Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Whitewashing of Carlson's rape comments

An IP editor whitewashed all kinds of RS content from the article. Rather than assist in restoring the non-whitewashed version (which one would expect from regular veteran editors), another editor, CharlesShirley, decided to help the IP editor by removing comments made by Carlson making light of rape. CharlesShirley claimed that the cited RS did not explicitly use that language, which is true. Therefore, we can instead use the RS language. which is that Carlson's comments "seemingly condoned child rape".[1] Or perhaps just elaborate on his rape comments, which included defending a man convicted of felony rape, calling for an end to rape shield laws for rape victims, and suggesting underage marriage is not as serious as forcible child rape.[2][3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What sources do we have discussing this issue? Is this a case where he is really "defending rape" or one where he is concerned, as an example, regarding laws that ignore protections for the accused (I'm asking as I am not familiar with the comments nor the articles about them). I will say that a lot of the content that tends to get added to this article is the "outrage of the day" sort of stuff. In total this is significant behavior but each individual outrage, often little more than tweaking the noses of commentators on the other side of the political fence, are not. Springee (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow on comment. Looking at the links it appears that Carlson said something controversial in 2009. A decade later Media Matters (hardly an unbiased group) pointed these comments out and tried to make a big deal out of it. As evidence that Carlson says things that cause controversy, yes. As a stand along thing in the article, not clear this is DUE. Springee (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not sourced to Media Matters, so try again. It was covered by dozens of RS. It's very tiresome to see you argue that every single thing that in some way reflects poorly on a conservative or a conservative cause must be WP:UNDUE. Less than 4 minutes after you yourself claimed that you were unfamiliar with the topic in question, you had suddenly come to the determination that it was undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources you provided said Media Matters dug up the clips. Please AGF and respect CIVIL as you promised to do recently. Springee (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Once a secondary source has covered it, the fact that it was originally reported by Media Matters no longer has any relevance to our editorial decisions. As in, I mean literally none whatsoever - it is not a policy-based argument for exclusion. WP:SECONDARY sources lend their weight, interpretation, and reputation to the things they cover, which means that it's the weight of the secondary source that we need to consider, not our personal analysis of the sources they used or our personal opinions about how (or whether) they ought to have covered those sources. We're not supposed to second-guess sources - it's obviously an inappropriate argument, effectively asking us to substitute personal judgement and WP:OR for the reporting of the source. If, in fact, they got it wrong, the appropriate thing is to find another source of similar weight disputing them, not heartfelt but ultimately irrelevant arguments that a clearly-reliable secondary source shouldn't be paying attention to Media Matters. In fact, most political reporting ultimately relies on secondary sources covering the comments of clearly biased, often-unreliable primary sources close to the subject - that's why we use such secondary sources in the first place. (Also, I feel like we've had this conversation a dozen times before? If you don't think higher-quality sources should be reporting something, or if you think they should be giving it a more critical eye, write a letter to the editor there asking for a retraction. But until / unless they do so, we have to go by their reporting rather than arguments that boil down to second-guessing them) --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

First, per NOCON the fact that this is long standing text doesn't mean we restore it because this is a BLP and the material is controversial, ie suggesting, with no context, that Carlson makes light of rape. Second, WP:OR specifically allows editors to evaluate claims made in generally RSs. OR only applies at the article level, not on talk pages. When the orginal source is questionable with respect to the claims it makes we can say this shouldn't have weight for inclusion. Furthermore, in the wikipedia article this content is presented in wiki-voice rather than as a biased opinion source. Note that the sources that repeated Media Matter's claims attributed the claim to Media Matters rather than to themselves. Springee (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:, I'm not sure I agree that the changes are whitewashing vs the earlier content was an attempt to highlight negative material as a form of blackwashing.[[4]] This is a BLP so we should err on the side of caution/not blackwashing. I would suggest that people defend the removals as well as the inclusions. @38.104.173.238 and CharlesShirley: to offer their views. Springee (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune has details which Time etc. didn't get into. The charge was "rape as an accomplice" (a charge that a criminal law professor said is "typically reserved for suspects more directly involved in a crime") and the conviction was overturned. (The man was convicted in another case long after Mr Carlson's comments.) CharlesShirley acted correctly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

