Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Violations of WP:BLP

{{BLP noticeboard}}

Editors are asked to review WP:BLP and reflect. Multiple assertions about Tucker Carlson and white supremacy are unsupported by the cited sources and have been removed. Sbelknap (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I remove the unsourced biographical details, or those sourced to primary sources other than ones publicised by Carlson. Also removed the names of non-public figures. I have not accused anyone of white supremacy. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the content in dispute:

According to CNN, Business Insider, Vox, and GQ, Carlson's show has promoted and echoed white supremacist discourse.

Sources

GQ wrote "Tucker Carlson may not be a white nationalist in real life, but he certainly plays one on TV." The other sources make very similar assertions. Vox wrote "Carlson has faced accusations of catering to white nationalism on his show before, particularly on the issue of immigration — and white nationalists like Richard Spencer are among his biggest fans." - MrX 🖋 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

None of these three cited sources support the assertion that Tucker Carlson promotes white supremacism. This appears to be an instance of the Association Fallacy. Carlson regularly condemns attacking others for their immutable characteristics, particularly race. He has done that for many years. This accusation that Carlson promotes white supremacism is outrageous. It is libelous. It is one of the most unfair and inaccurate things I've seen on wikipedia. Clearly, this is in violation of WP:BLP and does not belong in this article. Sbelknap (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Its valid point, we do need sources calling him a white supremacist.

• I'm a bit mixed on this one. I'm not impressed with these sources (they don't do their parent organizations any credit) but if we have Carlson on record responding to the accusations then I think we should include it with Carlson's reply. The specific text of course is up in the air. Many of the sources that claim "white supremacist discourse" are doing so in an op-ed'ism fashion. CNN certainly isn't calling Carlson a WS. CNN does note some alignment between the views of Carlson and WS but makes a connection via a very weak, "But Fox is often perceived to be giving voice to those views." So CNN isn't stating in their own voice but instead is citing an known other who is making the claim. The BI article seems to only say that Carlson raised a concern about land grabs from white South Africans. While BI can reliably cite that Carlson said certain things about the subject, are they reliable to link Carlson to WS because of this issue? Is that a guilt by association linkage? Are GQ and Vox the sort of robust sources we should use for this kind of contentious association on a BLP page? Needless to say, I'm not impressed with the sourcing here. It strikes me as the sort of accusation, like "racism" that's easy to make and sticks uncomfortably to the target even if the basic for the claim is questionable. But if enough reasonable quality sources say this then I think we should include it because it is telling that sources have made the accusation. However, we should also include Carlson's reaction to the association. If nothing else, if Carlson has felt the need to respond to the accusations that, in my book, says the accusation was significant to the BLP subject and thus both should probably be included. Springee (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• For many years predating these accusations, and continuing to the present, Carlson has condemned attacks on a person's immutable characteristics (race, sex, ethnicity, etc.). That is what makes these assertions particularly outrageous, as Carlson's considered stance on such issues is precisely the opposite of what is being asserted. [1] is an example. Sbelknap (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• You're linking to Carlson himself saying he isn't a bigot. I do think there's something bigoted about frequently saying immigrants make the US "dirtier", and that Iraq is populated by "semi-literate primitive monkeys". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you read Springee's comment stating, "we should also include Carlson's reaction to the association"? The second quote is from the "Bubba the Love Sponge" show, which is satirical. Sbelknap (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

At best, calling this "satire" implies he is ridiculing himself for being the kind of bigot who would say that in the first place. At worst it's not really satire, and instead it's a way of avoiding responsibility by claiming it's just a joke. Neither of these are even a tiny bit compelling or relevant to this issue. Grayfell (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans asserts that I'm "linking to Carlson himself saying he isn't a bigot." That mischaracterizes what Carlson says in the linked video/transcript. Instead, Carlson condemns attacks on a person's immutable characteristics, such as race. Carlson has consistently made this point for many years. Carlson is critical of racism and sexism. His show hosts a diverse range of guests. That is certainly relevant to the issue under discussion. Sbelknap (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite Grayfell's disapproval, there is this thing called humor that humans sometimes exhibit, and there are some settings where humour is misplaced and sometimes attempts at humor fall flat. About one-third of the population entirely lacks a sense of humor and humor styles do vary among people. One does not generally engage in broad humor at a funeral nor orate in funereal tones at a tavern. It is disingenous to take a comment on a humor show and present it out of context. More info for the curious: Yam KC, Barnes CM, Leavitt K, Wei W, Lau J, Uhlmann EL (October 2019). "Why so serious? A laboratory and field investigation of the link between morality and humor". J Pers Soc Psychol. 117 (4): 758–772. doi:10.1037/pspi0000171. PMID 30614728. Sbelknap (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have struck a nerve. Being snotty about someone else's supposed lack of a sense of humor is... ironic, but not particularly appropriate. You didn't say it was "humour", you said it was "satirical". That word means something specific, and "just joking" isn't a get out of jail free card.

