Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight

Sentence in Criticism section

The consensus is against deleting the sentence in Tucker Carlson Tonight's "Criticism" section that reads, "By August 2019, Media Matters calculated that the show had lost more than 70 advertisers since December 2018[,][15]" where footnote # 15 is a link to a Media Matters site.

Editors found that it is fine to include the analysis with attribution.

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Proposal: Recommend deleting the sentence in Tucker Carlson Tonight's "Criticism" section that reads, "By August 2019, Media Matters calculated that the show had lost more than 70 advertisers since December 2018[,][15]" where footnote # 15 is a link to a Media Matters site. Media Matters is not a reliable source; it is a biased left-leaning propaganda website, funded by David Brock's political action committee/politically-active non-profit conglomeration/empire. Alternatively, if there's a reliable source, ideally two sources since it's a criticism, that cites the same thing as Media Matters and which is not a circular source reference that cites Media Matters, I wouldn't be opposed to replacing the citation. But, as written, this is a highly problematic citation.

Given the contentious nature of this show and the attention it attracts, I thought it prudent to establish this RfC to establish consensus rather than editing out that sentence, only have to it be undone within days (if not sooner).--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

To non-involved closing RfC editor/administrator: Please ensure you wrap this closed discussion in appropriate, optional tags when consensus has been attained. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this? Have the avenues described at WP:RFCBEFORE proved fruitless? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, I like to use RfCs. What's wrong with using them? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The first two sentences of WP:RFCBEFORE should explain this. There has been no previous discussion of the matter on this page, so it's difficult to see why you went straight to RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, The talk page does not seem particularly active, so in a semi-bold move, I started the RfC to attract attention to it. Otherwise, talk page discussions languish unanswered for months—even years. Also, see my earlier comments re: Media Matters and this page being potentially monitored by paid, political strategists, who would likely revert any bold content removals I made. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You still don't need to go straight to RfC - WP:RFCBEFORE has a four-item bulleted list, did you even try the first one, about asking for help at the relevant WikiProject? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, I take your point, but in this case, I'm seeking an expedited removal of this content due to its problematic nature and the source not being reliable. WikiProjects are, anecdotally, notoriously inactive even when their status is officially active. That's fine, if you don't mind waiting months. Hope that clarifies. Anyway, I kinda think we should be using RfCs much more; rarely do I see more than 5-6 RfCs per category. It's a great tool. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to invoke WP:IAR here, but if necessary, that would be my reason for starting this RfC. I didn't look at WP:RFCBEFORE, but I read those are merely suggestions; not "must-dos" as at AfD. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Gonna skip past the discussion above about whether this RFC should have been opened and just give my opinion: According to WP:RSP there's no consensus on whether MediaMatters is a reliable source. It's certainly a biased source, but according to WP:PARTISAN "reliable sources are not required to be neutral". So I don't think that the fact that it's biased is alone reason to not use it. Loki (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, They're currently considered a yellow flagged source, which, I'd argue, means they should be avoided. At minimum, when sourcing a yellow flagged source, one should back that up with at least one, and preferably two, green sources. Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  With all due respect, that's not how sourcing here works. Yellow specifically doesn't mean "should be avoided", and it definitely doesn't mean that you need further sources to back them up. Loki (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, Kinda disagree here. Quoting GreenMeansGo from WP:RSN, "The current assessment of the source at WP:RSP seems fairly on-point. It is a partisan advocacy group that should be used with all the caveats we normally apply to partisan advocacy groups. Attribute their opinion, and determine WP:DUEWEIGHT based predominately on whether independent sources themselves use them as a source for the information cited." [emphasis added] To me, WP:DUEWEIGHT applies here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, but, what's the WP:WEIGHT problem in the first place? Whose views are being given too much weight on the topic of how many advertisers Tucker Carlson has lost? Loki (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, The problem is their methodology. How are they assessing how many advertisers his show supposedly lost? We should be substantiating this with another source, to confirm the finding. Doug Mehus T·C 02:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  That's the exact kind of thing that is why we separate biased sources from unreliable sources. Everyone agrees Media Matters is biased but it doesn't seem like there's good reason to believe that they're unreliable as well. Which is to say, they may well mention the number of advertisers Tucker Carlson has lost in an article about Tucker Carlson when another source would not, but they wouldn't lie about the number itself. Loki (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, At minimum, as written, it's misleading. We should be noting what Media Matters even says where they write, "Carlson has seen his nightly paid ad load plummet from a high of 36 paid ads each night in October 2018 to averaging 15 per episode in August 2019[,]" preferably paraphrasing this by saying that Media Matters claims to have surveyed the average number of paid spots on Carlson's show between the given period and noted the number had decreased by n where n is the number of paid ad spots. We should also, ideally in-text but I'd settle for a footnote, note that Media Matters is a partisan-linked advocacy organization/pressure group. Doug Mehus T·C 02:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because it was easy for me to find two secondary sources covering this, and in fact there were several more if anyone has any problems with the two I added; I just stopped because this seemed like enough. It's clear that this particular finding by Media Matters is both WP:DUE and citeable to reliable secondary sources rather than just Media Matters directly. (Also, the ease with which I found secondary sources - literally just a quick search for "tucker carlson" "70 advertisers" had a bunch right at the top - is an example of why WP:RFCBEFORE exists; those would certainly have come up if there was any discussion beforehand.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion, Thanks for finding the circular reference sources, which simply quote the Media Matters article. I agree with adding additional citations or' adding the needed context and/or footnote described above in reply to Loki, but if additional citations are added, they should independently confirm partisan pressure group Media Matters' finding. Doug Mehus T·C 12:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, you missed the point. We say MMA said X, and we support that with MMA plus sources reporting that MMA said that. This establishes the significance of the claim (meeting the burden of due weight). I suggest you pick another fight, mate, because this really isn't a tough call. Guy (help!) 12:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Two things. First, quoting another source makes them WP:SECONDARY coverage, which both reinforces the WP:WEIGHT of the primary source and puts the institutional reliability of the secondary source behind what the primary source says. Using reliable, unbiased secondary sources that quote or cite less-reliable, potentially-biased primary sources is the entire way WP:RS works - eg. a NYT article that quotes a bunch of people with strong opinions is a reliable source, even if we could never cite those people directly. And you misunderstand WP:INDEPENDENT, which requires that the source be free of institutional dependence on the primary source (eg. if a Fox News news article cites a Fox News opinion piece, that is not WP:INDEPENDENT; but if it cites a NYT opinion piece, or if the NYT cites the Fox opinion piece, that is independent and therefore worth more.) In this case these are independent secondary sources citing the primary source, which is exactly the sort of sourcing we're supposed to use. It does not mean that a secondary source is required to separately do its own research to confirm a primary source (how would that even work? By definition, such research would involve looking at more primary sources!) And, second, we definitely can cite a WP:BIASED source like MMA for their opinion, at the bare minimum, with an in-line cite (as the article has) - they're reliable for that, no matter how WP:BIASED they are, and at least meet the minimum requirements of WP:RSOPINION. The question for that sort of citation is then whether their opinion matters, whether it is WP:DUE. Their strong partisan position might call that into question, but the GQ source establishes that this particular figure or opinion on MMA's part is noteworthy because it has received secondary coverage. EDIT: You also misunderstood WP:CIRCULAR, which is about not citing sources that cite Wikipedia. There's nothing circular about citing a reliable secondary source that bases its story on a less-reliable primary source - that's a straight line, not a circle, and it's how WP:SECONDARY sources work. By definition, a secondary source generally doesn't do its own research outside of gathering, evaluating, summarizing, and commenting on primary sources - the important thing to us is that evaluation and summary provides us with information on how to cover them, which is more useful than eg. citing MMA directly because we can look at GQ and see how they described that source, how much weight or credence they gave it, any disclaimers they did or didn't have, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion and JzG, I sort of disagree here that this isn't circular referencing and, given that we have a very biased, albeit notionally reliable source in Media Matters for America, we should be finding independent confirmation of the analysis (or rough confirmation). One or two sources citing the same original source is still an echo chamber. Now, yes, if it is the New York Times, The Economist, and the like, this is fine; however, for partisan sources, we should be getting independent confirmation.

