Talk:Tim Pool

"No Go Zones"

I edited the article to more accurately represent the cited articles. The sources do not reference "no-go zones" as being the reason Tim Pool went to Sweden. Neither do they assert that no-go zones are "far-right conspiracy theories".

For something to be a conspiracy theory, it must by definition be the result of a secret plan of a certain group to do something harmful. In an of itself, no-go zones in this context are used to describe areas that due to some reason, such as high-crime, people are apprehensive about entering. Since the claim that there is a "far-right conspiracy theory" in regards to no-go zones is not adequately sourced, and is "contentious material", I have changed it in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.

Also, in regards to the term "far-right", I have changed it to "Donald Trump" whom the sources specify as being the person who instigated Tim Pool's trip to Sweden. I'm not sure if it's accurate to call Donald Trump "far right", but nonetheless, it is redundant to use vague group terms when an individual can be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.2.167 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that we do not inadvertently legitimize Watson/Infowars' WP:FRINGE perspective. The few reliable sources which have commented on Pool's activities treat is as a waste of time at best. To put it more bluntly, sources do not treat this as responsible journalism, and they absolutely do treat it as fear-mongering and sensationalism. Wikipedia isn't a platform for sensationalism or political gossip, and this is just as true for click-bait as it is for supermarket tabloids.

• In reference to Pool's brand of "busybody journalism":

"...it would have turned up in search next to livestreaming journalist Tim Pool’s 2017 videos “INSIDE A ‘NO GO ZONE’ IN MALMO, SWEDEN” and “GETTING ‘ESCORTED’ OUT OF THE ‘NO GO ZONE’” and right-wing agitator Lauren Southern’s “Thrown Out Of Sydney No Go Zone.” The premise of this emerging genre is simple: A vlogger visits a neighborhood with a large Muslim immigrant community, ostensibly to see for themselves an area they’ve heard is too dangerous for even police to visit. The vlogger establishes that their presence in the neighborhood is unwanted — in Pool’s case because he was filming men who didn’t want to be filmed; in Southern’s because she was standing outside of a mosque “criticizing Islam” — and leaves. A video of the experience is uploaded to YouTube, the phrase “no-go zone” featured prominently in the title."[1]

• The myth of Malmo being a "no-go zone" appears to have started with far-right outlets like Breitbart, VDare, Pamela Geller, Infowars, and similar. Ostensibly mainstream conservative media like Fox, National Review, and (if I recall) Newsmax picked it up, and it spread from there.[2] If Pool only started paying attention after Trump falsely misrepresented this game of telephone, so be it, but that means Pool rushed to collect other people's money so he could cover news that was more than a year past date. It's hardly surprising that he's not taken seriously, is it? And reliable sources do not take this particular trip seriously, in case that was in doubt.
• As I said, sources specifically about Pool's investigation are skeptical that this was responsible journalism, or that it was even journalism at all:

...“I’m not on anybody’s side, but I let everyone have their say,” Pool told me. “I try not to judge people.” This sounds noble, even obvious. Yet not all opinions deserve to be weighted equally, and, though editing may create opportunities for bias, it also allows for context, narrative structure, and editorial pushback. A journalist’s first task is to gather information without fear or favor. The next task, which is equally crucial, is to scrutinize the data—to separate the facts from the fulsome bullshit. The source goes on to note Pool's editorializing comments in his interview with the deputy mayor of Malmo. If Pool claims that he doesn't take sides, this was an amateurishly irresponsible mistake.[3]

With all that in mind, this was a far-right theory, and any summary of this mostly-trivial incident needs to match-up with reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it still contradicts Wikipedia's editing policy, which requires inline citations and no original research. Nowhere in the articles, even if the ones you have provided in talk, does it directly claim "far-right theories of no-go zones" as reasons for Tim Pool's visit. Because you are making inferences based on information not directly stated, it falls under the category of original research.

"...this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources [4]

Furthermore, while the claim that no-go zones are far-right theories may yet be established, content in Wikipedia must be directly related to the material presented. I.e., if the claim that no-go zones are far-right theories is a claim that in and of itself must be established using sources that *aren't* directly relevant to Tim Pool and the article, then it is not valid to include in the article.

"...OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."[5]

I previously made an edit that I believe stays true to the sources. And in no way does doing so lend any validity to any fringe perspectives. It correctly elucidates on Tim Pools reasons for going to Sweden while staying true to the sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. 194.223.38.162 (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to again emphasise that "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged", as per WP:NOR 203.221.112.245 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)a

Immigration to Sweden section

It's not actually true that Tim went to Sweden on PJW's challenge. Tim set up the gofundme in response to Donald Trump's speech mentioning the "no go zones" in Mälmo. Then PJW issued his challenge and offered to donate to Tim's gofundme. Tim has said (in his first appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast) that PJW's contribution amounted to 9% of the total amount raised.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Watson's specific financial contribution should not be judged without context. Browsing through the GoFundMe page's donations, someone named Adam Evans donated $100 and said "I support EVERYTHING that Paul Joseph Watson supports. God bless!" Which if nothing else, tells us that it's not as simple as Watson just being another rando with cash to burn. So, what do reliable sources say about this?