These jokes weren't in private conversations among friends, they were broadcast appearances. If his jokes fell flat, which happens, he could take responsibility and say it wasn't funny and he made a mistake. Instead, he doubles down on the "it was just a joke" defense and has pointedly refused to apologize. In other words, he's taking his jokes very seriously, just like you seem to be. Further, why is this supposed to be a joke? Who is the target of these jokes? The targets are Iraqi people/Afghan people/women/Black people/underage women/etc. Even as jokes, it's still racism and bigotry. It's absurd to appear on a shock jock show and then feign indignation that people are shocked. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, words spoken in the context of an appearance on a shock jock's show are not to be given the same weight as in other contexts. It seems fair to mention the Bubba the Love Sponge statements, as long as this is done in context. Sbelknap (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sbelknap, you sure about that? What about the time he denied that white supremacism is a problem? When his statements about diversity are eerily like those of the New Zealand mosque murderer?

How are your examples not instances of the Association fallacy? Sbelknap (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy (help!) 22:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I have been policing BLP since before it was even a policy. This article is fully compliant. The problem is that Tucker Carlson has done a remarkably good job of looking like a white nationalist. So good that Andrew Anglin described his show as "Storm Front TV". So much so that David Duke has made appreciative comments. And as it turns out, his main writer was a white supremacist. Now, you might think that is the entire explanation, but the reality-based media is having a really hard time swallowing the idea that Carlson was just reading what was put in front of him wihtout ever noticing that it was racist. And that's what we are seeing in the sources added to this article. Guy (help!) 21:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

How do you answer the objection that these examples you give are instances of the Association fallacy? Sbelknap (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I don't, because it's irrelevant: if it is the association fallacy then it's reliable sources that are committing it, we take no judgment, we merely reflect what reliable sources say. You do keep engaging in this tendency to apply your own judgment based on watching the show rather than following the sources. Guy (help!) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got to say I have issues with this but I think policy in this case says we need to include. However, I think we should be very careful with how. Many of these white nationalism association claims are based on rather poor reasoning. However, it would be a violation of OR to say as much in the actual article. That said, I think we can detail them out a bit. Are there sources that counterbalance some of these claims? This is one of the things I find difficult with many wiki topics. A says something inflammatory about B and that is published in a RS. Reading the RS makes it clear the underlying argument is weak but we don't have a second RS saying A's argument is crap so we end up treating A is the only DUE POV. I think that is the case here but it's also policy. I do think the accusations have come from enough quarters to say we don't ignore it. I'm not sure we need to detail or quote from every case. What about a few sentences summarizing the issue and then include the supporting links? Springee (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The bar for WP:BLP is set high and none of the cited sources top the bar. In my view, to include such accusations in a BLP requires some actual examples plus an analysis from a RS that these examples constitute white nationalism or white supremacy or racism. Instead, these sources give vague allegations with no examples. I see your point about OR, but it seems to me that we ought not blithely cite vague claims from a source, where that source does not provide a specific example of what is alleged to be racism or whatever. Sbelknap (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've invited comments and suggestions on the BLP noticeboard. Sbelknap (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Engaged editors are invited to review the discussion so far on the BLP noticeboard and to then comment there and/or here. Sbelknap (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC - Sexual harassment lawsuit and doxing accusation

The Cathy Areu sexual harassment lawsuit and NY Times doxing allegation are intermingled in that they happened to be on the same day.[2] Should mention of either be included in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The following text were removed by editors from the article due to BLP concerns:

A: In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

B: After returning from a short hiatus in July 2020, Carlson alleged that New York Times was planning on publishing a story that included the address of his residence. In the same segment, Carlson displayed images of two freelance New York Times journalists, saying “How would Murray Carpenter and his photographer, Tristan Spinski, feel if we told you where they live, if we put pictures of their homes on the air? “We could do that. We know who they are.” The Times denied the allegation and conservative Twitter accounts posted the address and personal information of the reporter.