  At minimum, regardless of the result of this RfC, from what I am reading, neither of you would be opposed to further refining this sentence to better explain MMA's methodology and/or adding to the footnote of the partisan nature of MMA.

  You're both just opposing this RfC on grounds that MMA meets WP:RS. Correct? Doug Mehus T·C 12:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The secondary source is sufficient to justify the text as-is; if you're going to "refine" it further, it should be with stuff from the GQ source. That's precisely what secondary sources are for in this situation - to provide context, interpretation, and analysis. Adding or implying "but you tots shouldn't trust this because MMA is totally liberal" would be WP:SYNTH on your part, and it's especially a problem given that the GQ source cites them without saying that. Also, I still think you misunderstand what circular referencing is - if MMA was citing GQ, that would be circular. A secondary source citing a primary source isn't circular, it's a straight line - and it's the WP:SECONDARY / WP:PRIMARY relationship we're supposed to use. A less-reliable primary source does some research or says something, then a secondary source takes that statement and reports it with their own interpretation or analysis. This gives us context - we can look at the GQ source and say "all right, how did they treat the MMA source?" and use that to inform how we cover it here. eg. if the GQ source had said "According to some numbers by partisan ultra-liberal pressure group MMA, which they reached with a questionable methodology..." we would want to cover all that context here. But they didn't; they treated MMA's numbers as reliable. And that means we have to go with their interpretation even if you personally think GQ was wrong to do so. That's how the relationship between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources works. --Aquillion (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, Which is exactly what MMfA is: a less-reliable primary source by virtue of its current yellow/warning status. Doug Mehus T·C 15:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, I wouldn't necessarily rank GQ that high on the reliability index, either. Same with Yahoo!, which is just a content aggregator. A lot of sources take sources at face value, which is problematic when it's MMfA. Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, valid source with attribution. The editorial line of MMA doesn't undermine the analysis here. Guy (help!) 12:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It's attributed to Media Matters. We could totally find another source that argues what MM says is not true, but MM is not unreliable, just slanted. --valereee (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Attribution is corroborated by other sources. Ifly6 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Media Matters is a reliable source. The data cited are accurate. Gerntrash (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support If someone can find a second source supporting that claim it should remain, but not with only one partisan source. HAL333 03:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  HAL333, Thank you. That's all I'm suggesting. We either need to add an independent source which independent corroborates Media Matters for America's findings or we should say, at minimum, that Media Matters is a partisan pressure group linked to the Democratic party, John Podesta, Neera Tanden, and Hillary Clinton. Doug Mehus T·C 06:00, 28 November 2019 (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.

Blake Neff

There's been an attempt to remove the Blake Neff news from the lead. 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.

To argue that this isn't hugely relevant to the show is to put blinders on. There are already dozens of reliable sources reporting this news. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

First, this is a detail about the show, not a high level fact. Second this is RECENT so the impact to the show is unknown. These questions need to be answered before this content goes in the lead. Springee (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be of a minority opinion about what a "detail" is. Here's an exercise: search Google News for "Tucker Carlson". Then look at all the articles that are talking about Blake Neff. You don't even need to search Neff's name. He's the head writer of the show. Carlson has named him on-air. But I said this already above, and you ignored it and chose to revert over and over again without discussing. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on the consensus view at Tucker Carlson, I have restored the previous edits. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is absolutely misguided, and now that I'm here, it's two against one. There have been bigger controversies surrounding this show, and none of them have made the lead. The firing of a head writer is a minor detail that's dominating news coverage right now, because it's a recent development (and because Carlson's show is so widely watched). Unless this becomes a defining aspect of the series (like the Roseanne scandal, which led to the show's cancellation), it shouldn't be in the lead. Too early. MetaTracker (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"The consensus is absolutely misguided" ? I'm not sure that's going to fly once an admin gets involved. Maybe strike that comment. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's my opinion. As for the topic at hand, I'm not censoring anything. If I was, I'd be removing any mention of the controversy. My point is that this is a current event that hasn't played out enough. It shouldn't be in the lead, especially when it's already acknowledged in the History section. Also, characterizing comments using contentious descriptors is not the best practice. See WP:RACIST. MetaTracker (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:RACIST very clearly states that in cases where reliable sources agree on framing, then the descriptors should be treated as attributions. Short of putting "racist and sexist" in quotes, the previous wording didn't fly. MetaTracker (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What are you talking about? You're removing content that is literally taken word-for-word from every single source that's reported on this (and there are many). I'm talking about WP:CENSOR, where, if anything, policy dictates that we should go even FURTHER than the CNN article - that article doesn't even print the n-word, but according to our guidelines, we don't put asterisks in, we print the whole word. I actually omitted that sentence because I figured the other two examples were enough, but given the solid sourcing, if someone else felt it should be added, I would have no problem with it. You're looking to wipe the article of those examples completely.