The Huffington Post news story (such as it is) quotes Pool soliciting Watson's advice on where in Sweden he should go, and explains that he had the idea, but didn't apparently act on it until after Watson's tweet. Okay, ideas are cheap, though. So from that source alone, this summary seems about right. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That Huff Post article is so absurd, though. It actually cites Tim Pool's video as its source on the matter. So Tim's word is not good enough, but an article by HP quoting Tim is good enough. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons that self-published sources are treated with caution. Broadly, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We favor secondary sources. There are also important considerations specifically related to Pool.

By Wikipedia's standards, Pool is less trustworthy specifically because he is outside of the mainstream. The reliability of a source is evaluated by its reputation and its accountability to outside evaluation. Pool bypasses editorial oversight, independent fact checking, peer-review, etc. He plays loose with the rules of journalism. This has its good sides and bad sides, but for Wikipedia, the bad sides are a pretty big deal.

Huffington Post isn't a great site, but its news department's reporting is sometimes reliable in context (per WP:RSP. It's still much better than Pool's raw material, however.

The Huffington Post is beyond terrible as a source. It is extremely biased and unreliable: [6]. What evidence do you have that Huffington Pool is better that Tim Pool's journalism? Also this fallacy that a source is more reliable because its mainstream is a blatant argument from authority.

For this specific investigation, the whole premise was absurd,[7][8][9][etc]. Pool's trip only damaged his credibility by tying his reputation to far-right conspiracy theory websites and loony tabloids.

He's certainly not the first to blur the lines between his source of funding and his reporting, and he's not even the first to do so with crowdfunding. Journalistic objectivity#Crowdfunding mentions a study on this from 2014, for example. Since we absolutely would not use Pool's social media for factual claims in any other article, we need a specific reason to introduce this perspective here. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia claims I went to Sweden because of Paul Joseph Watson. Complete lie. The source they have says I went there because of statements made by Donald Trump, that's the truth, but will they publish the truth? They won't. They twist and justify how their personal opinion on the article supercedes the actual citation, and when you try and change it, they will lock the page and kick you out." - Tim Pool, source: 22m55s @ YouTube video R5r67lzhHk8?t=22m55s Jasonkhanlar (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

When I read that section it basically has the facts correct, but the way (and specifically the order) the information is presented gives one a mistaken impression. The easiest fix (in my opinion) is changing it to read something like:

"In February 2017, Pool travelled to Sweden to investigate claims made by Donald Trump about problems with refugees in the country. At nearly the same time Infowars writer Paul Joseph Watson offered to pay for travel costs and accommodation for any reporter "to stay in crime-ridden migrant suburbs of Malmö". Pool launched a crowdfunding effort which raised $9000 including $2000 donated by Watson."

I did drop the "far-right conspiracy theory" claim mostly because it didn't seem to have a neat place to be fit in but also because neither of the referenced articles make that claim (although one does claim PJW is "alt-right" and a conspiracy theorist, neither claims that Pool was influenced by PJW)Seraphael7 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Time magazine clip.

What, exactly, is this source supporting? Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cestlavieleir: I have started a talk page discussion, so answer the question or self-revert. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Journalist

As of July 13, these sources were used to support that Pool is defined as a journalist:

• Rebecca Savransky (August 15, 2016). "Journalist pulls out of Milwaukee over escalating racial tensions". The Hill. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
• Michelle Mark (August 15, 2016). "Prominent digital journalist pulls out of Milwaukee: 'For those who are perceivably white, it is just not safe to be here'". Business Insider. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
• Andrew Marantz (December 11, 2017). "The Live-Streamers Who Are Challenging Traditional Journalism". The Hill. Retrieved March 12, 2019. - This is an error, as the source is the the New Yorker, not The Hill.

The first two are in reference to a single incident. Him stopping his filming of the 2016 Milwaukee riots and leaving the town for his own safety, ostensibly because a white kid was injured and he no longer felt safe. (Reliable sources I have seen barely mention this non-fatal shooting, and I haven't seen any which mention this person's race. The riots started in response to two black people being fatally shot by police.) While these two sources do describe Pool as a journalist, it is specifically in relation to one incident of him stopping his journalistic activity.

As discussed in a previous section, The New Yorker source is far, far more nuanced. It contains substantial discussion about whether or not Pool is a journalist. It quotes Jay Rosen's comments about this specific point (specifically this post from back in 2011), but Marantz doesn't draw a single conclusion. It doesn't provide a simple answer. Regardless, it's very critical of Pool's skill as a journalist. It tentatively describes him as a journalist, but harshly criticizes the quality of his journalism, such as his unwillingness to "to separate the facts from the fulsome bullshit." It's a red flag if we are using a source for simple, flattering attributed while ignoring the larger context of the source.

If we are going to describe Pool as a journalist, we need to include some of this context, otherwise this is misusing sources.

Some sources specifically push-back on describing Pool as a journalist, also.

• Harris, Malcolm (19 August 2014). "OPINION: Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - This source says he is "no journalist" and describes Pool as a "rabid transparency ideologue" instead.

• Wilson, Jason (18 March 2018). "How to troll the left: understanding the rightwing outrage machine". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - This source says "The event was also given lavish attention by the YouTube star Tim Pool, who insists that he is not 'alt-right', despite his apparent chumminess with the movement's leading lights."