None of your comments are relevant for Carlson's comments. As for your commentary, this is about Warren Jeffs who ran a polygamist rape cult and was convicted of "rape as an accomplice" for marrying a 14-year old to a 19-year old. The conviction was overturned years after Carlson's comments because "the lower court judge gave faulty instructions to the jury", and the case wasn't re-tried because he was already serving a life sentence at the time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: The IP removed material sourced to four impeccable sources and material sourced to another impeccable source. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PUBLICFIGURE support keeping this material. The IP did not give a policy based reason for their edits. Your "blackwashing" comment about my revert of material that has been in the article for nearly a year is uncalled for. Given that this material has been discussed before and given the shameful sock puppetry at this article, IPs need to spend more time making their case on the talk page than blanking material from the article. - MrX 🖋 19:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:, let me start by making it clear I do not think your restoration was "blackwashing". You saw what you felt was whitewashing by an IP editor and reverted the edits. That is understandable and totally reasonable. I however, would like to see some justification that the material is really DUE. I'm not going to remove it myself but I have a general concern with this and similar articles that much of what gets inserted is controversy of the moment rather than something that would really be in a non-wikipeidia BLP. This gets to my previous point that often what is long term notable about many of the comments made by Carlson is not the specific comment, rather that he often makes controversial comments. Just because a specific controversial comment was discussed by a reliable source doesn't mean the material is DUE in a BLP. As a smaller issue, I agree that IP editors often don't make a good case for their edits. Wikipedia isn't always easy for newbies who see legitimate issues with an article. In any case, my apologies for giving the impression I was accusing you of blackwashing. That was not my intent. Springee (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The content has eight source citations and there are many more available.[5] Compare that with the sources available for his book.[6]. For some reason, the IP neglected to remove that and you didn't ask for a justification for the book being DUE in a BLP. Biographies are not supposed to be a flattering collection of accomplishments. They also include failures and misdeeds. - MrX 🖋 23:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no problem with including or mentioning these comments in the article - as noted, they got mainstream coverage. However, it's important to describe these comments in an objective way. What Carlson said - if I can summarize it myself - is pretty straightforward: that violent rape is worse than child marriage, and that child marriage is in turn worse than what Warren Jeffs was convicted of, which is encouraging others to engage in child marriage. (Later on, Jeffs was accused and convicted of engaging in child rape himself, but that was not true at the time Carlson made his comments.) Carlson also argued against rape shield laws, saying that they're unfair to the accused. (Perhaps relevantly, Carlson had himself - by all accounts wrongly - been accused of rape several years earlier.) The statement in the disputed text that says that Carlson "made light of rape" is not backed up by any of the sources - I don't know where that came from. But even the other text about it in the current article, which says Carlson "defended then-alleged criminal Warren Jeffs", needs to change. First of all, it's factually incorrect - Jeffs wasn't "alleged" because he had already been convicted of a crime, albeit a more minor one ("rape as an accomplice"). More importantly, "defended" makes it sound like Carlson spoke positively about Jeffs, which is not the case. More neutral wording might be something like "argued against the 2007 conviction of Warren Jeffs, saying that Jeffs had not been found to have directly engaged in wrongdoing". Korny O'Near (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

China

Added a new section. Surprising that this hasn't been included previously. Sbelknap (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Sbelknap (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Self-sourced content

Self-sourced content about Carlson's views on issues as in this edit[7] does not belong here. Furthermore, claims made by Carlson and his guests should not be described as if they are statements of fact (e.g. "noted"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If other sources mention Carlson's views on China then it is reasonable to include Carlson's personal statements to support or refute those views. However, it isn't clear at this time if Carlson's views on China have weight for inclusion. Snoogan's concern about statements from Carlson or his guests being presented as fact is also valid. If the topic is DUE then this can be addressed by attributing the statements but the DUE concern has to be addressed first. Per BRD I'm removing the content pending discussion here. Springee (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:American conspiracy theorists

I think this category is violation of BLP as it is not sourced and controversial. Categories should be WP:DEFINING and conspiracy theorist seems non-defining.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

[8][9][10][11][12][13] O3000 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I share the concern about calling Carlson a conspiracy theorist. Objective3000, a list of links is not actually evidence. That's asking others to take on the WP:BURDEN of proof. Certainly just interviewing someone doesn't make the interviewer a conspiracy theorist. I'm not claiming this tag is wrong at this point but do agree with those who say the proof has not been provided. Springee (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't "prove" things. The burden is always on reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you as an editor who wants to add something to the article have the burden of showing it should be there. If you say those links make your case then you need to say why. Just providing links doesn't make your case. When I look at the body of the text there is only one instance of any "conspiracy" spread by Carlson. That is a SPLC writer making a quoted claim. That is not sufficient IMHO to justify a conspiracy theorist tag on the article. You have provided several links but haven't said why they make your case. Absent some case being made to include this tag I support removal. Springee (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t add it. I’m just saying I don’t see why it was removed. You can argue that a conspiracy theorist must be the inventor of a conspiracy theory. But, I don’t see how you can argue that RS don’t say he promotes conspiracy theories:

