recent academic sources I found on Jstor:

• Babcock, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 2020, Vol. 38, No. 2 (2020), pp. 207-231: Tucker Carlson, a conservative journalist and political commentator on Fox News, explained...
• Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2023: In 2021, conservative media personality Tucker Carlson broadcast his show from Budapest for a week...
• Chavez, A Field Guide to White Supremacy, University of California Press, 2021: Ehrenreich’s observations from a left-liberal perspective were echoed from the conservative political Right by Tucker Carlson, the Fox News television program host.
• Askonas, The New Atlantis , Summer 2022, No. 69, (Summer 2022), pp. 3-35: The conservative host tried valiantly, jousting like he was untouched. But as the segment wore on, his voice kept going higher, he sounded desperate. “I think you’re a good comedian,” he told Stewart. “I think your lectures are boring.” But by the end of the segment, you could see the wheels turning in his head. His name was Tucker Carlson.

My quick search did not reveal such a source that calls him "far-right".

Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. Tucker is absolutely not "far-right". If he's far-right by today's terminology, then half of America is far-right and most of America was far-right just a decade ago. This article is misinformative. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Or half of Americans are far-right? Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that only half the American population are ultra-nationalists, nativists, and in support of authoritarianism? I was under the impression that Americans are highly xenophobic.Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. I'm suggesting that Tucker isn't far-right at all. He's an ordinary American with a family who wants a safe country, the ability to protect himself and NOT having the government always telling him what to do. These days, the only people who are moving closer and closer towards authoritarianism are Democrats (in this country, liberals in general). It's no longer a far-right (or even moderate right) ideology as it was during The Third Reich. All over the western world, liberal governments are slowly stripping their citizens of rights. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I should point out that the reason for my "half the American population" reference is that what Democrats deem "far-right" in 2024 was mainstream a decade ago. It isn't the right that changed. Democrats made a very, very hard shift to the left since the Obama admin. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not an appropriate place to post your political rants. We're here to discuss the article, not if Tucker Carlson's politics are right or wrong. Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

Remove the false claim that Darryl Cooper "endorsed Holocaust denial." I watched the original source material, and this is clearly a misrepresentation of what Darryl Cooper said. Furthermore, please remove footnote 228. The article is not even in English, and web browsers won't translate it, so I can't even see the the citation allegedly referenced here. Zyloba (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the foreign language reference with an English reference. But with so much notable cricism, it's impossible to remove the section on the controversy. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Darryl Cooper subsection

Is the addition of the Coopoer section really due in this article. The section comes off as a bit of a coatrack since the sources are criticizing Cooper, not Carlson. The only criticism of Carlson seems to be that the sources feel he should have pushed back. Put another way, what makes this interview any different than many others where Carlson interviews a controversial person? Springee (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Mostly because of the sheer volume of criticism this particular interview received, which was compounded by the fact that it took place during a presidential election season in which one of the two major candidates (and his running mate) are closely allied to Carlson.