And by the way, saying "I'd be removing any mention of the controversy" - yeah, I know, you've already tried that. The consensus that you called "misguided" was against you. And that was on the Tucker Carlson article. Now here we are, at the actual article of the show itself, and you're arguing that content doesn't belong here either? Hard to imagine the rationale. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your last edit, I don't even see how those qualifiers are necessary, given the universal condemnation of those comments, but if it mollifies the Tucker Carlson fans, I suppose it's not the end of the world. It's not like there's even one editor who would argue that those comments weren't racist and sexist. See WP:SKYBLUE. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing the examples. I'm the one modifying the wording of the descriptors, which are fine now, because I added an NYT attribution. Gesture of good faith: I'll keep your stuff in the lead, so long as you keep the NYT attribution. MetaTracker (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: I'm fine with the way the article looks now. Thanks. MetaTracker (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a bartering system. There's a right way to write an encyclopedia entry and a wrong way. Your NYT attribution is designed to make it appear that only that one source described the comments as racist and sexist, when, in fact, dozens of sources have done so. And even worse, you know this full well. So your attempt to salvage some sort of softening of this incident is for naught. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looks fine now, so we can cease this interchange. MetaTracker (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is not DUE for the article lead. It currently is over 1/3rd of the lead which is meant to be a summary of the article. Springee (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• The section on Neff is UNDUEly long. Neff's specific statements don't need to be included as they are things he said/posted outside of his involvement with the show. This single incident is now half the entire history section of the show. I understand that many sources have repeated the same CNN material but that is the click bait age we live in. It's almost free to repackage the story that CNN just ran and get clicks for your own site. However, this reeks of RECENT. The weight being applied here is currently undue. The material should be in the article but the level of detail is UNDUE since it's not about the show itself. Springee (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've reduced the length of the Neff material in the article. It was UNDUE for the lead and the length in the History section had grown to be a subjection and half the overall history material. This is UNDUE as this is something the writer did outside of his work on the show. Material about the show is due but this has become a coatrack for material that isn't about Carlson or the show itself. Springee (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right. We need to keep space to potentially extend the content depending on the development of the story and its impact on the show. If I remember well, Carlson is going to make a statement today; his reaction needs to be mentioned. Alcaios (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple people that disagree and think this is WP:DUE for the lead. The only one that agreed with Springee was MetaTracker. And we saw how that turned out. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. Weight in the lead is typically based on weight in the body of the article. It's UNDUE to add a section to the lead that is almost as long as the same material in the body. Ultimately, other than Carlson acknowledging the issue we haven't seen much impact to the show. That might change in the future but for the time this is a RECENT issue that may be little more than a flash in the pan relative to the scope of this TV program. That said, if you disagree perhaps raising the question at WP:NPOVN would be in order. Springee (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep out of the lead. recentism applies and we don't have more information about an incident in the lead than we do in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Lead should reflect the body of the article in scale, give it the proper weight and not try to monopolize the lead by inflating some negative press incident. Its an Encyclopedia not Reddit.Eruditess (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MetaTracker is a sockpuppet

MetaTracker is a sockpuppet and has been blocked.[1] Disregard all their comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

14 Words

The mention of the Neff's controversy is fine. I have only one issue with this: "A banner headline on the show was also quickly compared by critics to the neo-Nazi 14 words slogan".

• The only sources that seem to mention that, the HuffPost and Salon, are tagged as often "biased and opinionated" by the community (see WP:RSP).
• For context, they're comparing a Fox News chyron reading "We have to fight to preserve our nation & heritage" to the neo-Nazi slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children". I think this is precisely why the WP community has tagged those two sources as such ("use with caution"). Alcaios (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur with your opinion. MetaTracker (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Independent also mentions it[2]. But the community review states that In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.

The current source used is Salon. The community consensus states that There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.

WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources Alcaios (talk)

JzG, El_C, Objective3000, Springee, Volunteer Marek, JimKaatFan, ‎ Philip Cross, Portillo, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, could you comment on that? I think this should be removed unless several RS mention it; you'll find the arguments in the comments just above. Alcaios (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Salon is not at reliable source for such controversial BLP content. It's also WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If the show had used the actual 14 Words, that would be WP:DUE. As it's just one source, and a banner was "compared" to the 14 Words, it probably falls short at this time, unless more reliable sourcing appears. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I found in high-quality RS (as per WP:RSP): both The New York Times[3] and Haaretz[4] acknowledge Fox News chyron in the context of the Carlson–Duckworth controversy; none of them make any link with the neo-Nazi slogan. Alcaios (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the 14 word sentence. It was only supported my Salon (not the other two citations) and that raises a question of DUE. It also may be a BLP issue to claim Carlson is associated with neo nazi slogans. Finally, Salon's commentary/opinions about those it politically dislikes should be treated with caution. This is one of those cases. Springee (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This trick of disqualifying a source because it is opposed to something leads to removal of every criticism of that something, i.e. it is a classic whitewashing tool. Fringe proponents often try to remove criticism of their fringe ideas with that reasoning. It does not work there, and it should not work here either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There's also more sourcing now than there was when I made my initial comment, so I struck it. I believe this incident rises to the level where it should be included. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, that comes across as an accusation that those who object are gaming the system. First, there are several editors who agree this is UNDUE. Second, at the time the material was removed only Salon made the link to the Nazi slogan. The other two sources did not. Thus we have only a single source making the link and that source is a marginal RS for such a connection. Thus UNDUE. If there are other sources that associated the on screen words with a neo-nazi slogan please provide the. There are plenty of reliably sourced negative things to say about this show. We don't need to jam the article full of speculative accusations that have amounted to nothing. Springee (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"There is only one source" is a good reason. "The source disagrees with Carlson" is a bad reason. You used a bad reason, and I called it. (Bad reasoning is not "gaming the system", it is just bad reasoning.) Now you are trying to weasel out of it, instead of admitting you used a bad reason. Now, as JimKaatFan said, there is more than one source, so the good reason is gone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Then show the other sources that make the "14 word" connection. You can claim my reasoning was bad but that doesn't mean it was. Springee (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. UNDUE at this point. Covered by the news cycle who then moved on. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Parsing

The last paragraph in the criticism section is very poorly written. I don't know enough of the details or what is due, but it should be rewritten for clarity. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox as RS?