• The first link says he has adopted “Trump’s preferred conspiracy theory toward the Kremlin”.
• The second link references two conspiracy theories pushed by him: “that shadowy forces within the government and intelligence community were secretly working to take down Trump” and “the intelligence community invented excuses to spy on the Trump campaign”.
• The third talks to a huge number of his guests promoting various conspiracy theories, mostly racist.
• The fourth: “Fox News Host Tucker Carlson Just Promoted A White Nationalist Conspiracy Theory”.
• In the fifth, critics say he is pushing an echo of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
• The last talks to the replacement conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Objective3000, the sources you cited dont support that Tucker Carlson IS a conspiracy theorist. For example, WaPo says Carlson said, referencing a right-wing conspiracy theory that shadowy forces within the government and intelligence community were secretly working to take down Trump., huffpost says Tucker Carlson continues to tout a conspiracy theory popular with neo-Nazis about South Africa’s post-apartheid land., vanityfair By adopting Trump’s preferred conspiracy theory toward the Kremlin, Carlson is essentially airing talking points on Trump’s behalf. Could you find where it says that Carlson is a conspiracy theorist in the Salon article? I couldnt find it. None of the sources you have provided says explicitly that Tucker Carlson IS a conspiracy theorist or define him as a conspiracy theorist.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources dont say that Carlson is a conspiracy theorist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They all say he promotes conspiracy theories. Considering the popularity of his show, a major promoter. Now, as I said, you could argue that you must be the inventor and not just a promoter to deserve that label. That's an argument I'd be interested in hearing. The problem I see with that argument is that who knows who is the actual inventor in most cases, and does it matter. Are you any less culpable for repeatedly promoting and and inviting others to promote on an extremely popular TV show? O3000 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary a conspiracy theorist is "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." According to the sources, Carlson is well-known for doing all those things. - MrX 🖋 17:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is original research, sources dont explicitly label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist. And as I said above does not meet the defining characteristics per WP:DEFINING, defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.... Could you find a source that says Carlson is a conspiracy theorist? if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's original research and that the sources don't explicitly call him a conspiracy theorist. However, he is known for repeatedly promoting various conspiracy theories. Whether that is a defining characteristic is a matter of editorial judgement. - MrX 🖋 11:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, please forgive my nesting here. Anyway, I agree you didn't add the tag but it was recently added then reverted. You restored it as a new edit so it is on you to justify it if challenged. I don't think your list is convincing. First, if that material isn't in the body of the article then we shouldn't cite it to justify a tag. Based on your comments here, sorry, none of those are strong claims. Certainly not to the degree needed to add a negative tag to a BLP article. This is especially true when many are not coming from neutral sources but are instead cited to left leaning sources. Springee (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a highly reliable source and not left-leaning. Now that is an unjustified negative tag. O3000 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The WP doesn't say Carlson is a conspiracy theorist. You are kidding if you think the WP isn't left leaning. [[14]],[[15]],[[16]]. It's not hard left but its not in the center either. Do you have any sources that describe Carlson as a conspiracy theorist? This is a BLP so we need to heed the difference between an actual conspiracy theorist and someone who some sources claim is repeating a conspiracy theory. At this point I think the rules of BLP as well as just that this is a new edit say we have a NOCON and the edit should be removed. Springee (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have already stated my reasoning. O3000 (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• I started a discussion in WP:BLPN.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

MediaMatters list of "white supremacist" statements

[17] is the 192-item timeline list in question here. EllenCT (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT, Korny O'Near, and Ixocactus:, I wanted to open a discussion about the inclusion of the Media Matters list of "white supremacist" statements. Looking over the list I think Korny O'Near's concerns are legitimate. It appears MM took any example where Carlson said something that a hypothetical white supremacists may agree with and called it a white supremacist statement. Ixocactus, as the editor who restored the material can you make a case for keeping it? Is this list referenced by others? I'm mixed on this list as it seems many of the items are cases where "white supremacists" ideology could be the motivation but the motivation could also be devoid of the same. Consider the Michael Vick example. Based on MM it appears that Carlson was critical of the NAACP for defending Vick after the former NFL player was caught hosting dog fighting on his property. That doesn't sound like an illegitimate criticism on its surface. Also, a compiled list doesn't seem to really add to the discussion. Many of the other sources create a unified discussion while this source seems tacked on as if we are trying to attach yet another scarlet letter to the BLP subject.

As added to the text I support removal but I think it could be worked in. Take the two paragraphs starting with "Heidi Beirich". They could be reordered so we have a topic sentence followed by more detail.

Carlson's commentary has been accused of promoting and echoing white supremacist discourse by sources including CNN, Business Insider, Vox, GQ, and Media Matters.[115][116][117][118][The MM link in question]] Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol described the views Carlson expressed on his show as "ethno-nationalism of some kind";[119] Carlson responded that Kristol had "discredited himself years ago."[120] Carlson has denied being a racist and has said he hates racism.[4] Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the US]," and accused him of promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, the idea that white people are under attack by minorities and immigrants.[112] Anti-Defamation League's Jessica Reaves has compared Carlson's defense of the nuclear family to white supremacist anti-immigrant rhetoric.[113]

I think this puts the two paragraphs into a more logical order with a topic sentence followed by the supporting sentences and sources. Springee (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Carlson's advocacy for far right identity politics is already well documented in the article, so I don't think personally that having a sentence that's merely "by the way, MMFA has a list about that" is needed at all. MMFA is on the iffy side as far as reliable sources go, as well, but my main opinion is that it's just not adding any real information. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with removal. At present the list contains 192 fully sourced and quoted statements, often with links to supporting explanatory material including videos with extensive context, and is maintained in such a way that it would easily pass WP:EL since the article establishes the noteworthiness of Carlson's white supremacist views. It's maintained with the editorial discretion and fact-checking that WP:RS demands, and WP:RSP refers to Media Matters' most recent RFC which was generally favorable apart from "occasional mistakes every now and then." I would not be opposed to moving the list to an External Link if it is deemed unsuitable for inline citation in the white supremacy section. I don't feel like you can draw conclusions about the suitability of the entire list by picking outlier examples like the Michael Vick criticism. Any timeline with almost two hundred items is going to have some flaws, but the sheer magnitude and the pattern inherent in the whole are far more substantial than a few quibbles over individual items. EllenCT (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Normally I steer clear of material cited to MMA, but at least one other source has taken note of this list:[18]. EllenCT make a compelling argument. The material is very brief so I would support inclusion, if not in prose, then as a footnote (as suggested by Springee) or as an external link. - MrX 🖋 12:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I hope we can all agree that this is an asinine list - pretty much just a list of every time Carlson has said anything negative about a non-white person, or advocated for free speech, with a misleading headline for each. (My favorite is "Carlson blamed immigration for reducing “attractiveness” of American men" - which sounds bad, until you read on and see that he was talking about immigration depressing wages of lower-class native-born Americans, which makes them less attractive to potential spouses. Oh, okay.) There may be some genuinely controversial statements there, but it's hard to find any among all the crap. Nevertheless, the Salon article makes this more noteworthy, so I, too, support Springee's compromise/suggestion. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: I just went through and picked five at random, all of which were very offensive to me. I pasted them all into this online shuffler which came up on top of a Google search, and the top five were:

