Talk:Tim Pool

Pool's extremist comments on right-wing mass shootings

Springee has deleted the edits re-introducing Tim Pool's comments on the Colorado LGBT club mass shooting calling the victims groomers, which were widely reported in reliable sources and by noteworthy commentators, and they have single-handedly decided that the BBC's article about the disinformation being spread by Tim Pool on the Texas shooting doesn't belong. Both these events, however, constitute one of the few times Pool's commentary broke the bubble of technology news media and made it to the highest-ranking news outlets. Unflattering or not, they belong on this entry as much as everything else about him. Can the wider editor community weigh in? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please use the previous discussion rather than starting a new one. Springee (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We have new edits and events, about the Texas shooting so a new discussion is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I don't think Springee is as much objecting to the coverage per-say they just don't like the language used/meets the very strict requirements of BLP, @Springee: can you suggest summaries of the coverage which you feel are appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I'm at a computer again (vs on a phone). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) was part of the prior discussion when this same material was added. Springee (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That user hasn't edited this entry in months. I'm fairly certain that ot's against Wikipedia's rules to canvass specific editors to discuss edit controversies in a Talk Page just because they're likely to agree with you. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You, Springee, and I were the only editors to participate in the last discussion on this topic. Per WP:APPNOTE, it is perfectly acceptable to notify Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Springee did not canvass anyone to this discussion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Since this is a continuation of the previous discussion notifying involved parties is fine. Springee (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, it's certainly odd that they only react to such coverage by blanketing them. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The article you cite says very little about Pool. The content related to Pool himself is at the very bottom and it isn't clear what specifically Pool was saying or referencing. I removed three claims/two sections of text which referenced that single BBC article. One was the "...as been described by the BBC". My issue here is these sort of offhand descriptions are rarely a good source for an encyclopedic claim in large part because they aren't supported by the text that follows. They are meant to set the stage for an otherwise unfamiliar reader. They don't support their claim which is something we would want when dealing with a BLP. The other part was the new, two sentence paragraph that says Pool's claims were baseless (the BBC doesn't say that). It also isn't clear what Pool was saying was a "psyop". Was it the information about the shooter in general or the linkage to Pool etc? Vague statements below the fold aren't good sources for contentious claims about a BLP subject. It's also not OK to take those vague claims and try to strengthen them in a way that isn't clearly supported by the original source. As a final, independent point, listing a bunch of times when some writer decided they didn't like what someone said on social media really isn't a good way to construct a BLP. Springee (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: "His podcast has been described by the BBC as covering "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories"."

The statement is presented as an opinion expressed by the BBC. (In fact, it should say BBC writers since the source is a signed article. If it is an opinion, then weight must be established. This is usually done by showing that the comments by the BBC writers have been widely cited.

However, this appears not to be a statement of opinion, but one of fact *whether it is true or not.) In that case, intext attribution should not be used. For example one would not say Obama was born in the U.S., according to BBC reporters, we would just say he was born in the U.S. and provide inline citations. Intext citation would add doubt to something that is a fact.

The comment in the BBC article is not particularly helpful. Yes, he covers "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories," but so does the SPLC and to a lesser extent, most news media when they become newsworthy. I learned about birtherism for example on CNN, because they "covered it."

I do not think it is useful to throw in one sentence zingers drawn from passing references in news media. It's better to get comprehensive sources about the topic and summarize them. If they don't exist, leave them out or delete the article.

An article based on the original research of editors is worse than not having an article at all.

Furthermore, the source itself is not rs for facts because it is analysis. TFD (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Pool isn't "covering" them as a journalist he holds or is sympathetic to these views and is promoting them. The NYT describes his podcast as "an extreme right-wing podcast" and says that it has "been criticized as a vector for conspiracy theories"[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of thing that the far right would say.Tim Pool is far right. 84.69.209.118 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Pool is NOT right wing.