References

Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Sexual harassment lawsuit and doxing accusation)

• As nominator, yes for both A & B. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to both. First of all none of this material is encyclopedic. Second, lumping Carlson in with the others accused of misconduct is SYNTH as it implies they all did the same thing. B is classic NOTNEWS - there is nothing relevant to Carlson's biography about that information. If editors would like BLPs to just be blurbs of when the subject was in the news then they'll need to go have some policies changed first. I would be open to revisiting these topics if RS continue to give coverage and weight to them, and if they have any impact other than a short blip on a headline here or there. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean it's "not encyclopedic"??? How? It's a notable event involving notable people with widespread coverage in reliable sources. You're just pulling stuff out of your thin air at this point. Volunteer Marek 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both - these are heavily covered in a variety of reliable sources, and there's nothing in the text that violates BLP. It's standard policy to dedicate a sentence or two to incidents like these in the bios of countless articles of living people, as long as there's no BLP violations. This is no different. The arguments against basically boil down to IDONTLIKEIT. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, No - per policy WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:10YT. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  NYTimes 07-22-20: Fox News, in a statement, said that it had retained an outside law firm to investigate Ms. Areu’s claims and determined them to be “false, patently frivolous and utterly devoid of any merit.” Fox News issued the statement on behalf of the network as well as Mr. Carlson, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Kurtz, who were also named as defendants in the suit. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both The doxing story is a non-event. It had minor coverage like so many other things Carlson says. It might be relevant as a supporting claim that Carlson has been combative with other news agencies (or similar) but putting it in as a stand alone item is clearly UNDUE. Consider the TENYEARTEST and RECENT. I think the above discussion had reached a general consensus that this wasn't due so I'm not sure why it is being conflated into this RfC. The lawsuit is the second part. Here we need to consider several factors. First, this is a BLP. As such we need to err on the side of caution/do no harm when including anything that is an allegation of misconduct. A counter argument is "the filing of the suit is fact, not allegation". That is true but that just means someone has put their negative claims into the legal record. It doesn't mean the claims have been substantiated. In fact, per the discussion and source below, the plaintiff's attorney admits the allegation has a number of factual errors. The problem with inclusion, going back to the "do no harm" intent of the BLP policy, is the factually questionable nature of the details of the allegations gets lost in the noise. At this point we would need a wp:CRYSTAL ball to see if this lawsuit amounts to anything. Second, the coverage currently is RECENT. We haven't see if this has any sticking power. If the allegations don't pan out then we included some serious accusations against a BLP subject that can hurt the subject's reputation. Additionally, if the legal case goes nowhere this content will fail the wp:TENYEARTEST. Conversely, if there is fire under this smoke, well wp:NOTIMELIMIT. We can add the material when the full story and impact to Carlson is clear. We have to remember, that just because we don't add it now doesn't mean it can't be added in the future. So, at this time, oppose both. If things change we can revisit then. Springee (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, No per Springee, Atsme, Mr Ernie. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, No Agree with Springee and JimKaatFan Also agree that this will be revisited with the passage of some time as we gain some perspective. The Cathy Areu story seems to be falling apart. The doxxing thing seems as if it isn't going to happen, for whatever reason. Sbelknap (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, No. There was never any evidence of doxxing it is a claim made without evidence and can be dismissed on the same basis. Reporting on the assault lawsuit is "this suit is happening", and this is part of a wider pattern of siomilar lawsuits, notably oaround Fox. I would exclude the doxxing claim and include the lawsuit. Guy (help!) 21:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, neither An independent outside law firm investigated the sexual harassment claim and stated it was without merit. This website is not supposed to be a cheap tabloid rag filled with every innuendo and unsubstantiated claim.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether you think the suit has merit or not is completely irrelevant. That's up to the court to decide. All that matters is that this is a notable event, involving notable people and it has received widespread coverage in reliable sources. That right there is policy, not just personal opinion or whimsy. Also, you got a *reliable* source about this "independent oitside" law firm? Because all I see is that there was a law firm hired by Fox News itself and only sources claiming it was "independent" are wacko nutzoid extremist websites. Not that it matters for inclusion purposes. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