• López, Cristina G.; Molloy, Parker (10 July 2019). "The White House's social media summit is just another stunt to game the refs". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - Media Matters for America isn't a neutral source, but it documents several sloppy factual errors made in Pool's content in support of right-wing conspiracy theories. It doesn't describe him as a journalist, either, it describes him as "a YouTuber who has a soft spot for 'alt-right' figures..."

• O’Connor, Brendan (17 September 2018). "Davos For Fascists". The Nation. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - Referring to a film by "grifter" Mike Cernovich: "Interviewees include Alex Jones, Anthony Scaramucci, James O’Keefe, Tim Pool, Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern, Ryan Holiday, and Jordan Peterson." The purpose is not guilt by association, it is to explain how sources perceive this person. His activities have made reliable sources increasingly skeptical of Pool's legitimacy as a journalist, and this is an example. This isn't a list of journalists, it's a list of right-wing pundits and social media personalities.

There are, however, many source which simply describe him as a journalist or "independent journalist" (or "citizen journalist"). These tend to be older. Newer sources using this term are less common, and more likely to be from unreliable outlets. If we are going to include this term, we need to cite reliable, substantial sources which directly support this. Since we have sources disputing this description, we should find something better than passing mentions to support this. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. More recent sources in a similar vein:

Slate 2019  independent journalist Tim Pool

NR 2019 independent journalist Tim Pool

Colorado Independent 2019 Pool is a journalist known for his roaming live-stream reports

USA TODAY 2017 Journalist Tim Pool

Spiked 2018 journalist Tim Pool

HuffPo UK journalist Tim Pool

Reason 2019 Pool and Reason's Robby Soave were the rare journalists who bothered to examine more of the videos.

New Yorker 2016 A video journalist named Tim Pool

Michigan Daily 2019 independent journalist Tim Pool

These are all from the last three years but his work hasn't changed in the last few years so I don't see why RS would describe him differently or why we'd discount their earlier descriptions. I don't have serious objections to "independent journalist" he's clearly independent but that's a subset of journalist and not the majority description. Cestlavieleir (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Harris, Malcolm (19 August 2014). "OPINION: Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

I don't know much about Al-Jazeera, but the article is clearly very biased. Whatever you think about tim pool he is definitely not a "rabid transparency ideologue" and, even if he was, that sort of activity is reminiscent of investigative journalism or the activities of wikileaks (ie classical journalism).

• López, Cristina G.; Molloy, Parker (10 July 2019). "The White House's social media summit is just another stunt to game the refs". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

Media matters is an activist organization dedicated to deplatforming anyone it labels as right wing. It even declares its' own bias on its' facebook page: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

• O’Connor, Brendan (17 September 2018). "Davos For Fascists". The Nation. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

Guild by association is not evidence

Seraphael7 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

All the sources mentioned against Pool are left-wing outlets. Whether or not they are generally reliable (Media Matters, at least, isn't), in this instance, it seems to be a matter of ideological bias. Many of the articles are obviously opinion, and quite silly too (Davos for Fascists? Gavin McInnes is the only one on that list who can really be called far-right). Pool is a journalist because he does journalism; he engages in journalism. Whether it is good journalism is a different matter, but to refuse to call it journalism is silly. Apart from ideology, I think some of this is also a matter of established media trying to shut out independent, online competitors, so you get the strange notion a journalist must work for some established outlet, instead of just be someone engaged in journalism, reporting, etc.61.68.174.134 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding section on Criticism

Wikipedia has a neutral POV policy which means put up both awards and criticism, both accurately sourced. So a criticism section is being added. 103.77.137.247 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters is disputed in terms of reliability and your Al Jazeera source did not refer to Pool as a conservative. As you can see above there is already an on going discussion and dispute. There seem to be more reliable sources referring to Pool as independent or as just a journalist. Additionally some of these citations for criticism have published contradictory claims. This isn't a space to put up any critique unless it is relevant in the greater context. As this page has already dealt with repeated partisan vandalism I think we should take a cautious approach before including any positive or negative associations. The award section is a career accolade, Media Matter's concern over a single invitation is not. Uneditablerunner (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters' status as a biased source has been explicitly mentioned in the edit. Doesn't mean it isn't relevant. The Al Jazeera source does refer to Pool as a conservative. The critique here isn't that Pool isn't an indepedent journalist (he is an independent journalist, because he isn't associated with corporate media), but multiple sources refer to him as a conservative commentator. One person can wear multiple hats. This is the most cautious approach, taking all bias into account. 103.77.137.247 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

103.77.137.247 can you provide some additional sources that describe him as conservative? I did look at some of the sources in the article but could not find one. The Al Jazeera article does not explicitly describe him "conservative" rather an overall blanket statement about several people they describe as "far-right" or "conservative". S0091 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is at least one source referring to him as left, but again this just goes back to it being a previously resolved dispute where nothing was changed. It doesn't seem to make sense to include one single incident where outlets previously described as biased are referenced again. In the end it probably makes the most sense not to include a partisan websites concern over one single incident especially as it has no bearing over the greater informational context of the article. It does nothing to add to our understanding of who Pool is other than 'one time he went to the White house and got criticized.' I dont see that as relevant to his career in greater context Uneditablerunner (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Tim is less left wing than he thinks he is, but to anyone who follows his work and actually knows what conservatives think, he is clearly not a conservative. The problem here is that most people on the left cannot accurately describe the positions held by those on the right. While I understand that wikipedia is a tertiary source and relies on what secondary sources say, I find it deeply dishonest to use biased, vague or factually incorrect secondary sources to misrepresent the truth. Unfortunately I am not sure what wikipedia can do about it. Seraphael7 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSECTIONs are usually a bad idea, but this is not an excuse to remove critical content. Media Matters is probably too weak for an entire section, though.