WP:NOTFORUM, I see little constructive here Dronebogus (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who has actually listened to him knows this. Wikipedia needs to fix this. A single NY Times article as a citation to prove Tim is right wing is pathetic. At most Tim is a classical liberal who agrees with some conservative policies. Get it right Wikipedia. 2607:FB91:129F:4C56:545A:391D:F7B9:EF0 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Please provide reliable sources to support your point. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) It seems like a reasonable description based on his comments. Certainly members of the Right are not in 100%s agreement on everything and may side with progressives on some issues. That doesn't mean they are left wing. TFD (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed; Matt Walsh (political commentator) is described as right-wing. To put Pool in the same category as Walsh is preposterous. Even Michael Knowles is only described as conservative. NYT is left-leaning so of course Pool will be perceived more conservative than he actually is. Plus NYT doesn't even back up why they believe Pool is right-wing, the article just uses "right-wing" to attract clicks and fear monger (liberal media frequently uses the term right-wing for any conservative leaning person to stoke fear and demonization). It shouldn't be up to us to find "reliable sources" it should be up to NYT to prove their case why they slapped that label on him. Also, why is Wikipedia using sources people have to pay to view? 142.116.121.165 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed; Matt Walsh (political commentator) is described as right-wing. To put Pool in the same category as Walsh is preposterous. That's some of the most brazenly sophistic arguments I've ever seen. Two people can be right-wing without being interchangeable in their views. Plus, it's not like there's much to distinguish between Pool and Walsh these days especially when it comes to peddling hatred against the LGBT community. Tim Pool actually called the victims of the LGBT bar shooting groomers; even Matt Walsh didn't go that far. 177.134.220.205 (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Just because Pool and Walsh agree on a few things here & there doesn't mean they are both right wing. They both tend to make provocative tweets which again don't prove they are politically aligned. You can argue Pool is conservative and Walsh right-wing, that would be better. Pool is anti-death penalty. He is pro-choice (through the first trimester which 90% of abortions are). He uses the pronouns of transgender people that they want to be called. He is much more libertarian than Walsh is. And no Pool didn't call the victims groomers, you are blatantly misinterpreting his tweet(s) in bad faith. 142.116.121.165 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Also want to say that at the very least, calling him right-wing in the introduction using a source that simply just calls him right-wing in the headline and nothing to base that on is unwarranted. In the political views section, it could say "The New York Times has labelled Pool as right-wing". 142.116.121.165 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Conservatives are right-wing, so your proposal amounts to establishing a distinction without a true difference. Plus, our policy is to reflect what reliable sources say. The NY Times, a top notch reliable source, called Pool not a conservative, but right-wing, so your proposal constitutes original research. And guidelines require that we use reliable sources without attribution, so your last proposal violates that policy. You're lucky that this entry doesn't describe Pool as an extreme right-winger, because that's what the NYT actually calls him. 177.134.220.205 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Btw, here's how the Institute for Strategic Dialogue describes Tim Pool's comments on the shooting[2]: Tim Pool, a verified ‘independent journalist’ with more than 1.5 million followers on Twitter dubbed a ‘superspreader’ of 2020 election disinformation by the Universities of Stanford and Washington, insinuated that the mass shooting was justified due to Club Q hosting a ‘grooming event’ being held on the same day. In another article on the shooting, NBC News includes Tim Pool in a list of right-wing influencers who engaged in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric before and after the shooting.[3] So it's not just the NYT that has called Pool that. And honestly, that Tim Pool is right-wing should have been included in the entry long ago. This only didn't happen because of brigading on the part of a cadre of editors who work to whitewash entries on the American far-right. They have been successful in banishing from the entry any mention of Pool's views on right-wing mass shootings and his influence on mass shooters, but I guess they decided that after that NYT article, removing the right-wing descriptor was untenable. 177.134.220.205 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) All right-wingers are conservative but not all conservatives are right-wing. Megyn Kelly is not right-wing, nor is Dave Rubin, and definitely not Tulsi Gabbard (although she could arguably be an independent). Either way you are well aware what the "-wing" implies, a greater extreme. And not all liberals are left-wing either. It could depend on how pedantic you want to be, but it's clear these words are not synonyms. If they were the same thing, why does Wikipedia use "right-wing" and "conservative" for different people? You are saying they are the same thing, so why does Wikipedia need to use both? And as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia editors are allowed to use synonyms for words used in sources. So by your logic it would be acceptable to label Pool as conservative in the article as well. Lastly, And the Club Q shooter was not right-wing (or at least not found to be), so that's a generalization on your part to claim all of Pool's takes on mass shootings were done by right-wingers. 