1. November 17, 2016: Carlson dismissed extremism by claiming that “the American Nazi Party and the KKK don’t really exist....
2. July 9, 2019: Carlson said the proposed citizenship question on the census has nothing to do with race....
3. August 16, 2017: Carlson attacked tech companies for banning white supremacists from their platforms....
4. January 6, 2020: Carlson attacked “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship. Carlson falsely claimed that undocumented parents with citizen children “qualify for a whole suite of welfare benefits....
5. July 17, 2017: Carlson used the slur “gypsies” and claimed that Roma immigrants have “little regard for either the law or public decency....

Do you claim that any of those, selected at random, are "asinine"? Let's pick a neutral third party to repeat this experiment if you suspect I cherry-picked them, or here this is the first repeatable shuffle code I found, so here is that code in a repl.it that you can repeat to get these same results:

1. June 26, 2017: Carlson lashed out after Alaska renamed Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day, calling it an “attack on civilization....
2. November 28, 2018: Carlson says the United States needs “an honest adult conversation” about “what the next 100 years looks like demographically....
3. October 29, 2018: Carlson uses synagogue massacre to attack Trump critics for using the “language of holy war.” Following the massacre of 11 Jewish people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA, Carlson glazed over the attack to dog-whistle about Gab, a social media platform used by the alleged shooter that is an online “haven for white nationalists.” He claimed that journalists covering Gab’s connection to the shooting are committing “moral blackmail....
4. August 24, 2017: Carlson said NFL players “hate your country” because of their protests against “racism or something....
5. September 30, 2019: Carlson: “My country actually is being invaded by other countries from the south....

How about those? Do those suggest that the list is "asinine" or that Carlson is? EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting a random sample - it's certainly easier to talk about these than about the whole list. I don't think any of them provide evidence that he's a white supremacist, so by that standard, yes, it's asinine for Media Matters to include them. The worst of the bunch is probably the synagogue massacre one (#8?) - if you click through and read his actual statement, he was making a point about defending free speech, which through selective quoting they made to sound like some neo-Nazi rant. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I think they all show that he's a white supremacist, and I don't think saying gun control advocates leverage massacres to try to "take charge of what you are allowed to say and think" is the least of them. NFL players hate America for protesting racial violence by police? That's the worst kind of mindless propaganda. EllenCT (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think the suggested change by Springee would be an improvement to the article since it brings the two paragraphs together in a more logical order. I do not think the Media Matters sentence is needed or appropriate. Most importantly, Media Matters should not be used to make factual statements, such as labeling the comments in their list as "statements in support of white supremacy" in Wikipedia's voice, which is not even stated that way in the Media Matters article. If analysis by a more reliable source was done based on the list, then we might want to include something from that, but I don't see much value in simply saying that there is a list of statements, especially for a source has not been determined reliable on WP:RSP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The title of the MMfA timeline is, "Tucker Carlson's descent into white supremacy: A timeline." The third-party source on the list MrX found above interviews the author, including this exchange:

“ Q: Other researchers have shown how Tucker Carlson's show, and Fox News in general, mainstream white-supremacist talking points found online and elsewhere. Have you found this to be true?

A: Absolutely. Tucker Carlson has built his career over the last decade on the inherent authority which comes with being on television. He can use his platform to mainstream white nationalist or white supremacist talking points and ideas that his audience otherwise would not be privy to. Tucker Carlson has managed to pervert the privilege with comes with being on television into an opportunity to mainstream white nationalism.

”

EllenCT (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the denial of Media Matters as RS is only WP:SEALION to whitewash the white supremacist discourse of Carlson. Ixocactus (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Salon is also not a generally reliable source, and I have reverted your edit until this discussion can continue. Also, there is a difference between a list that "shows a descent into white supremacy" and "described as supporting white supremacy", which is not supported by the article. Finally, the entries at WP:RSP have been determined after numerous discussions, and are not based on anything to do with Tucker Carlson. You should probably review that page and the discussions on those sources, and also take into consideration WP:AGF. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I just added Springee's suggested wording, more or less, so hopefully we can put an end to this rather pointless discussion. (Fingers crossed.) Korny O'Near (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to include a list of almost two hundred distinct statements which are themselves covered in a third-party reliable source merely by adding a couple citations to an already lengthy list of references for pre-existing statements. EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't support the second version EllenCT proposed. First, neither Salon nor MMA are particurally reliable sources for claims of fact as it was being used here. As a source that has accused Carlson of White Suppremisict comments (see my proposed edit above) I'm fine with inclusion. However, the examples included on the list have generally been of poor quality and examples of assuming the worst when a legitimate concern/point may be at the root of the statements. The quoted statement, "researchers have shown how Tucker Carlson's show, and Fox News in general, mainstream white-supremacist talking points found online" shouldn't be included. It's a non-expert using an appeal to authority (which researchers?) to make a point. That very point is underminded by the shoddy quality of many of the examples from the list that have been discussed here. Springee (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC on MMfA white supremacy timeline