Is Fox News a reliable source for the fact that nobody in their right mind takes Carlson seriously?[5]. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Certain types of news, like Opinion pieces are held to a lower standard than regular news. Readers/watchers are (perhaps wrongly) expected to know that. Part of Fox New's lawyer's defense of Tucker Carlson Tonight is that it is a Commentary piece (I assume "Commentary" and "Opinion" are the same thing) and should not be held to the journalistic standard of the New York Times. I'm not sure Fox labels all of it's stuff that low grade, but stuff like Fox News#Climate change makes me think that on that network content rated to a higher standard is deceptive in a lies by omissions sort of way.--2605:E000:1704:77A:C025:98E7:CF8C:B027 (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Karen McDougal case (and fox lawyer's comment about accuracy)

I thought that this was worth bringing up. But someone reverted my edit saying my attempted contribution was misleading. Even if it wasn't it would have needed to be updated since a judge recently dismissed the case ([6]). I don't want an edit war, so could someone help me share this information on the Tucker Carlson Tonight page in a manner considered appropriate? Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: nature of show

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.

There is clear consensus to include information in the article about the lawsuit. Supporters argued that it is both relevant and well-sourced, and while opposers presented various objections, they were unable to raise a compelling case or win over others.

Various suggestions were made regarding tweaks to the language, but there was insufficient discussion around these to arrive at definitive conclusions. There is room for further discussion about and changes to the wording, but it should start from the baseline that the information be included with the rough weight and general characterization that was established here. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the article Tucker Carlson Tonight include the following content about the nature of the show? -- starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

In September 2020, a federal judge, in dismissing a defamation lawsuit regarding statements Carlson made on Tucker Carlson Tonight, cited her acceptance of Fox News' defense that Carlson is not "stating actual facts" on its show, but instead employs "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary". The judge also agreed with Fox News' defense that reasonable viewers would have "skepticism" over statements Carlson makes on its show.

References

-- starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. (a) The content is relevant, as it concerns the nature of the show itself, as described by the producers of the show, Fox News. (b) The content is verifiable and widely covered; from the sources above, there is ample coverage in American mainstream news, international news, legal news, and TV news. (c) The content is important; it resulted in a dismissal of a lawsuit, and a federal judge's opinion of the show carries gravitas. starship.paint (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  Add-on: I would also accept additional content (no removals) proposed by The Gnome, and Shinealittlelight. starship.paint (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Malformed RFC. Where is the talk page discussion regarding this disputed addition? The opening editor tried to add the content several times and was reverted by more than one editor. Rather than discuss they went right to a RfC. This RfC should be closed until there has been some actual talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  Springee - (d) you demanded a talk page consensus [7]; this is one way to get one. (e) please remove your falsehood - you are the only editor to revert me. Furthermore, I added substantially different versions of content during the two times [8][9] - the content was changed to omit information about the lawsuit, which I believe you described as trivial. (f) While I have added the content two times, it seems that you, Springee, have removed similar content four times, twice for me, and twice for other editors.[10] [11] (g) This is as good as a venue as any to argue your case, rather than quibble about procedure. We are on the article's talk page, let's discuss. starship.paint (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

  The material was removed by Emir of Wikipedia and myself. You didn't come to the talk page to explain why you think it should be included. Going right to a RfC before the talk page is very poor form. That's beyond any reason why this is undue content. Springee (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Well sourced, concisely worded and clearly relevant. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Well sourced and if anything tones it down too much. Volunteer Marek 16:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support but due to the understandably sensitive nature of the insert, we should be following the text in the cited sources as closely as possible. So, instead of "The judge also agreed with Fox News' defense that reasonable viewers would have "skepticism" over statements Carlson makes on its show", the sentence should read The judge also agreed with Fox News' defense that, "given Mr. Carlson's reputation", any "reasonable viewer" would "arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements Carlson makes on the show. The inclusion of the proposed insert cannot reasonably be contested since it is both evidently important information (the channel itself on which the show airs accepts the defense's major claim) and solidly supported by sources. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is clearly UNDUE - the case was dismissed, it was vexatious litigation, and anything beyond that is irrelevant. There is also a context issue with the proposed wording because it bleeds into WP:OR territory. Defining the nature of the show was not the nature of the lawsuit. NYTimes quoted the judge's decision relative to the defamation itself: “The statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation.” That is the context but it is still UNDUE. Atsme 💬 📧 19:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The case involved extremely well-known figures and institutions and was written on by dozens of RS. I think the entry should focus on the case involving Karen McDougal and President Trump, and add Fox News' defense within that context. Exact wording can be worked out in normal editing for fairness, but I do not see a reason to exclude outright without WP:OR.Llll5032 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

So you are ok just saying the suit was dismissed but not including the sentence about the defense. Springee (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I would include the names, the dismissal, and the defense, in proportion to how the WP:RS did. Llll5032 (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is including the defense important? Isn't the idea that the claim against the show was dismissed? Springee (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Because the RS say that is why the judge dismissed the case. Llll5032 (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review ONUS. Just because RS's say it doesn't mean it's DUE. Can you explain why this information helps the reader of this article? Springee (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

As Starship.paint wrote, "it concerns the nature of the show itself, as described by the producers of the show." Llll5032 (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Where do the producers make that claim? Can you provide actual quotes? Sorry, it seems a lot of sources are taking liberties with things that were actually said and doing it in a way that tries to discredit the show, a show that is arguably a rival news source. There is seriously a lot of selective quoting to strip away some of the contextual language that would have to accompany the statements to make sure we don't mislead about what was really said. If people insist on keeping this in then we need to include a more complete quote. Too many sources seem to want to interpret the quote to me, "You all know everything on the show is BS so that let's them say anything because we all know it isn't true anyway". It's clear that is misleading context. From the NYT article:

“The statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” she wrote.