142.116.121.165 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Tim Pool's commentary on the shooting, made before the nonbinary story went public, was clearly based on the belief that the shooter was an "anti-grooming" crusader. So yes, Tim Pool thought at least initially the killer shared the same concerns as he did. Anyway, the Club Q shooter has been found to have moderated a neo-Nazi forum that hosted videos of right-wing violence, including the racist Buffalo shooting, and his close ones seem to doubt his nonbinary claims, which had not been made before the killings... I've never heard the idea that conservatives are not all right-wing. If that was the case, left-wing conservative would have been a familiar phrasing, which it is not; it's considered by most everyone a contradiction in terms. You're also wrong when you say all right-wingers are conservative. Some are libertarian. And you noticed Pool's libertarian leanings yourself, so how can you claim now that "conservative" is a better drscriptor for him than "libertarian"? It's in any case baffling that you're still on this hill. We have two reliable sources, the NYT and NBC News, describing Pool as right-wing rather than conservative. You need to make peace with this fact, as we can't trample on reliable sources to follow your original research, no matter how flawless your logic supposedly is... 177.134.220.205 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Left-wing conservatism obviously is not a thing because conservative and right-wing are terms given to people on any right leaning side of the aisle, from center right to far right. Conservatives can indeed be right-wing, but that doesn't mean all conservatives are, and that in itself makes them distinguishable from eachother. A great many people share my sentiments so I wouldn't call it "baffling". I'd like to mention NYT is obviously a left-leaning website, and since Wiki deems them reliable and non-partisan that means on this website, anything they say goes. Also quite weird the shooter hosted a website that showed right-wing violence, you would think someone who is biased in favour of the right would want to hide that type of content. Perhaps the shooter didn't have any actual ties or sense of personal belief in right-wing ideology; maybe history of, and depictions of violence from that side of the aisle just intrigued him. But that's just my opinion of course. 142.116.121.165 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) I have been watching tim pool on an almost daily basis for about 10 years. he used to say he was independent, or even socially liberal. he still says he i socially liberal, but when discussing republican policies, he started saying "we" some time in the last year (i think around when he had doug mastriano on his livestream). so while i'd like to be able to take him at his word, i also listen to what he says, and he identifies with right wing positions even if he says that right wing isn't a label he wants. BigMouthCommie (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Then go publish that in a reliable source, and you have fulfilled the minimum condition for your position being considered in Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) doesn't the article already reflect the sentiment: it identifies him as right wing. i don't think i need any sources to leave the article as it is, do i? BigMouthCommie (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Oops. I did not read your second paragraph as a whole. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) The reason he says "we" alot is because his guests tend to be conservative/right-wing. But you are implying his guests are right-wing by default. They are a mix of independents, conservatives and right-wing people (and sometimes liberals even). But in the context of "we" he generally is referring to the conservative movement. I wouldn't mind if Pool was considered a conservative on Wiki, but right-wing definitely creates certain preconceived notions about people. 142.116.121.165 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) this can't possibly be an explanation, because i don't watch his livestream or interview segments: i only get his news-read segments, where he is the only subject of the video, and he identifies with right-wing policy by saying "we" as in "we need to fight the cult on this or that". i don't think it's a "conservative movment", either. i think it's most accurate to say "right-wing," though political affiliation does seem amorphous and ambiguous when we try to find the edges of ideologies. i could support **not** calling him right wing, and perhaps using some other descriptor, but if the change were to be to "conservative" then we'd need sources that actually say that. right now, the sources say "right wing".commie (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Do any WP:GREL sources describing his ideology since 2020 use terms other than right-wing, far-right, or conservative? Llll5032 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