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the RFC was exclude. The exclude side made several policy-based arguments, including WP:BLP concerns over the use of a partisan source, a lack of justification in the MMFA source that the list of quotes is evidence of white supremacy, and the MMFA source's lack of value as a WP:secondary source. The include side also made policy-based arguments, including the fact that the MMFA source can be combined with more substantive sources to provide additional context. Ultimately, the discussion ended with a WP:rough consensus in favour of exclude. Jancarcu (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Should this 192 item list from Media Matters for America of statements documenting Tucker Carlson's "descent into white supremacy" and Salon's interview with it's author be included as additional footnotes on the article's pre-existing text, or described in prose, thusly or otherwise? 02:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Describe in prose as shown in the linked diff, as RFC proposer. EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude or include as an example of one of the several media outlets making the accusation: Neither source is particuarlly reliable given this is a very partisan accusation directed at a new source on the other side of the ideological divide. Additionally, the examples from the list which were examined above are poor quality at best. It appears to be a case where any time the basic facts can be cast into a negative light they are. Any time the writer could reasonably "assume good faith" they chose to assume bad faith, even when the bad faith assumption makes less sense. Note, I have not examined all examples but the examples discussed above certainly don't look promising. Thus I would not feel comfortable using this list as even an attributed statement of fact. However, it is a clear example of a source making claims against Carlson thus I see no reason to exclude it from that type of use. I don't think it adds much to the article one way or the other. Springee (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude It does not seem particularly useful to include when the general claim that Carlson has been accused of promoting white supremacist viewpoints is made by more reliable sources. I think including a non-neutral source makes the claim weaker and is not a benefit. The Media Matters article is also basically a list of quotes, and is more like an interview or other primary sources, rather than the third-party analysis that we generally rely on for sourcing Wikipedia content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The accusation is made by other reliable sources already in the section. Here are two more: [19] and [20]. The list is the best illustration of the magnitude and evolution of the problem. EllenCT (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude there is nothing encyclopedic about a list of comments that are, at best, taken out of context. Media Matters routinely attacks Carlson and I see no reason we should reward that. Some of the comments weren't even made by Carlson (A guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight defended white supremacists and claimed that Hispanics in Arizona represent the end of American society.) What about Carlson used the Jussie Smollett news cycle to downplay the prevalence of hate crimes. The Jussie Smollett case was a fake hate crime. Carlson called Syria a “Middle Eastern tar pit.” I think it is fair to criticize the most violent country in the world. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This sort of cherry-picking from 192 entries is why I went to lengths to produce a repeatable random sample. EllenCT (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - I'm also fine with including it as a footnote, but I do think it would be better to just leave it out entirely. First of all, the list is crap, as others have pointed out, full of bogus "gotcha" items. (Funny how all these supposed white supremacists in government and the media only ever speak in "dog whistles", and never come out and say what they supposedly believe.) But regardless of the quality of the list, the fact is that Media Matters is not a journalistic outfit but a left-wing advocacy group. It's fine to use them as a factual source (I'm sure Carlson did indeed say the things they quote him as saying), but their analysis holds almost no value for us. As for the Salon interview - at the end of the day, it's just an advocate again promoting views that she's paid to endorse. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:RACIST. Not appropriate content in a BLP and the source is not unbiased also not enough. Unrelated question, who wrote this RfC? Please sign your comment with your username.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Add to footnote - I not opposed to including it in prose with attribution, but I don't think that the sourcing is particularly strong. I disagree with the idea that MMA should be ignored because they call out Carlson's—shall we say—"racial charged" comments. His reputation in this regard is not in serious dispute. - MrX 🖋 19:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude- I can't believe we even need to have this discussion. Everyone knows Media Matters is a biased source. How can a organization that declared a "war on Fox", be used as a source in a bio for a Fox personality? They are nothing more than an advocacy organization and as others have pointed out above they took many of Carlson's quotes out of context.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Only one other person has said that any of the quotes are taken out of context, after I pointed out that they all include extensive context. Can you give an example? EllenCT (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That list is largely taking the message that Carlson's view, that illegal immigration is actually a problem that the USA needs to address, is a white supremacist or racist viewpoint. That's the core problem with the list. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Three of the ten items from the random samples above have anything to do with immigration. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Not all of the items involve taking a quote of context, but here's one that does, since you asked for an example: the list says that Carlson "said Stacey Abrams’ pro-diversity agenda means Democrats are 'telling Americans they must hate their neighbors for the color of their skin.'" Sounds pretty bad - he even hates diversity! You have to watch the original video to know that he was actually talking about an opinion piece Abrams wrote, arguing in favor of identity politics. (Interestingly, white supremacy is a form of identity politics too - meaning that one of the examples they use of him arguing for white supremacy was actually him arguing against it.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I watched the video. Carlson goes from Abrams' statement that "Politics is the most effective method of revolt" to "people get hurt in revolts" to saying that Abrams wants violence against white heterosexual males, does he not? What is his basis for the claim that political revolts are necessarily violent? EllenCT (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, and it's not relevant to this discussion. They clearly quoted him out of context. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