[3] Just going by what the RS say, which is an independent law firm hired by FoxNews investigated and found no merit to the claims. It is an unsubstantiated claim, and therefore currently nothing more than a smear. If in court it is proven to be factual, then we can revisit this matter of course.--MONGO (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to first, No to second (should these really be bundled?) All that matters here is that one famous, notable, person filed a lawsuit against another famous, notable person and this has received EXTENSIVE coverage in reliable sources (more than a dozen included in the article before it was removed). Anything else is just thinly disguised WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• A: no, as premature: a lawsuit by itself does not indicate significance of the allegation. This comes when media / sources begin to corroborate it. In this case, there are apparently already some doubts: Holes Emerge in Cathy Areu’s Lawsuit Against Fox News Hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, By Rudy Takala, Jul 23rd, 2020, Mediaite. B: no, as too minor: does not appear to have long-term significance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Mediaite is not a reliable source. Regardless, whether there are "holes" in the lawsuit or not is for the court to decide. What matters is whether this lawsuit is notable. Volunteer Marek 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC There is no statement and no timestamp, both of which are required by WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Eh? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Have a look at WP:RFC/BIO. Only a link is given (compare the other RfC entries on that listing): for this particular one, there is no statement, and no timestamp - this is because Legobot (talk · contribs) cannot identify them. At first it was because the {{rfc}} tag was followed by a subheading, and this edit fixed that issue; but whilst there are now both statement and timestamp, the statement that now exists (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is over 3,000 bytes, which is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle. This is one of the reasons why we ask for a brief and neutral statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Can this still be fixed after the fact? I think the least disruptive action would be moving the RFC template right to before the question and timestamp. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it can be fixed at any time - that is what I have been asking you to do. Legobot runs once an hour, and checks for amended RfC statements following which it updates the listings (example). RFCST is clear: the order is heading; {{rfc}} tag; brief and neutral statement; timestamp. If the statement needs to be expanded upon, that goes after the timestamp, but should have its own timestamp as well. See for example Talk:Balcombe Street Gang#rfc_6A33E82. If you put anything before the {{rfc}} tag, it won't be seen by anybody coming to the RfC from the listing or from a FRS notice, because those link to the tag not to the section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like it worked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, no per Springee and the other no !votes above. It's right in the RFC question: "intermingled in that they happened to be on the same day" - they're two stories from one news cycle (less than a week ago), and thus are not WP:DUE, specifically per WP:RECENTISM and the WP:10YT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to both It is not relevant to be included. Idealigic (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes to A, No to B. The lawsuit was filed, that is a fact. The veracity of the accusations will be sorted out by the court, however, he is a public figure involved in a public process that is relevant to his public-facing career. There is no reason to be concerned about BLP. A lot of this discussion feels like gatekeeping for Tucker.HBS 9 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both due to the media attention received. These only require brief mentions of one or two sentences. The proposed text is fine, but might be a little long. The phrasing looks pretty neutral though, so I have no major objections. Worldlywise (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Sexual harassment lawsuit and doxing accusation)

• Comment - A For "Allegation" see WP:CLAIM. "The Times said it "does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson's residence" would be preferable. B At the very least if this goes in the article we need a sentence like "Amber Athey wrote in The Spectator that she had found "many basic inaccuracies" in Athey's story. A lawyer for Areu told Athey that Areu had misremembered some aspects." https://spectator.us/fox-news-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-cathy-areu-jennifer-eckhart/ NPalgan2 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. We should not cherry pick if we do end up including. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be cherrypicking op-eds and they shouldn't be used to assert facts. Also The Spectator at RSN[4] Morbidthoughts (talk)