In the heading it only says Tim Pool pushes right wing ideas, when Tim Pool regularly pushes traditionally left wing ideas like universal health care, pro-choice, marijuana laws, and many other examples. As an independent voter, I personally consider him traditionally left leaning, but I am assuming most consider him center.

According to allsides.com Tim Pool leans “center.”

It is without a doubt left-wing biased and incorrect to state he is right-wing. 2603:6000:D801:8B8A:5D69:1E2:6E41:9669 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Comment: I agree with you that he holds (or has previously expressed) views on either side of the left/right spectrum. However, most if not all described in the article tend toward the extremes of either side. I associate centrism with more moderate, or less radical, ideas that variously straddle the middle ground. I consider centrists more likely to compromise with their opponents than insist it is their way or the highway. So in short I would reject the notion that his leftist views balance out his rightist views, the average being a centrist. It might be more accurate to say that he has more leftist ideas than rightist, but again that wouldn't make him center-left in my view. And then there's this: Pool tends to reject a left/right political framework for both self-description and in other contexts, instead preferring to divide the public into those who are "discerning" and "skeptical regarding legacy media" and those who are "undiscerning" and "uninitiated".

TL;DR: The lede should be changed to better reflect that he has, or has had, leftist and rightist views as documented in multiple reliable sources. However, since you did not propose a specific edit to make, an edit request is premature, and I am closing it. Feel free to open a new request when you can propose a specific, well-sourced, edit. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Tim Pool is a glorified right-wing troll whose entire online presence is designed to flatter his MAGA fanbase and keep it in a perpetual state of rage against liberals, LGBT people and, to a lesser extent, non-whites. He's only ever in the news and other reliable sources for supporting acts of violence against gay and trans people, and spreading fake news on behalf of the Republican party. If anything, this entry isn't going far enough in detailing how borderline terroristic and extremely right-wing his views are, due to diligent work from a few posters here in whitewashing this and other entries dedicated to North American far-right figures.

So the lede should not be changed to include the false information that he's got left-wing views or is somehow too complex a figure to be pigeonholed into either political camp, because that's not how people who matter describe him. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

He used to be very liberal, bur now even respected news platforms (I mean failing far-left legacy media) like NBC, BBC and NYT are calling him “[extreme] right-wing”. But we can’t call him a terrorist or even a troll without similar good sourcing. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, reliable sources don't outright call him a terrorism monger, but they have noticed he not-so-subtly supports acts of violence, including mass shootings, against LGBT people. But acknowledgement of this fact is being removed from this entry by POV warriors some rather tireless editors. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to 1: point out who these editors are and 2: take them to a noticeboard. If you can’t do either then you are casting WP:aspersions Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

More accurate photo

Tim is bald. Nowhere on this page mentions that. We have a picture of him without the beanie, I think we should use that one in the name of transparency. 76.172.88.207 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Who cares? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I second EvergreenFir's opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The people have a right to know 76.172.88.207 (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a more accurate picture to upload, how do I do it? 84.69.209.118 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the picture free? Dronebogus (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes 185.104.136.55 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what I mean by “free” in this context? Dronebogus (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is his Mixed Race missing?

No entry about his asian roots here! Fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF39:CB00:78AA:59B9:B5F3:ED42 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and do it yourself. NM 03:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

He has made statements as such on Twitter alluding to his supposed Korean & Japanese ancestry. But is it all that noteworthy? He only brings up this supposed(probably no more than 1/4) E. Asian ancestry when making a point about something someone else said on twitter - hardly noteworthy. He isn't Asian American until he actually identifies as such. And even then...--SinoDevonian (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hollywood In Toto" website is not a reliable source for information

Regarding the fact that Pool's song "Only Ever Wanted" reached the #2 spot on the global iTunes chart: The article cites Hollywood In Toto, a far-right "entertainment news" website, as a source. A more reliable source is needed here. 2601:CC:C101:D6D0:4923:F0BE:ECD7:605B (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)