How is characterizing someone who says "Politics is the most effective form of revolt" as wanting the violence of non-political revolt against white males not concordant context for telling people she wants racial hatred? She advocated for political non-violence and he said the opposite. It's absolutely in context. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No it's not - they said he was talking about diversity, when really he was talking about something else. Maybe his argument was idiotic - that's not the issue. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Carlson said, "She uses the language of violence and war to describe what must come next. Quote, 'politics is the most effective method of revolt.' Revolt. Reople get hurt in revolts. That's the nature of revolts. Stacey Abrams knows that. She wants one anyway. She doesn't hide it." (Emphasis added.)

Is there any reason to not characterize that statement as a deliberate distortion of Abrams' statement contrasting non-violent political revolt with the other violent forms of revolt into his claim that Abrams is advocating violence? How is that not concordant context for a claim that he says she's promoting racial hatred? He went much further. EllenCT (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he was being unfair to her, maybe he was even promoting racial hatred. I doubt it, but it doesn't really matter - the fact is that they quoted him out of context to make it seem like he was criticizing diversity, when he wasn't. You asked for an example, and you got one. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Taking a quote out of context means saying something like "Tucker said, 'people get hurt in revolts,'" in reference to that statement and saying he was downplaying the violence in Chile. In this case, not only is it completely in context, but your example is the strongest I could imagine demonstrating that Carlson uses people's advocacy of nonviolence to accuse them of inciting violence outright, far beyond the accusations of mere racial hatred you are complaining about. I don't know what to make of your continued insistence that the quote is out of context, except perhaps to ask someone else to weigh in on it. EllenCT (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10, every single item not only has the quote with some context but also has a link to the full context. Guy (help!) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Providing a link next to the quote doesn't change the fact that the quote on the list is out of context.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would not use either as the sole source for this, but in the context of a discussion with other more substantive sources it adds facts and data that help to establish a timeline, so would be appropriate in prose with attribution. WP:RACIST doesn't really apply, because we're dealing with a prose discussion of white supremacist speech, not labelling Carlson as a white supremacist in Wiki voice. Guy (help!) 13:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude In a nutshell: I assume that the mentioned list doesn't seem to be so profitable for that. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand this comment. EllenCT (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Target of Harassment

The fact that Mr. Carlson and his family have been the targets of harassment is relevant and important, and I cited to Washington Post - a reliable source. I re-inserted the language that was removed by Snoogans without good reason. Further, I have been accused by Snoog of stalking. I was of the understanding that an editor can edit any article he chooses; indeed - those may even be Snoog's own words. I don't appreciate the lightly-veiled attempt at intimidation. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

BattleshipGray, It doesn't seem that Tucker Carlson or his family have been a target to harassment that often that it deserves a mention in the lead. Many politicians and their families have been target to harassment more often than Tucker Carlson. We dont need that in the lead it is already in the body of the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that this doesn't belong in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This probably doesn't belong in the lead but should be included in a sub-session of «Personal life». I edited an entry some time ago and got involved in an edit war, which resulted in an administrator banning me from editing that section any further. Ajñavidya (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Carlson's views of China

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "baseless claims by Carlson sourced to only his own words are not appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article; removing non-reliable sources WP:RSP and revising material based on independent analysis in reliable sources". I think it is relevant and should be included.

Carlson called China an imminent threat to the United States.

Carlson said the coronavirus disease has been spreading rapidly across the world because the Chinese government lied about it.

Since January 2020, Carlson has been warning about the dangers of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. He accused the Chinese government of hiding information about the coronavirus outbreak. Carlson has criticized the nation's leaders and other media for not taking the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic seriously enough.

Carlson criticized the U.S. reliance on importation of critical materials, including essential medical supplies, from China.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement "Carlson has criticized the nation's leaders and other media for not taking the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic seriously enough" was not removed from the article because it is sourced to reliable independent sources, but the other material does not seem appropriate.

• I don't think Carlson's statement about China being an "imminent threat" is appropriate when it is sourced to his own network and a low quality source (Salon, see WP:RSP), and lacks any of the context behind the statement.
• The claim that "the Chinese government lied about it" is sourced to two primary source interviews, which is even less appropriate to use, especially if the claim is not based in fact.
• The statement "Since January 2020, Carlson has been warning about the dangers" is WP:UNDUE and not supported by the cited sources.
• The statement "Carlson criticized the U.S. reliance on importation of critical materials, including essential medical supplies, from China" is sourced only to articles by his own network which are just quotes from his show.

Also, Tobby72, it would be nice to ping me in the future if you start any more other discussions using a diff of a change by me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Oxiris Barbot

The text that an IP keeps trying to insert about a statement made by Dr. Oxiris Barbot does not include the context. The statement was made before a single case of the virus in NYC had been confirmed, and only one case was under suspicion. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not sourced to a secondary RS, so it doesnt meet DUE requirements, and it lacks the context that a secondary RS could provide. If we can simply add primary source material about Carlson's views, it sets us on a dangerous path where any and all content can plausibly be included. It could also lead to a situation where individual editors who are anti-Carlson could add primary source material that paints Carlson in a bad light. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

“Separate text from context and all that remains is a con.” ― Stewart Stafford O3000 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has repeatedly made this deletion. He is under the mistaken assumption that anything covered by Fox News cannot be reflected in this article.