In reaching her decision, Judge Vyskocil relied in part on an argument made by Fox News lawyers: that the “general tenor” of Mr. Carlson’s program signals to viewers that the host is “engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘nonliteral commentary.’” The judge added: “Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’” about the host’s on-air comments.

This takes out the "shocking revaluation" aspect and makes it a more reasonable and factual defense. Simply put, the speaker often uses hyperbole to make a point. The audience understands that. Springee (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I agree with you that accurate context is essential and that more complete quotations might help. Llll5032 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that I see it, the wording of User:Starship.paint's reverted addition from October 20 has the right emphases for me. Llll5032 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per The Gnome. I also support their proposed rephrase of the final statement with the insert. If necessary, we can add New York Daily News, Slate, and Variety to the list of (reliable) supporting sources. KyleJoan^talk 01:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per multiple good arguments above, including The Gnome, with the additional reliable sources indicated by KyleJoan. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is clearly DUE, similarly to how we clarify the true nature of a satire website; we state clearly that the website's content is not meant to be taken completely seriously. That is extremely DUE information. -- Valjean (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your summary is not aligned with the actual legal argument. The legal argument is the show mixes hyperbole with analysis and commentary to make a point. It's not claiming the underlying point is invalid which is a danger with how things are being interpreted here. You are engaging in OR to take the legal defense and apply it as a statement about the show in general. Springee (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not a summary, but an analogy, which is obviously not an exact parallel. It illustrates why the information is very DUE. -- Valjean (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as well sourced and clearly relevant. Of course it should be phrased carefully to rigorously follow the sources, as User:The Gnome has pointed out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I would agree that something on this is due in the article, given that it was widely reported. However, we should summarize the relevant remarks from the judge, which read as follows:

As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”

Starship.paint's suggested wording does not reflect these remarks fully, as it omits the part about how the basis for the entire point is that the "general tenor" of the show involves Carlson challenging "political correctness and media bias". So I'd suggest something like (with my addition to SSP's original proposal in bold):

In September 2020, a federal judge, in dismissing a defamation lawsuit regarding statements Carlson made on Tucker Carlson Tonight, cited her acceptance of Fox News' defense that given that the "general tenor" of the show is to "challenge political correctness and media bias," Carlson is not "stating actual facts" on its show, but instead employs "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary". The judge also agreed with Fox News' defense that reasonable viewers would have "skepticism" over statements Carlson makes on its show.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. If this is Fox's perspective on the show, given in sworn testimony, that's clearly pretty significant. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Commment on the issue of the case having been dismissed: Wikipedia is not a record of legal cases but an encyclopaedia, which means a source of adequately supported information. Therefore, if in some legal case a tangential piece of information is revealed and not contested, such as, for instance, that person ABC, who has an entry in Wikipedia, did something, that something can be included in their Wikipedia page, always of course with the specific WP:BLP caveats. The Carlson suit was dismissed but, in reffering to the reliability of Carlson's show, obviously an attribute of the highest significance, there were various important statements and admissions made. The information that any reasonable viewer would arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements Carlson makes on the show has not only not being contested, it was supported by the defense. This takes care of all opposing arguments based on WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. So, there is no excuse for Wikipedia editors to keep that information out of the article; otherwise, we'd be dealing with essentially an act of censorship. -The Gnome (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that only applies if the summary of the legal argument is actually true to the argument in question. First, per my link below the case was ruled on two grounds. One that the statement in question was rhetorical rhetoric and second that the plaintiff didn't prove malic which is required when dealing with a public figure. Leaving the second part out make ours a false summary. Back to the future defense, we need to make it clear this isn't a claim by Fox or the judge that Carlson just gets on screen and lies or that the points he is trying to make a false. Saying something that isn't literally true to persuade/convince someone of something that is generally true. Saying Wilt Chamberlain is like 10 feet tall is literally false but conveys the idea that Chamberlain is very tall. Fox and the judge agree this is the story of rhetoric Carlson is engaged in. Atsme is correct to note this is the same defense used by Maddow is a similar suit. Springee (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I do not know what you're defending here. Faced with a hyperbole, and especially a clear and honest one, e.g. "Wilt Chamberlain was ten feet tall," the response is never skepticism. A skeptical reaction from our part implies that, under certain conditions, we could believe the claim. However, I doubt any sane person on Earth could ever accept as fact the height of Walt Chamberlain being literally ten feet. On the other hand, we are warned that a show whose content we could accept as factual, exactly as its presenters, its producers, and its channel supposedly want us to (it is not advertised as comedy or drama or fiction), deserves to be visited with skepticism. This means that, contrary to what presenter, producers, and channel are offering, the truthfulness of what Carlson says cannot be taken for granted. This is important. -The Gnome (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, considering it is relevant and well sourced. Idealigic (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. There's room for improvement of the language--I for one don't like the excessive, unnecessary use of quotations, which read as pointy to me--but the content is verifiable, in scope, and encyclopedic. Atsme's argument about this not being the point of the litigation isn't relevant. It might not have been the central point of the litigation, but it was the central point of multiple reliable sources. That's more than sufficient to merit inclusion. R2 (bleep) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I do think that it is note worthy that in the segment Tucker Carlson got sued over he said "Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed", but it's not a big deal to me if that detail is omitted.Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: reliable sources determine whether facts are significant or not, rather than our attitude towards the legal system. It is not relevant if the lawsuit in this case is vexatious, only that the quotes have received significant media attention such that it is due weight with respect to this topic. — Bilorv (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the proposed content is actually about the nature of "Tucker Carlson Tonight". This seems to be about the use of hyperbole, which is virtually ubiquitous, especially on the ideological left. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support in body of article; relevant and reliably sourced. Oppose in lead per MOS:LEADREL. Chetsford (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Though the case was dismissed, as has been mentioned, this content is well sourced, verifiable, and salient. It is an entirely relevant description of the show. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Extensive news coverage; it is plainly about Carlson's show, and numerous high-quality reliable sources covered it in relation to the show. I find the argument that it is a "partisan attack" to be particularly baffling - these are reliable non-opinion news sources that covered it extensively. I could understand that argument if it was being cited solely to biased sources, but nobody seems to be alleging that. Is the crux of this argument that anything that has partisan implications unacceptable for articles simply because other people cover it, in addition to reasonably unbiased WP:RSes? It seems like the implication of that argument is that our articles would always have a responsibility to cover Carlson favorably regardless of the facts, which seems like a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This material is clearly not due. Partisan attacks are the only reason it makes it into the media and per IMPARTIAL it has no business here. Ask why would this material be due? It's a lawsuit that failed to make it's case. That means, in general that it's not due for inclusion. Would anyone want to include this were it not for the defense that Fox made which is now being taken out of context? In context of a slander defense it is reasonable to say that a commentary talk show can include hyperbole. The comments in question were seen as such and that was considered a reasonable defense. Now we have partisan sources who have fixated on one aspect of this, that not everything Carlson says should be treated as absolute fact, and are trying to present this as if this proves the show is nothing but lies etc. If that part of the story wasn't there would we be asking to include this content? No. It's also important to remember that claims made in context of a legal defense are exactly that. They shouldn't be treated as generalized facts which is what this is trying to do. Verifiability doesn't mean DUE for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not a talk show. This is muck raking content. Springee (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a lawsuit where the principal defense of Fox and Carlson was that no reasonable viewer believes Carlson's show is offering facts. In exact language, "Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes." https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-McDougal-v-Fox-Opinion.pdf It's literally a "Carlson has lied so often and so loudly that nobody in their right mind should trust him" argument that Fox offered to the court in order to get around the fact that Carlson defamed someone. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The above comment accurately illustrates the problem. Neither the judge nor the defense said anything like "Carlson has lied so often..." yet some sources want to present it that way. We need to be clear that a specific legal argument made against a specific legal claim isn't distorted as above. Springee (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL! The judge may not have said that, but it's generally true, and anyone who believes him is....[notforum rant withheld ] -- Valjean (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet it remains that in the opinion of the judge itself, "any reasonable viewer", given "Tucker Carlson's reputation", should be "skeptical" of any claim Carlson makes. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case, "any reasonable viewer" is an oxymoron. Any "reasonable" person would not be a viewer or defender of Carlson, and yet Trump supporters believe everything he says. -- Valjean (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What you have effectively said is you aren't worried about being IMPARTIAL, what is more important is RGW. This is exactly why this content is so easily problematic. It's very easy for an editor to cross over from what is encyclopedic into expressing their own biases about the article subject. Springee (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. No editor is neutral or free from bias. Period. There is no policy-based expectation or requirement that editors, sources, or content are neutral or free from bias. What is required is that we edit in a neutral manner. When we edit the article, we remove our "personal POV hat" and put on our "neutral editing hat". Read about it here: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