As you say, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, so saying "he is clearly not a conservative" is a textbook example of WP:OR. If you've picked your pony, so be it, but your personal opinion about the accuracy of these sources in not persuasive without something to back them up. His stated beliefs and his actions are not in sync, which is discussed by some of the sources I linked above in the #Journalist section. To put it another way, his activity is appreciated by many on the far-right for amplifying their ideas, but much less so the left. As with any media personality, how he describes himself is not more important than how reliable sources describe him, because Wikipedia is independent of Pool, and this isn't a public relations platform.

So with that in mind, here's what the Al Jazeera source says:

Tim Pool, a YouTube video journalist, said in a video he was also invited. Pool has amplified claims that conservative media endure persecution and bias at the hands of tech companies.

Is anyone disputing this?

Pool was also discussed by the Alternative Influence report which was heavily covered by many reliable sources. Few mention Pool specifically, although one of the few which did was this article from Mic.com. As it explains:

The members of the AIN aren’t all right-wing, or even necessarily self-identified conservative. But as the below chart indicates, the network of guest appearances and mutual promotions creates pathways on the web, so that in just a few clicks, a viewer can veer from rants about campus feminists to videos about debunked racism pseudoscience and white nationalist politics.

No, this is not Wikipedia finding guilt by association. Reliable sources are perfectly free to document significant associations... That's kind of the point, isn't it? We do not ignore something just because it's unflattering. This would be censorship (or political correctness, if you prefer). While it does matter what Pool calls himself, what matters more is that we reflect what reliable sources say about him. This includes the infamously chummy association he has with white supremacists.

If someone reading the article doesn't even get a hint that this person is very controversial, both as a pundit and a journalist, the article has failed to reflect reliable sources. If we're going to say someone is "controversial", we should be able to explain why he is controversial, because anything else would be euphemistic. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: @Grayfell: Here are a few sources which all claim that Pool pushes conservative rhetoric in his political commentary. https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/baseless-smear-targeting-ilhan-omar-made-its-way-trump-thanks-fox-and-these-far-right https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/11/white-house-social-media-bias-talks-1576717 https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qv7q87/trump-invites-fringe-social-media-company-popular-with-nazis-to-the-white-house 103.77.137.99 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, I do think first claim by Media Matters should be taken with a grain of salt. It says that the Alternative Influencer thing "put Pool at nearly the direct center of this network". This is technically accurate, but really painfully misleading. His physical location on the chart was not intended to indicate anything in particular, and Media Matters should not have implied otherwise. The article shows the graph, and as the key to the graph explains, size and color are the relevant indicators, and he is not particularly highly-ranked in either of them ("betweeness centrality" and "closeness centrality"). The document itself explains why it was arranged the way it was (on p.11), but there is nothing which indicates that Pool was singled-out. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Does the centrality of some undirected graph have any bearing on Pool's status as a right-wing commentator? That graph is a conspiracy theory at best. If multiple reliable sources (some of them vetted as Perennial Sources on WP) believe him to be a right-wing commentator, what does the graph have to do with it? 103.77.137.99 (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pool is referenced in the previous link I posted as a fan of Tulsi Gabbard and as far as I can tell he supports her, she is a Democrat. I think too much time is spent trying to figure out what Pool is instead of discussing what he does and I do think it is strange for so much of the conversation to be around whether his politics can be identified in a partisan way. There are probably more sources calling him independent than anything else. Could it possible be that he is just a centrist? If we are having this hard of a time figuring it out maybe it is because he doesn't fit a particular box. For that matter this whole page in my opinion is woefully lacking and there has been no real attempt at an update outside of his perceived partisanship, which again seems odd to focus on. The introduction references occupy wall street which I certainly think based on this conversation doesn't make sense, that he is most known for it. Why is no nato relevant? Why is Sweden relevant? It barely discusses what he did at Vice, where he claims he "founded" Vice news and it barely even mentions the work he did at Fusion. I just think it would be weird to simultaneously claim he is famed for occupy wall street but also conservative but also targeted by police. Wikipedia is not a high light reel, resume, or a place for every instance he was ever mentioned. Its supposed to be an encyclopedic understanding of who Pool is and what he does. Uneditablerunner (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Uneditablerunner: @Grayfell: What Pool does is consistently push conservative viewpoints in his political commentary channel on YouTube. He also participates in independent reporting on his other channels following his stints at corporate media outlets. Which bring us to what he is. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Which makes him a right-wing commentator. WP, being an encyclopedia, should report on all his past newsworthy stories. If you feel a sub-section about his Vice and Fusion days would round out the article, please add it in instead of reverting other people's constructive edits. An encyclopedia should add more relevant information as time goes by, not less. WP might not be a resume, but deliberately obscuring information counts as POV-based editing.