The involved attorney replied to the questions from The Spectator. So unless we have reason to believe the Spectator is making things up, the bad facts and the plaintiff's counsel's acknowledgement of bad facts is very relevant in this context. Springee (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Then this becomes utilising the Spectator article as a primary source when we should be relying on secondary coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no. That is a really distorted way to dismiss very relevant information about the case. Springee (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no reason to trust anything from The Spectator given its poor standing at RSN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The poor standing is that it's very biased. That doesn't mean their analysis of basic dates nor their quoting of others has been seen as suspect. Springee (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are some other sources that have noted issues with the case against Carlson (but not necessarily the entire lawsuit)[[5]][[6]][[7]]. The Powerline is a very good blog but as a blog it is not a RS for inclusion. However, the analysis leads weight (not WEIGHT) to the idea that this is not going to stick to Carlson and we should take a wait and see approach. Springee (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Areu thing is falling apart: https://www.wibc.com/blogs/hammer-and-nigel/cathy-areus-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-against-tucker-carlson-is-imploding/ Sbelknap (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If it is falling apart that is more for her page than this one I would say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources you cited are questionable. The Hammer and Nigel link reviews the spectator piece and calls Areu, Crazy Cathy. The American Conservative is only accepted as reliable for its opinions per WP:RSP. Why should non-RS contribute to WP:WEIGHT of inclusion? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps but we can use such sources to provide evidence that their isn't substance to the claims against Carlson. This is a bit of a throw stuff at the wall claim. Regardless, we have sources that have discussed the weakness of the claims against Carlson. That supports the idea that this story is not going to have staying power and that we would likely remove it as the case develops. Again, if things change we can always add the information. There is no penalty for adding it later. Springee (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• More detail about the purported coverage that was going to "dox" him and fallout of the segment. [8][9][10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  There's already a sentence or two about Carlson's house being accosted by activists in the Personal Life section. The sources discuss his sensitivity to being doxed because of that incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is another article describing the many issues with the lawsuit, from a (albeit not rock solid) source that couldn't be said to support Carlson. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This may explain a lot...

Well, this seems to explain the observed facts.

The top writer for Fox News host Tucker Carlson has for years been using a pseudonym to post bigoted remarks on an online forum that is a hotbed for racist, sexist, and other offensive content, CNN Business learned this week.
Just this week, the writer, Blake Neff, responded to a thread started by another user in 2018 with the subject line, "Would u let a JET BLACK congo n****er do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off?" Neff wrote, "I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no." (The subject line was not censored on the forum.) On June 5, Neff wrote, "Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down." On June 24, Neff commented, "Honestly given how tired black people always claim to be, maybe the real crisis is their lack of sleep." On June 26, Neff wrote that the only people who care about changing the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins are "white libs and their university-'educated' pets."

— https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

That's... concerning. Guy (help!) 23:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! El_C 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. Not at all surprising. Have to wait a bit for a response before adding. But, clearly sounds like it is DUE. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's probably DUE for the Tucker Carlson Show article though given the nature of the claims it would be best if it were independently corroborated. Unless TC had any knowledge of this it's probably not DUE for the TC BLP. Also, this is based on CNN's claims and presented evidence. It probably bad that CNN seems to put so much effort into talking about Fox commentators but that's another story. It may be a BLP issue for the writer in question. Springee (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the Tucker Carlson Show article, but I think it should be mentioned here as well. Volunteer Marek 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, the edit just before yours also added it to the History section.[[11]] It probably shouldn't be in the article twice. The history section seems more appropriate to me since it's not really a criticism of the show. Springee (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I consolidated everything into History. JimKaatFan (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I anticipate there are going to be more people looking to remove the Blake Neff news from the article. Here's a couple of points that I believe make this info more than relevant:

• Tucker Carlson's biggest notability comes from his nightly show. Everything else is secondary to that.
• In a recent article in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, Neff said, "Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me."
• Carlson said he spends hours working on scripts, but referred to Neff by name, saying he was a "wonderful writer" and acknowledging his assistance. And Carlson credited Neff in the acknowledgments of his book, "Ship of Fools," for providing research. In the acknowledgments, Carlson said that Neff and two others who helped with the book "work on and greatly improve our nightly show on Fox."
• Neff never responded to CNN's request for comment, but before the news even broke, Tucker's show fired Neff asked Neff really nicely if he would please resign, which he did.