Indeed, in terms of the amount of negative attention it got, the Cooper interview is probably second only to Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin (which actually has its own article, not just its own section in Carlson’s article!) 2604:2D80:7186:600:0:0:0:1CAD (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because people are eager to defend the Western imperial war machine? Therefore defaming Darryl Cooper, claiming he engaged in Holocaust denial. Zyloba (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I will add that Holocaust denial is rather more serious than just being historical revisionism, and may in fact be very due. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that since this is Tucker Carlson's bio, not Darryl Cooper's bio, all the criticism needs to be about Carlson's hosting of Cooper, and not criticism of Cooper's points of view. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper closed as a redirect to this article, meaning there is a consensus to include something about the interview within this article. We just need to make sure the focus is on Tucker Carlson, and not on Darryl Cooper. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That closing doesn't decide consensus here. This looks like a rather trivial insurance given Carlson's long history. Springee (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that condemnation by the White House and two dozen Members of Congress make it "trivial" matter? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein:: Does the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper carry no weight here? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's up to editors here to decide what should be in the article. If consensus here is to not cover Cooper in this article, the redirect resulting from the AfD should be submitted to WP:RFD. Sandstein 08:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the AfD contributors so that they can contribute to the discussion about whether or not to cover the Darryl Cooper incident in Tucker Carlson's article: @Isaidnoway, @Chairmanmeow, @Xegma, @AusLondonder, @GordonGlottal, @LizardJr8, @Lostsandwich, @The Four Deuces, @Bluethricecreamman, @FeldBum, @John Z, @Donald Albury, @Andol, @HonestManBad, @Kimdime, @Hemiauchenia. Sandstein 08:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An RFC might attract more eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look. You're right that it will be sensitive, since we don't want to coatrack; the section should be about Tucker, not Cooper. --FeldBum (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the subsection. An alternative might be to include a couple of sentences in the Tucker on Twitter / Tucker on X section - On September 2, 2024, Carlson hosted podcaster Darryl Cooper on Tucker on X. Cooper endorsed Holocaust denial and otherwise departed from the historical consensus regarding World War II. The interview was criticized by many, including The White House, 24 Jewish members of Congress, Sohrab Ahmari, Erick Erickson and Mike Lawler. - similar wording to the Larry Sinclair interview in that section. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this... a couple of sentences under X, or somewhere in the Immigration and Race section, would be enough. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A sentence or two as outlined here seems like a reasonable compromise. Springee (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The interview has received significant coverage and therefore has weight for inclusion. What makes it different from other interviews is that Carlson appears to endorse some of Cooper's views, not just that he did not push back on his false claims. But weight does not depend on whether rs should have paid attention to the interview but whether or not they did. The policy presumes that anything that has extensive coverage is significant.

I notice that the sources used do not say that Cooper endorsed holocaust denial on the show. An article in the The Bulwark (website) explains why the NYT does not consider Cooper's position to amount to Holocaust denial and instead calls in "Holocaust revisionism."[4] We might consider just mentioning what Cooper said.

Per COATRACK, we should not use this interview to introduce information about Cooper not in articles about the interview. The deletion of Cooper's article means that he lacks notability and therefore nothing about him is significant other than this interview.

TFD (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have plenty of weight and coverage for inclusion. Tied to Carlson by his support not only the interviews but beliefs as well. Should be included. ContentEditman (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with editors who favor inclusion because of the weight of RS describing the interview and reactions to it. Only sources that mention Carlson should be used. Llll5032 (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The Mountain of Eden, you restored a full subsection with this material as well as content that was not about Carlson but Cooper/Cooper's claims. I don't see consensus for that. As FeldBum, LizardJr8, Isaidnoway and TFD said, we should have limited content that is about about Carlson and we need to avoid a coat rack. Springee (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed a sentence that's about Cooper. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The material should be integrated into the general section on his X platform work. Additionally, the response section can be reduced as well. This is just another outrage of the week for Carlson, an article that is already in dire need of a through reduction in length. Unlike the Putin interview this doesn't seem like something that would survive the 10 year test. Springee (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another way to put it, this article is at a length were for every word added we should remove at least an equal number of words. If this is important to include, what should be removed to keep the overall length the same? Is this supposed to be an encyclopedic article or just a running list of Carlson outrages? Springee (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The article currently contains 14,171 words. Per WP:LENGTH, once the article gets to 15,000 words, it would "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". How to go about doing that would be a separate discussion than this discussion. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The recommendation to start considering trimming starts at "> 8,000 words May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size." The next level is "> 9,000 words Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." To quote myself from a few years back (when this was shorter than now), "Look at the length of the article on Robert Hooke and look at the list of things Hooke contributed to the world. Now look at the length of this article and all the details included in it. Hooke's page is ~75kb while Carlson is 2.4x longer at ~180k. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most editors would feel Carlson is less significant than Hooke. Springee (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)