P.S. Pool only supports Gabbard's stance of reigning in Silicon Valley censors, which again reaffirms his stance as an independent journalist. I'm yet to see any recent references where he doesn't side with conservative viewpoints. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I included one, Vice called him "lefty." My main concern is that there seems to be a big push recently to heavily focus on partisan politics instead of actual career. Look at the past discussions and edits going way back. Why was no nato ever included, Sweden as well. If we go back to previous comments and stories we would have to decide at what point Pool stopped being left and started being right. I guess it could be included as it seems to have some relevance but in the end I am suspicious over the consistent and deliberate attempts to either call him conservative, right wing, or even outright remove the title journalist form his page. It looks like partisan left individuals started the page in the first place and partisan politics seems to take center stage all the way up to now. Perhaps this page should be completely rewritten, expanded to focus on career, accolades, and current work and following that a section on dispute over his politics could come in. Why is any of this relevant at all anyway? Certainly if he was a founder of vice news it would be substantially more relevant than his political alignment. To better explain my concern take a look at a page like say Don Lemon. Lemon is overtly partisan and even the new york times has blocked their reporters from appearing on his show but for some reason there is no real focus on his page about that. In fact his page says "independent." This is true for many other political commentators and reporters. There seems to be an ongoing and deliberate attempt to inject politics into this page. Uneditablerunner (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP is not a place to air your grievances. There are problems with the Don Lemon page, and you are free to edit it to make it impartial. It's not constructive to let partisan bias spill over into other pages. Your one source mentions no "lefty" activities with which he can be associated, using it merely as a moniker to describe him. All the other sources explicitly talk about him pushing conservative viewpoints. Also, there's some confusion about two different meanings of the word "independent". The media, in general, seems to be of the opinion that Pool is an independent journalist, i.e. not backed by mainstream media outlets, and not Independent, i.e. without a political affiliation. Also, please add that section about Vice News if you think it's important. Since the article is quite upfront about his work as a political commentator, it's hard to believe that mention of his own political positions is not merited. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Uneditablerunner's contribution history might lead one to believe that it's a case of WP:SPA. Nearly a year-old account and mostly reverts changes to the Tim Pool page. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't assume that 'independent' is meant to insinuate that he is not working for a company, that is a less common interpretation of what independent means especially as these articles mentioning him are doing so in a typically political context. Mentioning Lemon has nothing to do with grievances, it is interned to show that may be the case here, that Pool for some reason is getting undue attention. Pool is substantially less relevant than Don Lemon and not deserving of this intense debate. If you want to discuss the meaning of the word independent we can but it is typically associated with politics and I would contend that it would fit him well based on the current and previous discussion. As for WP:SPA I hardly think that matters considering your editing history shows a single purpose. I think your points are worth bringing up but wrong and I think I have made accurate and fair points about the dispute. Ultimately I think before any changes are made on this and the past discussion of nearly the same subject the article needs to be reworked entirely. If a section on criticism is to be added it would likely need more than a few sources with questionable reliability. I also noticed that a source you included says Pool is a self identified Bernie supporter and social liberal with views on social media aligning with conservatives. That source calls Pool independent, according to Pool's twitter he is not independent of a news outlets as he is "currently @ Subverse." I would assume they say independent due to the context they added in the article, atypical political views or views that don't align completely with either party Uneditablerunner (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You might have used "independent" in a political context, but the media articles don't seem to support that context. They firmly use "independent" as a journalistic term, as is usual and can be seen at the WP page on Citizen Journalism (which is a redirect from Independent Journalism). As for Subverse, it's his own company and its reporting runs contrary to established media narratives as it claims. That still makes him an independent journalist, not politically Independent. And as @Grayfell: previously pointed out, it's irrelevant if Pool is a self-professed Bernie supporter. What matters if his talking points in his position as a political commentator align with Bernie's, which they don't. Pretending otherwise is pushing Pool's biased POV over the truth. The original edit I made to the page took the sources' obvious left-wing bias into account. What you're pushing for here is a stifling of debate (in your own words), which is tantamount to censorship. You're constantly making the case that WP is missing key facts about Don Lemon's partisanship and Pool's former career. You've made no effort to enact those changes. All you've done so far is to impede any and all constructive edits to this page, and have been doing so for the better part of a year. P.S. My ISP changes my IP everyday, but even a cursory glance of my current IP contributions will suffice to show that I've made more uncontested edits to several articles in a day than the non-Tim Pool edits you've made in a year. The case for WP:SPA still stands. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We are going in circles, I'm not the only who disagrees with you. You haven't provided any other sources and one of your sources, Politico, just calls him independent again. The issue I see is no attempt to actually define Pool's career or explain anything. Wikipedia should help people understand, that includes this conversation. But to just add another partisan comment would not contribute anything. I would be in favor of expanding the article, updating it to be more reflective of Pool's career, criticism included, but it would need more sources that would ideally be more specific in their criticism and not just passive claims. Think about the format of what this article is already. It just lists a few minor moments that don't talk about Pool at all. He attended No Nato, He Went to Sweden, And he was criticized after going to the White House. If we continue down this path it will just be a list of random moments in his career instead of explaining what his career actually is. Uneditablerunner (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