His connection to Carlson is indisputable. JimKaatFan (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is material about the show, not Carlson. Springee (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This material is inextricably linked to Carlson due to the reasons mentioned above. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the show is literally the largest section in this article! How can one possibly argue that the biggest news to ever come out about his show isn't relevant to him personally, when the show is his primary source of notability? It doesn't stand up to basic logic. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Was Carlson aware of those messages? If not, there's no reason he should be linked to the "secret account" of his employee. Alcaios (talk)

Whether he was aware or not has not been reported, but that's a minor detail - the fact that the show has lost advertisers over racist content, and now the head writer, who is apparently close to Carlson, has been essentially fired over racist comments on a racist message board makes it hugely relevant. It's not about his employee's "secret account", and why does it matter that it was secret? Not secret anymore, in any case. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your argument in SYNTH. Don't restore material without consensus. Springee (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no SYNTH whatsoever - I'm repeating what every reliable source is already reporting. Read the cited sources, because you clearly did not do so before you went trigger-happy edit-warring. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether he was aware or not is relevant since we're discussion an inclusion in Carlson's biography. He cannot be held accountable for the actions of other people contributing to his show, unless he was aware or involved with the controversial account. I'm not against a mention in the article, but this certainly does not belong to the lede. Alcaios (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, I don't think anyone has suggested putting it in the lead in this article. JimKaatFan did add it to the lead of the TC Tonight page though it's not clear there is consensus to have it in the lead since three editors removed it from the lead at that article. Here I would argue it's not due at all since this is a BLP about Carlson not his show. There is no evidence Carlson had any idea this was happening (we would need RSs to say as much). Springee (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee some contributors tried to put in the lede, which is totally unacceptable. Alcaios (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Include. Fits within a broader theme of Tucker Carlson's rhetoric in recent years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Carlson has a biography here because of his career as a political commentator. Almost all of this article is about that (although I think the political views sections is way too long). The Neff material is certainly relevant, but I'm not seeing many high quality sources reporting about it, which tells me that this is WP:UNDUE for this BLP. Obviously that could change if major news organizations begin reporting on it. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm warming up to this a bit. It's starting to get more mainstream and sidestream coverage: The Hill, USA Today, The Week, The Daily Beast, HuffPo, The Guardian, and Forbes. A couple more and I'm in. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC), 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also MSN, Yahoo, the Daily News, Deadline, Variety, Hollywood Reporter... JimKaatFan (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MrX, there is not consensus for inclusion. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: O3000, VM, JimKaatFan, Snooganssnoogans, MrX
• Not Against: Alcaios
• Oppose: Springee
• Undeclared: JzG, El_C