You too are allowed to have opinions, and you regularly make them plain. Have I tried to censor you and told you that you have to hide your POV? The only time I might do that is if they were persistent forbidden advocacy of fringe POV based on unreliable sources as that can never lead to improving content. I have no idea if you watch Tucker Carlson, and anything about that is a shoe you should only wear if it applies to you. I am not putting that shoe on you. I suggest that you relax and not personalize this. Take your focus off other editors. -- Valjean (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I have stricken a few words which might offend. -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Law and Crime offers a better summary of the argument made by Fox. [[12]] They also offer a complete quote from the rulling (and the whole ruling):

Plaintiff Karen McDougal claims to have been defamed by accusations of “extortion” leveled at her by Tucker Carlson on Defendant Fox News Network’s broadcast. However, as described herein, Ms. McDougal has not offered a plausible interpretation that the statements Mr. Carlson made, when read in context, are statements of fact. The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation. In addition, as a public figure, Ms. McDougal must raise a plausible inference of actual malice to sustain her defamation claim. She has failed to do so. The Amended Complaint offers only conclusory allegations about Mr. Carlson’s alleged biases and otherwise pursues theories that are pre-empted by long-standing precedent. For these reasons, Defendant Fox News’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF #28] is GRANTED.

Basically the case was dismissed because the comment, in context, is rehetorical hyperbole and that McDoubal failed to show actual malice (a requirement for a public figure). It appears that this material has consensus for inclusion. The Judges language doesn't suggest any of the "Everyone know's Carlson is lying" sensationalism that we are seeing in other sources. Assuming inclusion we should note both the lack of actual malice and the statements were rhetorical hyperbole in context of political commentary. Springee (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so this outcome will set the precedent for consistency in how we present talking heads to our readers. I was curious to see how many of the highest rated talking head BLPs would be affected, starting with Maddow relative to her defamation suit per article by Deadline which states: In her ruling, Bashant wrote that even though Maddow used the word “literally,” she “had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying ‘I mean, what?’) and calling the segment a ‘sparkly story’ and one we must ‘take in stride.’ For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. There are plenty more cases just like it - same old protected free speech opinions. If it's found to be DUE here, it's DUE for all of them. Atsme 💬 📧 14:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Another example: Judge Lucy Koh ruled that YouTube’s statements about viewpoint neutrality and promises to help creators to be “mere puffery” and therefore not actionable under U.S. copyright law. Shall we include that in relevant articles? No, no, wouldn't want to do that of course. Not due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.