All the sources except for your Vice article say he's an independent journalist who commonly spouts right-wing statements as a commentator. Those are all active claims which reference his activities, and not the names they choose to call him. Nobody has disputed that claim so far. These moments being added to the article aren't random, they're all newsworthy. You're free to add other newsworthy moments. If all this information about his career is missing, nobody will able to make an encyclopedic article at all. It'll remain in whatever haphazard state it is right now, which is an unclear piece of prose roiling under heavy-handed censorship from you. You can't expect consensus to be built upon thin air. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I find your responses out of line with the discussion. Subverse's reporting of news is not sourced anywhere as being in or out of line with established reports, you opinion on his talking points are not relevant. If he is called independent more often than not that it is not our place to describe him as anything else. If sources are conflicted on his politics then we can note that in a criticism section. You have simply been asked to consider the greater context and cite articles but seem instead focused on just putting in criticism based on your opinion. If you have issues with Subverse as a company, find a source. But it doesn't matter if my opinion on the phrasing of independent is political or not. We are not citing our opinions in the article. To clarify for the last time. This is not an article about what you find to be singularly important, it is about a living person. The article is already a mess that barely describes who Pool is. Adding more to that seems to be a waste of time and this discussion should be moved to a broader discussion about fixing the article as a whole, yes criticism included. Uneditablerunner (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Please indent your posts so that they are at a different level from the person you are responding to. This is standard talk page behavior which makes lengthy conversations much easier to understand. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So, as I've already said multiple times before on this talk page, we are not interested in any individual editor's interpretations of who he is, or what he has accomplished. His off-hand comments in support of Gabbard or Sanders are totally useless.

Here's a simplified explanation of WP:SYNTH: a source says X, and X implies Y. We cannot use the X source to say "Y" in the article. So from that, his support for any particular politician doesn't mean anything by itself. What defines him on Wikipedia is when a source defines him.

We are interested in summarizing what reliable, independent sources say. By "independent", I mean independent of Pool. Some sources mention Pool, or cite his work, but very few sources talk about Pool, and few of those go into any depth. Enough that he meets notability guidelines, probably, but not much beyond that. We summarize what we have, and we do not use our own opinions to fill in details.

We also must be very cautious about using his media to pad-out the article. He is a primary source for his own activity and views. He is also not a reliable source (in most cases) for statements of fact, for a lot of reasons. Subverse, which is Pool's own "label", does not appear to have the positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking which is expected by Wikipedia.

Regardless of his own position, sources have paid attention to his politics. The task is figuring out how to explain this. Some of the few sources we have mention his political leanings, but they do not agree with each other. They do seem to mostly agree with his popularity among the far-right, however. Still, we cannot use sources which do not say he's "conservative" to say he is "conservative", even if they imply it. That's not to say this doesn't belong. It might even belong in the first sentence, but this needs sources and context, in the body of the article, before being placed in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Greyfell and think the core problem is that Pool is notable in a lot of ways but as Greyfell pointed out no one seems to talk about him. I'd actually contend Pool is not notable in that regard but there still is a substantial amount of press mentions of him. Ultimately I don't know how to draw a conclusion based on Greyfell's assessment. If they mention him in passing, contradict each other sometimes then that explains why the article has never been updated and is lacking substantially. Older sources refer to him as an activist, some refer to him as a technologist, some are specifically about technology like google glass or drones, some are about his career activity, and more recently they seem to be about his politics. However it makes sense to explain this I have no idea. In fact I'm beginning to think he barely qualifies for an article altogether. Uneditablerunner (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Instead of the censorship option advocated by WP:SPA Uneditablerunner, I've added a new section with all the sources from this discussion. Please take a look. 103.77.137.18 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a start. "Censorship", eh? Editorial restraint is not censorship. We don't include everything in an article just because we can find a source for it. This is an issue of ethics, and as an aside, editorial restraint is a quality many people have criticized Pool for lacking (Malcolm Harris, for example). By far, most of Pool's output now is punditry, not reporting, so a summary of his views seems completely appropriate. Summarizing this in a neutral way is going to be a challenge, though.

As a reminder, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias baked into its policies, and this isn't likely to change anytime soon. Being rejected by the "mainstream" is not automatically a badge of honor. Sometimes sources are rejected for a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell:: Having watched many of your comments on political pages I generally agree with you. I am sure you are well aware that I generally oppose your take on Tim Pool, but I am glad we have some common ground here. I agree that Tim has moved from being a reporter to being a pundit. This still makes him a Journalist by all definitions I have seen but his style has certainly changed. Seraphael7 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Uneditablerunner: I pretty much agree with your take on Tim Pool. The biggest problem is that no one talks about him and those that do have a very negative opinion of him. It is fairly easy to find articles that smear him offhand using common epithets (and, in my opinion, usually being deceptive as they do so), but difficult to find articles that actually review his work in its' entirety. Perhaps Wikipedia feels it is acceptable to smear a person based on offhand and innacurate comments in supposedly reliable sources, but it is my hope that this would run in to BLP issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphael7 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be this strange notion that being an independent journalist means that established journalism is monolithic and therefor less trustworthy. The "MSM" is a single force that has some supposed vendetta against Pool. I doubt Pool has directly said as much, but it's implied, and his fans seem to share it. When stated like this, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Corporate journalism has some serious flaws, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that it must always be wrong whenever Pool disagrees with it. Pool is not more legitimate just because he lacks accountability to a third party. This would only make sense if we assume that any form of outside editing is inherently bad.