He first deleted it on the basis that it was "selfsourced".

That rationale was flawed. There is nothing in WP:SELFSOURCE that supports the removal of this, with the Fox News article as support. First, the Fox News article is not written by him. Second, even if were, removal would not be supported under the criteria of WP:SELFSOURCE.

It was restored (it is fine to source this to Fox, just as it is fine to source a twitter quote to a person's twitter account.) with an additional source.

The editor again deleted it. With his rationale this time being (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucker_Carlson&diff=next&oldid=949806179 "(nope. content needs to meet WP:DUE. If it were sourced to a secondary RS, it would also provide context about what he's saying.)").

I would ask that this be restored.

Clearly both his changing arguments are flawed. The first for the above reason. The second for the same reason, and because a second source was added, and because WP:DUE does not contain any rationale for its deletion.

We don't go around deleting all sentences in articles such as this that have Fox News as a source, just as we don't go around deleting all Twitter statements of individuals.

Can others please address this? Thanks.--2604:2000:E010:1100:59D7:9DB8:4FBF:3AEE (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The removal is supported on several grounds. While I don't agree with the opinion that it's self sourced, the fact that Fox is the only source that is talking about this point does raise a question of WP:DUE. Additionally O3000 is right to raise a question of context. Absent correct context there is a question if the material is being presented impartially. Finally, per CONSENSUS we need a consensus to add new material. Since this is new material it requires consensus for inclusion. Since an editor has objected you need to get a local consensus for inclusion. So far you support while three editors object for various reasons. If the material is going to stay you need to address the concerns raised. Springee (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The way to address the context issue to the extent it is a concern is by adding the context, with RS support. Nobody has objected to that. And above I address the concerns raised in the deletions. I agree with you that the reason for the editor's first deletion is not valid; we concur on that. Editors need valid reasons for deletion, not just citing inapplicable wp rules. 2604:2000:E010:1100:59D7:9DB8:4FBF:3AEE (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The context makes Tucker look bad. Why would you shut down a city of 8 million when there were zero known cases. Tucker made the criticism much later, when a pandemic had arrived, without giving the context of the statement. You are welcome to provide reliably sourced text with full context. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the others here who have said that this material is not due. That Fox News article doesn't provide any analysis or value beyond basically a primary source interview. I don't see any reason to view this as significant enough to include in a biography. Carlson makes numerous statements and criticisms every day on his TV show. We don't include them unless other sources have demonstrated that they are significant and will have a lasting impact for understanding Carlson as the article subject. Also, I am going to merge this section with the previous one, where O3000 already started the discussion on this topic.– wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Immigration & Race section

This section is undue weight and filled with BLP violations. It reads like an attack page. The negative claims being made are filled with the political views of others and are not at all based in fact about Carlson. They are simply attacks under the guise of some claimed authority on the subject of Tucker Carlson by those with opposing views. This section needs to be rewritten for neutrality. There is zero factual evidence that Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist and calling him that through 3rd party commentary using Wikipedia's voice is an egregious violation of BLP. Bodding (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I too believe that editing in the section hasn't been in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For example WP:RS says "the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted" so the article's quote about "dirtier" should not have been taken from other sites when a full transcript is available on foxnews.com. For example WP:BLP says "If it [i.e. material about living persons that has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." and this re-insertion (by Wallyfromdilbert) wasn't consensus-based as far as I can tell. For example WP:V says "use sources that directly support the material" but the quote from Jessica Reaves is about "right-wing sources" which might not be a direct reference to Mr Carlson. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, "falsely claimed" is the language explicitly used by the cited source. Sourced language is not allowed to be removed to push a POV, and there is nothing about "good faith BLP objections" when doing that. If you are going to object to how a section in the article is written, you should find legitimate examples to provide. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As a rule I'm not OK with phrasing like "falsely claimed" even if used in a source. Such phrasing suggests deliberate deception. What did Carlson know at the time? Was Carlson quoting a source that was wrong? Was the fact "true" when considered in a context that was unstated or lost by those who responded to Carlson's comments? Regardless, if we keep "falsely claimed" I suggest it should be an attributed claim. Springee (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It is an objectively bigoted and baseless comment that "immigrants" are making the Potomac River "dirtier", and multiple sources call it false. Just like with other WP:FRINGE views, we label those as false. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell whether Wallyfromdilbert means that the edit by Bodding was not about BLP or that it was not done in good faith, but either way it seems to me that multiple editors in this thread have objections about Wallyfromdilbert's re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I object to it also. Sources should not be used to attack a BLP subject. It's a BLP not an attack page. Bodding (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Stating that a false claim is false (and described as false by two reliable sources) is not "attacking" anyone. There is nothing in WP:BLP that would support removing reliably sourced content that a statement by an article subject was false. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No. It's opinion, not fact. There is no counter claim in the article. Only negatives. That makes this more of an attack page. Your revert does not appear to be supported. Bodding (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It certainly should be removed. You have one source, but there is no proof that the source is not falsely claiming that immigrants dirty the river. It can never truly be proved at this time. It is too much of a vague statement in the first place (if a guy who moved to DC from Kosovo accidentally spilt a beer then technically Carlson was right) to have a definite answer. Warmallis0n (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to remove the part that says Afriforum is a "white nationalist" group. They are not. They disown apartheid, do not believe white people are superior and have some pro coloured stances.