Just a reminder that based on the above text by the judge, that the sources have highlighted this material about the nature of Carlson's show in general, instead of just the alleged defamatory marks. starship.paint (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind that the above material is taken from the middle of the opinion, not the summary at the end. The judge is making those statements within a very particular context, not as generalizations. The idea that we should include part of why the case was dismissed but not the other part seems questionable. Are we muck raking or actually trying to convey facts to the readers? Springee (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee I strongly disagree with your claim that the The judge is making those statements within a very particular context, not as generalizations. When the judge refers to the “general tenor” of the show, to the topics he discusses, to Carlson’s reputation, and to the statements he makes, these are all generalizations. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As for The idea that we should include part of why the case was dismissed but not the other part seems questionable - you previously argued that The dismissal of a lawsuit that went nowhere isn't significant. You helpfully pointed out that the lawsuit failed, which means Carlson was exonerated. Since Carlson was exonerated by the judge on defamation, why should we focus on the specific alleged defamatory content then? He's been cleared on that. You didn't accept an expanded version when I added it, now you want even more? starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I argued that this is undue. However if it's too be included then we need to include it in an impartial way which would be to include the judge's summary, not a part from the middle of the judgement that fails to include the full context of the statements. Springee (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I favor User:Starship.paint's addition from October 20. It could include a longer quotation from the judge if that is needed for fairness. Llll5032 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 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.

"Remember the facts of the story; these are undisputed"

Why was my edit reversed? No explanation was given in the edit summary. Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I reversed it because it doesn't appear to be an improvement. First, it's not clear the source is reliable or due. Second, it doesn't appear that the added quote was part of the legal arguments vs something CHN highlighted as part of their own commentary. Third, it comes across as a bit of a POV comment vs being impartial. Note that you didn't include an edit summary when you added the quote. Springee (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"nationalist" and "conservative" in lead

I don't want to revert the 3RR, but I think this diff [13] should be discussed. It feels like this should included in the body of the article and not the lead, and the statements should be attributed to the source. Just my opinion, but others would be helpful. Didn't want to keep reverting back and forth. Spf121188 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Springee for their opinion here, since both of our edits got reverted back. Spf121188 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Euphoria42, moving this to the body was good but I think the edit still needs work. The edit provides 3 sources to put "nationalist" in wiki voice. Looking at the sources I don't see that National Review supports the claim. It suggests Carlson's show is Paleo conservative. The MSNBC doesn't make the claim, rather they say that Bill Kristol said it. That is Kristol's opinion, not a fact and given the way MSNBC, CNN and Fox/Carlson often spar with each other we should be very careful when treating those as unbiased assessments. It doesn't take much searching to find articles that suggest Kristol and Carlson don't like one another. That would tend to make Kristol an involved party. I can't verify the Atlantic since it's behind a pay wall. Anyway, I think this needs to be taken out of Wiki voice and should be attributed to the Atlantic. That said, I would like to read what the Atlantic actually says. Springee (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing the Atlantic article, it doesn't support the text added to the article. Springee (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Springee, I give up on trying to add this information. You seem pretty set on just removing any of my additions. I'll see myself out. -Euphoria42 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Common Guests

UncomfortablySmug, is there a source for the list you added to the article? [14] It seems like good content but absent a source I'm worried it may be OR. Springee (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Here you go. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is doing to pass wp:DUE or wp:OR. Also, I think IMDB isn't considered a reliable source though I'm not certain on that last point. The problem with DUE is we don't have a RS saying a list of repeat guests is significant to this article. As for OR, it appears that you went down the list and decided which guests appeared say more than eight times or which were the top 20 most common guests. Since you, rather than an outside source have set the standard for inclusion it could be considered OR. For that matter, the idea that we have a list of top guests is OR if RSs don't establish it first. Finally, the list, as edited fails WP:V since it doesn't have any citations. Springee (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The issues with citing IMDb are given at WP:IMDB and WP:Citing IMDb. Pemilligan (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this list, assuming IMDB citations were added, would violate WP:Citing IMDB. Springee (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Please update Tucker Carlsons shows page to include the now widely available emails showing he knowingly lied on his show. This is 100% fact, the Dominion vs Fox lawsuit has unearthed mountains of emails that show that Tucker Carlson didn't believe his own lies. Maybe put it under a new section called "Scandals" or something. 172.58.219.130 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a growing collection of sources that can be used. This article is definitely a relevant article for this content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Fox News Tonight is experiencing a snowball issue right now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Tucker Carlson Tonight → Fox News Tonight – It appears to be long standing policy at Wikipedia to change the name of the article of a television show to what the show is currently called. Tonight this show rebranded as Fox News Tonight. Obviously the show is most well known under Carlson's name and I thought it would be best to have a discussion before moving the article. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is clearly about the 2016–2023 show, and it is not clear that the new program in this timeslot should be considered the same show. If necessary, a new article on the new iteration can be created. Note as well that the previous shows in this timeslot have their own separate articles. Dekimasuよ! 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We document history here, and we preserve it. Copy relevant content to a new article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fox News Tonight will be its own show, deserving its own article. 2013creek (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose instead create a new article for the successor show. Note that we have The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon all as separate articles. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's too soon to know that Fox News Tonight is/will be the same show. And if it isn't the same show, it's too soon to know that it deserves an article of its own. -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Same situation as CNN Tonight, although CNN Tonight evolved from less of an interim program to an actual, permanent program. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per all above. No real need for this renaming as a new article for Fox News Tonight can be created later. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The O'Reilly Factor should be used as precedent, as during the interim period it went by The Factor. Still, the page remains. However, it may be appropriate to redirect Fox News Tonight to Tucker Carlson Tonight, and note in the beginning of this article that the show is also known as Fox News Tonight. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 14:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose rename, support separate Fox News Tonight article per above. ~ AC5230 talk 20:54, 26 April 2023 (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.