Professional journalists don't agree with each other anymore than any other group, so why would they all, across dozens of platforms, ideologies, and countries, share some nefarious agenda? Why would they also happen to be incorrect? If every source which even remotely criticizes Pool is dismissed as having "an obvious left-wing bias", perhaps that's because nobody else is paying attention, right? That doesn't actually make any of these sources wrong. At the very least, there is no way to define that perspective as "centrism".

If you think editorial oversight is a bad thing, Wikipedia's probably the wrong project for you, but I don't think anyone really thinks that. It doesn't matter what we think, anyway. What matters is reliable sources. If you think anything here is a WP:BLP issue, I would suggest carefully reading WP:BLP first. Then, look over WP:BLPN to get a sense of how that works, and then if it still makes sense, post a comment there asking for outside perspectives. From experience, I don't think this will go anywhere, but I've certainly been wrong before. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

False claims about the Media Matters Article

One editor blocked per NOTHERE. Section hatted because repeating these ridiculous claims becomes a BLP violation in its own right, by virtue of repetition. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to quote in here the full segment of the medias matters article first, related to Tim Pool: Tim Pool falsely claimed Star Tribune claimed that Omar “may have married her brother.” Tim Pool, a YouTuber with connections to multiple white nationalists and far-right figures, uploaded a June 23 video falsely claiming that the Star Tribune showed Omar “may have married her brother.” Here is the Star tribune Source used by Pool : http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/ In short, never did Media Matters called Pool a conspiracy theorist and they also fail to prove that he made a false claim in the first place, the star tribune did indeed run the article tTim says they did, and thay did the way he reported about it. The fact that you keep using this source to claim he is a conspiracy theorist is a just a poor case of novel and unsourced creation attempting to reframe and stretch the unfounded smear of a website you personnally have affection for, IMHO. Even if he did mistaken the star tribune, or covered the news coverage of a potential conspiracy theory, there is still a leap from being mistaken and actively promoting conspiracy theories. I would also point out that the libel conspiracy theorist seems to be used for a specific shock purpose. In other words, if you use that reference, you can say that he was mislead by the tribune about ilham omar (and not watch his video criticising the startribune) but it would be disingenuous to do so and not point out that your source is also false. Yes, he was criticing the tribune. If over the top you spin this as a fabricated proof that he is a conspiracy theorist.... You are not in RationalWiki or on PULL im afraid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Per the cited source: Tim Pool falsely claimed Star Tribune claimed that Omar “may have married her brother.” Tim Pool, a YouTuber with connections to multiple white nationalists and far-right figures, uploaded a June 23 video falsely claiming that the Star Tribune showed Omar “may have married her brother.” [YouTube, 6/23/19; Media Matters, 7/9/19] The story doesn't say what Pool claims it says, suggesting at best that he didn't read it carefully. The unsupportable claim that Omar secretly conspired to illegally marry her brother for immigration purposes is a textbook conspiracy theory. So this seems pretty clear to me. Regardless, NBC News has also said he has promoted conspiracy theories, in this case those attached to the murder of Seth Rich. These theories are also unsupportable speculation, at best. Several other outlets followed this one to link Pool to the Rich conspiracy. Based on this alone, I would accept removing this line and instead simply describing him as a "conspiracy theorist" in plain language, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Who gets to decide what claims are conspiracy theories and what aren't and why do they personally get to decide that? Just as FOX is an arm of the RNC, MSNBC is an arm of the DNC and everything they say should be considered as to how it might benefit the democratic party. Media Matters is directly funded by the DNC's Center For American Progress. I fail to see why these should be considered incontrovertible sources. If the jury is out on a given subject, I don't see any reason why one side of an issue should be allowed to claim the other side are the conspiracy theorists without being able to prove their own claims about the issue to be true. I also think it's important to note that *speculation* is not the same as "promoting conspiracy theories". I'll try to find Tim's videos that mention Seth Rich, but I'm not convinced that the characterization that he "promotes conspiracy theories" is correct or even fair-minded. BlackCatKillsRat (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC) @Grayfell I think you are trying to make an unproven assertion that your reference doesn't say. Then why using media matters and not NBC in the article ? Is it because you know your news sources are unreliable ? You know you are trying to create novel content, everyone is here to see you figure skating, @Grayfell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC) The funny thing about (one of, I have seen two) the NBC news articles is that it links to the video they base their claim on. He basically says that "personally I am inclined to believe that there is at least a great than probability chance that, again my opinion, that you Seth Rich was in fact the leaker. Now with kim.com's statement I am sitting around a 57 to 65% chance that Seth Rich was the leaker." I am sorry, if that is the evidence that they are using to say that he pushed the conspiracy theory they are being intentionally deceptive. He clearly stated that it was his opinion, not that it is a fact. If, after seeing their source, you really want to give credibility to the statement on wikipedia well I can only conclude you are as dishonest as the person who wrote article. with that evidence Article: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/conspiracy-theorists-far-right-agitators-head-white-house-social-media-n1028576 Link: https://twitter.com/ViniKako/status/868206160809259010 Seraphael7 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC) His opinion in favor of an unsupportable conspiracy theory must still be evaluated by reliable source, not original research. Your personal opinions on his opinions are not relevant, only sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC) So what you are saying is that a "reliable source" can be exposed in telling a lie and you would support including that lie in an encyclopedia because no "reliable source" has countered that lie?Seraphael7 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC) What does it matter what media matters says about him? They're an unreliable source, and shouldn't be cited. Gregnator (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC) They are reliable for opinions with attribution, and they are an independently significant group which analyses media. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC) They're reliable only when they cite other sources to back up their own claims. Given that they are directly funded by the DNC's Center for American Progress, I find your characterization of them as "an independently significant group which analyzes media" to be absurd and deliberately misleading. Why is it not relevant that they're directly funded by an entity that's directly affiliated by the DNC? That's an enormous conflict of interest. BlackCatKillsRat (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a platform for false equivalence. We do not assume that there are only two sides, nor that "both sides" must be treated exactly the same. "Independent" in this context does not mean "politically independent", it means independent of Tim Pool. They are independent of Pool just as Pool is independent of mainstream media. As I said above, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source which relies on sources that have a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". For factual claims, this means editorial oversight and a history of issuing retractions and corrections, among other things. Pool is not a reliable source for factual information (such as Omar's marriage history) so his commentary should be avoided for factual claims, except in some limited cases for claims he has made about himself. This is the other major concern here, which is that Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources (which, again, doesn't mean "politically independent", it means independent of the topic they are discussing.) A source can be partisan or biased, but still independent. If you have some specific reason to claim that Media Matters as an organization has a financial interest in Tim Pool's Youtube Channel, then perhaps they would have a conflict of interest. You would have to directly support that claim with concrete sources. Does this make sense? Additionally, since the goal of an encyclopedia is to counter false information, we do not validate fringe theories. If reliable sources are stating that Pool supports a conspiracy theory, we must follow that source. We cannot attempt to interpret his own claims to see if it really is a conspiracy theory or not. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Saying that " the jury is out on a given subject" is incorrect. According to Wikipedia, these theories are wrong, and should not be presented as possibly correct without very solid sources. Those sources do not exist, so we cannot imply that these are anything other than false theories. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters and "conspiracy" stuff