Warmallis0n (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Warmallis0n:  Done by using the first sentence in the AfriForum article, which corresponds better to the BBC source cited here. GoingBatty (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

View point of the article

Rather than being neutral on the subject (Carlson), it is painfully obvious that the "editor/reseacher" is not succeeding in trying to hide his personal biases, by the structure and presentation of his article. As an example, the passages about BLM never refers to the founders as avowed Marxists by their own admissions. It, matter of factly, cedes to them the position of anti-racists (as if their opponents are not) and cites a list of media that (no doubt about it) are unbiased sources. This is done with the South Africa reference and other sections as well. Repeatedly, the "editor/researcher" uses this technique to steer the opinion of the reader. Unbiased writing is not to add critics opinions or "clarifications" to the subject's opinions as if the reader is stupid. Just print the facts of what the subject is saying and let the READER utilized his own instincts. BTW using the same sources that all have their known biases to offset the subjects every opinion is a blatantly obvious tactic that screams "editor/researcher" bias. The "editor/researcher" is working overtime with this technique and getting in the way of information flow about the subject. If the readers are so pitifully ignorant as to be in need of this instructional technique, why bother to write the piece? The article starts off with lots of straight-forward factual information on the subject which is very interesting to the reader (remember that word "information.") That's what makes an article satisfying to the reader, not adding what a bunch of other people think. Have respect for the reader's time, if the reader is interested in anything other than the subject, he will search out that at another time of his own choosing. Stop with the juvenile ideologue, amateur hour stuff, it's pathetic. 2601:CF:4600:20F0:31BB:C3C6:7832:286 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

wE GO WITH WHAT rs SAY.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Falsely

[21] "Falsely can imply deliberate intent to lie as opposed to honest disagreement"

It can, but it doesn't. Do not draw wrong conclusions and then pretend they are relevant. I drew the FTN's attention to your recent edits preserving WP:FRINGE statements here and on Jordan Peterson. Let's see what comes of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You inserted "falsely", you're quoting Springee who removed it, you're not explaining why you inserted it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the statement is false. It is also fringe and has to be deleted if not balance by a mainstream position. Which I just did. You people cannot have Wikipedia spread your denialist propaganda for you without giving the scientific position too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The term "erroneously" is preferable since it does not imply intent whereas "falsely" can; e.g. a "false testimony" is not an "erroneous testimony". Alcaios (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Therefore we should not use it, since we do not know if he does it out of ignorance or dishonesty. But the question is moot since the whole sentence has been deleted anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson is not a journalist

Journalist is a broad imprecise term which can cover individuals who conduct reporting (which Carlson does not do), as well as people who offer punditry (which Carlson does do). Carlson is a pundit (or commentator) and should be described as such. We should opt for the precise term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I generally give a wide berth for designations like this, but Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. Certainly not of the investigative variety. From the days of Crossfire, and even his writings, he’s always been a pundit (or commentator). At most, he was an editor of a publication. I agree that PRECISE applies here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

He was a straight news reporter for at least the first half of the 1990s, as far as I can tell, and maybe the whole decade; and he co-founded The Daily Caller. "Commentator" doesn't really encapsulate either of those two things. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is largely seen as a venue for partisan punditry, in addition to being highly inaccurate. I’m afraid I don’t see your point. But if he was in fact a credible reporter for various reliable sources, I’m actually willing to concede. What reputable organizations did he work for as a reporter without being an opinion columnist? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)|

The Daily Caller may not be a "good" source but that doesn't mean it isn't a new site with reporters engaged in journalism. I agree that what TC is currently doing is not journalism. However, did TC do journalism in the past? The article says he did. How long does one have to be in something related to the news but not actual reporting before the descriptor "journalist" is no longer warranted? I don't personally have strong feelings either way but since the descriptor has been in the article since at least end of 2019 I'm inclined to say leave it in. It certainly would need consensus for removal. Perhaps a compromise solution can be found in the lead from early 2019. The second sentence says he started as a journalist in the 1990s.[[22]] That keeps the "current" descriptors first but lets the reader know he came out of journalism in the next line. Springee (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson did engage in proper journalistic work earlier in his career, see the 1999 "Hall of Lame" Story he did on Marquis Who's Who in Forbes Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Carlson's lawyers argued this week that he is not held to Journalistic principles of truth in reporting. He did not study Journalism. He does not ascribe to Journalistic principles. Just because he has written things, that does not make him a Journalist. Wiki lists his occupation as commentator, and he should be listed as that an author, but never a Journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samorgan44 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying he is currently not praciticing journalism vs he never was. Springee (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson is as much a journalist as Cuomo and Lemon are, which is to say that he isn't. The latter two are also guilty of using their shows primarily as platforms to share their opinions. Watch any given episode of Cuomo Prime Time or CNN Tonight. Their goal is to share their perspectives with the masses. Even their interviews aren't conducted with any semblance of objectivity. I'm not saying Carlson is a journalist (he isn't), but I abhor this double standard where political commentators with the correct opinions are deemed journalists. MetaTracker (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)