Edit request

Please change the succession box:

{{S-start}}
{{S-bef|before= ''Jesse Watters Primetime''}}
{{S-ttl|title= ''Tucker Carlson Tonight''|years= 8:00 pm – 9:00 pm <br>1:00 am – 2:00 am (replay)}}
{{S-aft|after=''[[Hannity]]''}}
{{S-end}}

TO:

{{S-start}}
{{s-other|Fox News Channel primetime schedule}}
{{S-bef|before= ''Jesse Watters Primetime'' |as= 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm }}
{{S-ttl|title= ''Tucker Carlson Tonight''|years= 8:00 pm – 9:00 pm <br>1:00 am – 2:00 am (replay)}}
{{S-aft|after=''[[Hannity]]'' |as= 9:00 pm – 10:00 pm  }}
{{s-other|Fox News Channel primetime 8:00 pm – 9:00 pm timeslot}}
{{S-bef|before= ''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]'' |as= 1996 – 2017 }}
{{S-ttl|title= ''Tucker Carlson Tonight'' |years= 2017 – 2023 }}
{{S-aft|after= ''[[Fox News Tonight]]'' |as= 2023 – }}
{{S-end}}

This will add clarity to what the succession box is indicating. The addition of titlebars will show that the current succession box is for the FNC primetime schedule. The new second box will function as what normal succession boxes do, indicate the preceding and succeeding occupant of the post (the 8-9pm timeslot)

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Extra fluff not needed. Should be condensed instead, not expanded. Callmemirela 🍁 13:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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 review is transcluded from Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. This is my second review that is not a quickfail, so please be patient as I work through the article and correct me if I say something wrong. Spinixster (chat!) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

Infobox

• The infobox image seems to show the Tucker Carlson Tonight logo from 2016-2021, not the newest version. You can probably get the logo from here or crop from here (the latter would probably be the better option) and add a caption like "Logo used from 2021 to 2023", but if you can't, you can just add a caption like "Logo used from 2016 to 2021".
• You should add a number of episodes, if there's not an exact number, you can just put an estimate (e.g., "over 2000") as long as it's mentioned in a reliable source.
• Consider adding the names of the producers in the infobox.
• If there is information, consider adding the names of the production companies and the theme song/composer(s).

Lead

• For the second paragraph:
  • I would rearrange the sentences like so: Tucker Carlson Tonight is presented in a populist format. During its run, the show garnered significant attention amid several controversies. The show employed a minute-by-minute viewership rating system, a change brought about by former senior producer for The O'Reilly Factor Ron Mitchell. In July 2020, Tucker Carlson Tonight became the highest-rated primetime program across all of cable news; its dominance in the time slot ended only after the program's abrupt cancellation. so related sentences are near each other. Right now, the sentences are abrupt.
  • I'd merge "Tucker Carlson Tonight is presented in a populist format." with "During its run, the show garnered significant attention amid several controversies." together, because the two sentences are a bit short.
  • a change brought about by former senior producer for The O'Reilly Factor Ron Mitchell. Add a comma after The O'Reilly Factor.

Format

• I would recommend you remove or move information not related to the text somewhere else, for example,
  • the head writer mention could be in the History section instead, as it is not exactly related to the Current events segments subsection. It could also be better in the Controversy section, but it's not really related to the show, so (shrug)
  • similarly with the Ron Mitchell viewership mention, but if the shift to heavier topics is because of the viewership, you can briefly mention it.
  • some parts would be better in the Controversy section or removed entirely, remember, this section is focusing on the format of the show, not some points Carlson made, so try to keep the parts as examples only, and keep controversial comments at the Controversy section.

Studio

• I'd move Tucker Carlson Tonight was broadcast from Bryant Pond, Maine and, occasionally, Florida. to the start and then rephrase the first two sentences, something like: Tucker Carlson Tonight was primarily broadcast from Bryant Pond, Maine and, occasionally, Florida. It had previously been broadcast from Fox News' bureau in Washington, D.C. as of 2017. I can't access the source, so feel free to correct.
• Remove Maine on the second paragraph if you had made the edits from the first point.
• Move the image to the right per MOS:IMAGELOC.

Production

• Would recommend moving the third sentence about scouring the r/The_Donald subreddit to the Controversy section because this is not really related to production. Actually, now that I think about it, it's not that controversial. Perhaps you can move it to the end of the paragraph?

History

Roger Ailes' resignation (2016–2017)

• I would change the Carlson that are not referring to Gretchen in this section to Tucker, per MOS:SAMESURNAME.
• Add a period to the end of the image caption.

Timeslot changes and boycotts (2017–2023)

• when Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor was let go, following allegations of sexual misconduct. Remove the comma.
• Despite advertiser boycotts, Tucker Carlson Tonight became the second-highest rated news show in all of primetime in October 2018, after Hannity, with 3.2 million nightly viewers. At first glance, it wasn't clear that the 3.2 million viewers statistic was from Tucker Carlson Tonight and not Hannity's. I would use ...in all of primetime in October 2018 with 3.2 million nightly viewers, following behind Hannity. instead.

Cancellation (2023)

• ...leading to speculation that it was related to internal criticism of Fox News leadership,... Consider adding "either" after "was" so that it's clear that the speculation was either of the three and not just the first one; I was confused when I first read the sentence.
• Link All In with Chris Hayes.
• Link Jesse Watters Primetime instead of just Jesse Watters.

Reception

• I would recommend adding reception of the show here, like reviews, etc, not just controversies and legal issues - that's not really reception.

Controversies

• Add period to the end of the caption of the image.

References

• Reference 68 states the website as mediaite.com instead of Mediaite like the other references. Same with 44, states adweek.com instead of Adweek.
• Refs 49, 58, 68 and 71 are missing author.
• Refs 44 and 45 are missing author and date published.
• Ref 59 is missing author and website/publisher.
• Refs 72 and 74 are missing date published.
• To keep consistency within the references, I'd suggest you either link only the first instance of the website in the references or link all of them.
• Would suggest replacing ref 31 with this - Crooks and Liars is a blog and is thus unreliable.
• Would suggest replacing the Business Insider references since it's only reliable on a case-to-case basis, and on a contentious BLP, it is best not to use it.

Comments

@ElijahPepe: I'm done with the first round of review. Sorry it took a while; I was busy for a couple of days. Overall, it's a well-written article, just needs some points addressed. Spinixster (chat!) 10:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2 cents: the article mentions repeatedly the Great Replacement conspiracy, but never says clearly what it is and whether Carlson endorses the theory or rejects it. Throughout the article I see overuse of words like "connected" that don't make it clear what views are actually expressed by the show. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Update

Most of the problems have been resolved. I understand why some points were not resolved; it may be too much to ask for in a few days. I'll be passing the article now and hope that you can resolve the Reception section and also what buidhe pointed out in the future. Spinixster (chat!) 01:36, 1 September 2023 (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.

Why is the subject still in present tense?

If Tucker has been let go, the show cancelled and rebranded, why does the article still use present tense? I'm not fully aware of wikipedia policies, just was confused for a sec while reading. 70.31.76.156 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)