I have to insist that your persistance itself to misread, misquote and reframe seems pretty much like you are trying to create novel content. The Libel Conspiracy theorist is novel to this article and is unsubstanciated. You have an opinion on those stories, I get it. Because once, or twice a year, a journalist covers fringes content and shares his own perspective doesn't make him a conspicay theorist and if there is no mainstream sources that undeniably and literally describes him has such, well, this is the opinion of who ever edited this part of the article and you happen to share it, not the description or a quote of a source. You use shorthand tactics to delay the inevitable. Yes, the libel will be removed and could be considered as defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, I assume the "you" is you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to document that some people have called Pool a conspiracy theorist, it should at least be in a section on criticism, not a section on his views. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 03:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand it would not respect the BLP guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP has been invoked, but it is not clear how it applies. Please explain in detail. El_C 03:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In short User Greyfell is trying to frame Tim Pool as a conspiracy theorist and is using two different reference to back is claim. Neither reference make this assertion, neither implicitely or literally. Since this libel is potentially defamatory I taught it was a good idea to put a link here to that reference. The whole exchange of the user Greyfell attempting to defend his position is up there. AS far as I read it is one or two users who are reaaaaally attached to put that there one way or another, while instead they could have quoted their source in a section on criticism, how sometime pool did cover unpopular or fringe topics. Using those two source to frame his whole view or his whole practice as conspiracy theorist is pretty much original research on top of using wikipedia to continue off wikipedia feuds it seems to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're paying very close attention to who's doing what. I am not the one who added this info, and I previously removed it. I don't think Media Matters is a great source. That's why I have changed the wording to provide attribution and context so that readers know who is making this claim.

Sources support that he has promoted conspiracy theories, and this is presented with attribution, so I don't see how this is a BLP vio. WP:CSECTION applies, and placing this content in a criticism section would be falsely implying that the these are criticisms, instead of comments on his views. These are not merely opinions about his activity, they are debunked claims which could not be presented as legitimate. Here's an addition I am proposing for discussion:

According to NBC News, Pool had "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks.

I put "pushed" in quotes, because nothing else seems like it would likely be agreeable. This uses sources to document specific comments he has made, based on reliable, secondary sources. Are these claims "views"? I dunno, but what else would we call them? They are not criticisms. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict)There is clear inline attribution and qualification of the source, though. BLP does not necessarily mean no critical views of the subject may appear. El_C 03:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)