- MrX 🖋 22:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The problem is this is an article about Carlson the person. This is something a writer for his show did. The coverage makes it due for the show but not Carlson himself. That logical gap hasn't been addressed. Do any of the articles say Carlson did anything wrong or even knew about this? Of not it's not due here. Springee (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, CaptainBillyCatPants and MetaTracker also removed the content from the article. Springee (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the mention. Like I said before, there is absolutely no reason to mention his writer's firing from the show in the lead of his biography. It has nothing to do with *his* life or biography. If you want to include that information in the section of his page devoted to the show, then do so. But if you go down that route, make sure the wording is neutral. Carlson's orbit is dominated by figures who make inflammatory comments just for the sake of being edgy, so describing the comments as racist or sexist makes no sense. Even Roseanne Barr's controversial comments aren't explicitly described as racist in the lead of her bio. I'd say it's fine to say the comments were described as such, but given how subjective those descriptors are, it is imperative that Wikipedia's neutrality be maintained. MetaTracker (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against a short passim mention in the relevant section of the article (e.g. "the show's head writer resigned after controversial statements from a secret account"), but I'm not totally convinced that such an addition is relevant to Carlson's biography. I'm just going to repeat the same argument: was Carlson aware or not of his employee's secret account? We're discussion an inclusion in Carlson's biography, and he cannot be held accountable for the actions of other people contributing to his show, unless he was aware or involved with the controversial account. Alcaios (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Now substantial coverage by right, left, and neutral sources. At this point, difficult to argue UNDUE. How can we ignore this? The current text is NPOV. O3000 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Its easy to argue Undue. Your argument suggests weight for inclusion somewhere but where? The involved subject is the Tucker Carlson Tonight show. That is where this content belongs (and had been added). Springee (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is DUE in Blake Neff's biography, but probably not in Carlson's. This whole argument is about mentioning controversial statements that have not been made by Carlson. We don't even know if Carlson was aware of those statements. Alcaios (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That was nice of you to ping two editors who would agree with you Springee. I have demonstrated that this has receive diverse and fairly extensive coverage. You can claim that has nothing to do with Carlson, but the source, and most of the editors in this discussion disagree with that. Whether Carlson knew his writer was posting racist comments is of no relevance to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Also, I am not supporting putting this material in the lead. - MrX 🖋 23:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against including it in Carlson's article, but it should be framed neutrally. Claims of racism and the like should not be framed as objective fact, especially given the nature of Internet trolling. His comments have been described using that language, which is why it's important to frame those characterizations using neutral language. As for Carlson the person, I have no interest in squabbling about his worldview on a talk page, but needless to say, I think it's important to have Wikipedia editors who are sympathetic to his paleoconservative views working on his page. Especially when the initial page editors (the ones who started this thread) are so clearly in the anti-Carlson camp. Have a good day. MetaTracker (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You can claim that has nothing to do with Carlson, but the sources, ... disagree. The only connection made so far by RS, from left-wing[12] to conservative[13] ones are Neff was Carlson's top writer and Neff's (uncorroborated) assertion that Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me. Alcaios (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Springee here. This is about a writer on Carlson's talk show meaning it is not inherently to do with Carlson's views unless Carlson was directly involved in the incident. It seems more appropriate on the talk show article than on this article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The disputed content has been added to the section /Political views/. Statements made by Carlson's head writer are not Carlson's political views but his head writer's. Find a better section if you irresistibly want to include this content. Alcaios (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources tie Neff's forums remarks to the views express on Carlson's show. Whether those view are Carlson's or not is for someone else to determine. If there's a better place to put the material, that's fine too. - MrX 🖋 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure we know Carlson's actual political views, or even if he has any. Let's just document what WP:RS say. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson a propagandist (in the neutral sense of the term: "someone whose job is propagate a point of view"). That said, that doesn't mean we should treat the private messages of his head writer as Carlson's own "political views". Alcaios (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The current text is neutral, isn't in the lead, and doesn't do such. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I know. My previous concerns about a mention in the lede and in the wrong section have been addressed. Alcaios (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to update my stance here. I still think this material is UNDUE for the Carlson BLP but I will note the section on his current show is rather extensive (in violation of wp:SUMMARY). Given how much TC Tonight material is in the article this content is no more UNDUE than much of the rest of that material. Since there is a primary article on TC Tonight, the whole section should be reduced to a summary with a pointer to the child article. If that is done then this material should go. In short, the who TC Tonight section needs to be fixed by cutting most of the material rather than just removing this specific material. Springee (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, if it were in isolation, maybe, but we alkso have recent reporting that Andrew Anglin and David Duke are big fans. That doesn't happen because of a writer, it happens because of what goes out on air, and that requires, at a very minimum, that Carlson is sufficiently cool with white supremacist rhetoric that he doesn't challenge it in script meetings. This is in addition to the withdrawal of several advertisers over racist content, so he is well aware that there are concerns. Guy (help!) 07:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have to say rather undue for his main bio, I could see something in the show article. The issue I have with it in this article, even with the show taking a large portion of the space here, is that overall it is not that surprising or significant for the show itself. The info in this article about the show is supposed to summarize how it relates to Carlson, which this does not. I also don't buy the argument so and so is a fan of a show so that speaks to the life of the host. Guilt by associate is not a thing on Wikipedia and certainly not for contentious BLP information. PackMecEng (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Its WP:UNDUE , put it on the relevant page which is the TC show article page. It belongs there and not here, trying to correlate a publicity mess to a person is why we have BLP guidelines in the first place. Remind yourself from time to time, before you add to an article, "What does the page gain by putting that particular content in the article?" All that could be argued for the case of this particular addition involving TC's writer is that there would be guilt by association, thats it, which is wrong for all intents and purposes for an Encyclopedia. 100% agree with PackMecEng & Springee. -Eruditess (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama for advocating for voting rights at the Lewis eulogy

"Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as 'one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American politics' after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday...."[14] 98.33.89.17 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes? Why is this worth including?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems clearly DUE to refer to a past president as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American politics". That's why we have a "political views" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That section should be a list of the most notable political views, not a collection of every single thing they have ever said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Where someone stands on a former president is pretty much the most basic bio "political views" stuff I can think of. It says a lot of someone's political views that they consider Obama not only sleazy and dishonest, but among the sleaziest and most dishonest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the statement makes him look batshit insane. I'd want a pretty compelling reason for including such obviously delusional and bigoted commentary. Whitesplaining how America's first Black President should memorialise a civil and voting rights icon properly is a really bad look. Guy (help!) 22:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rather than merely batshit insane, it's just straight-up propaganda. Teams of writers and producers sit in conference rooms all day writing this stuff. soibangla (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If I think Bill Clinton is one of the most sleaziest and dishonest politicians in history, say because of the Lewinsky scandal and lying about it under oath, what does that tell you about my position on universal health care? Trade with China? Climate change? Absolutely nothing. If I say Trump is one of the most sleaziest politicians in history, say for the "grab her by the ..." comment, what does that tell you about my position on universal health care? Trade with China? Climate change? Still nothing. So if I say Obama... you get the point. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE. First, if we can't bother to say why Carlson thinks this then why are we mentioning it at all? Did Carlson make this claim in a total Second, like others said, this isn't meant to be a dumping ground of every thing Carlson said. It should summarize his views, not be a laundry list of quotes. Springee (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems UNDUE to me. Asserting that something is "clearly DUE" doesn't persuade me. I'm not sure why anyone cares what the subject thinks about various presidents. When I think of a subject's "political views", I think of their views on political issues like health care, foreign policy, etc., not their opinion about individual politicians. Also, The Hill, when its reporting on something someone said, is a primary source, reporting on a contemporaneous event. The sources for this article should be other biographies of Carlson (which would be secondary sources); there's no need to include a play-by-play of "Carlson said this!" and "Carlson said that!" sourced to contemporaneous news reports (which are primary sources). (For more, see WP:PRIMARYNEWS.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE Even if true, this is more relevant to Obama than to Carlson. This is not particularly notable as Carlson is simply stating what many (most?) conservatives believe to be true. [15] Progressives and conservatives each in their own bubble. Sbelknap (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, if a dog shits on the white house lawn, the turd is more relevant to the dog than to the President. But not that relevant to either. Guy (help!) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If dozens of dogs urinate on the President's leg every day, that is more relevant to the president than to any individual dog. Sbelknap (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 July 2020

change infobox picure to more recent one from 2018

StackJack (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why? This one doesn't have a microphone partially blocking his face. I don't see the need to change it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

his face looks weird on the current picture, its not a good pic imo StackJack (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

or take this one instead: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tucker_Carlson_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg StackJack (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: You were be able to edit the page yourself. Please gain WP:consensus here first. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

i inserted it again as there's no discussion taking place StackJack (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that but please try to use softer language in edit summaries, as they're visible in the history and the particular words you've chosen can be offensive to some. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

One editor

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

---

This is getting ridiculous. I know we're to assume good faith, but look at the entirety of this talk page - it's filled with editors forced to defend their additions against the reverts of one editor - Springee. There are literally editors who have gotten so exasperated they've given up. Consensus is clearly against him on every count, but his WP:BLUDGEON technique is being used to keep any and all negative information off the Tucker Carlson article, and that alone seems, to me, to constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. His POV is obvious: it's "defend Carlson at all costs". Am I the only one willing to say these things? It's plain as day. Who will come forward and ask, ""At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"JimKaatFan (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is bludgeoning it seems like you with your reverting and going to different users talkpages, but not that of Springee who you did not even ping. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please address the topic, rather than personally attacking me. Remember WP:NPA. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This whole section is an attack on Springee, who you named but did not even ping. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the heading per the reasoning in my summary. -- Valjean (talk) 21:54, 30 August 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.