Talk:Tucker Carlson

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HBS 9 (article contribs).

Political Party

Although he is registered a democrat, I do not think we should list it in his infobox as Democrat because:

1 his Political beliefs do not reflect the current political beliefs of the Democratic Party

2 Political party box is really only used for people who are not just registered for political party but who actively support that political party

3 It is mentioned in the section about his political views that the only reason why he is registered a democrat is that he can vote “ for the status quo candidate vs the more progressive candidate” essentially picking in his mind the worse of two evils.

Therefore I don’t think we should have it in his infobox. That’s not to say it should not be mentioned at all, I think we should get rid of Political party section in his infobox and keep the part in the Political view section were it explains why he is registered a Democrat. BigRed606 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I support removing it for your reasons. Springee (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Who says the infobox field is supposed to be used that way (2)? Removing it does no good; someone reset it to "Repoublican", which is incorrect and WP:OR]. I have reset it with a citation and quote from the cited source. No one should be confused. If infoboxes are to be used at all, they should contain the truth, not opinion. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The source you are trying to use is an opinion piece. If it is both factual and relevant enough for an infobox, we should be able to find a non-opinion source. I would also say that it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL thing to say about him given the rest of the article, so particularly for putting it in an infobox (where we cannot provide any context), it is necessary to have a high-quality source unambiguously stating his political party is Democratic. Regarding how it ought to be used, that's based on what it says. It says merely "political party" with no clarifications, so to avoid confusion it ought to only be used when it is unambiguous that someone is affiliated with a political party in every reasonable interpretation of those words. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, to prevent confusion, I'm okay with removing it. But the parameter should be completely removed rather than being left blank, so that no one is tempted to re-add it, or worse, add the incorrect "Republican". JustinTime55 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the rationale at the top of this comment section. Joining a political party does not require an ideological test and ongoing fealty to the positions of the party leadership. If it's true that Carlson is a registered Democrat, then this fact should be in the article, in the info box. Anything other than that, and we are picking and choosing facts to shape a narrative - and that's not encyclopedic writing. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

He's a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.208.226.214 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Any RS to confirm that?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Trinity College: Specify

To add clarity, suggest modification on Education citation in Bio Summary Box:

Education: Trinity College (Connecticut) (BA)

[Note: A quick search of Trinity College on Wikipedia yields numerous colleges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_College. The suggested change, adding "Connecticut," is consistent with Wikipedia's own reference of the school.] 64.38.186.125 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

Rhododendrites with the addition of other sources Daily Dot shouldn't have been added back to the article. DD isn't considered reliable for political claims. Since we have other sources to support the statement DD should be left out. Would you object to removal of only DD? It does appear that a number of sources have picked up on Carlson's claim. I'm not sure if any have noted that this is a defense claim made by Derek Chauvin's defense team [[2]]. This Salon article is a more balanced take [[3]]. It quotes Carlson who gave himself a bit of a hedge, "There was no physical evidence that George Floyd was murdered by a cop. The autopsy showed that George Floyd almost certainly died of a drug overdose, fentanyl." This is a statement that is hard to label as "actually false" even if it can easily be labeled as misleading. A charge of murder would be hard here since that would include proving intent to kill vs something more like reckless/negligent homicide. Since he said "almost certainly" it's false to say "Tucker said he did die of..." That basically makes the DD story inaccurate. The Salon article better and probably what we should be citing. Note that neither Salon nor The Independent use the term "falsely". How do people feel about replacing DD with Salon and removing the claim of "falsely"? Springee (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. I intended to remove DD, but only removed the citation at the end of the paragraph rather than both instances of it. Done now. No objection to wording tweaks or the addition of Salon. I just saw an addition removed due to sourcing that I thought I could find better sources for. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't removed the Daily Dot reference. Springee, can you replace it with Salon? JustinTime55 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm gone now — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think "falsely" belongs on the list of words to watch, because it tends to imply deliberate lying. "Incorrectly" denotes the same thing, in a much more NPOV way. Since the autopsy COD seems to contradict the fentanyl claim, I would favor replacing "falsely" with "incorrectly". JustinTime55 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the salon article says Carlson's claim conflicts with the coroner's report. I think there were reports that said Floyd had OD levels in his blood. We should probably wait for the courts to decide if the claim is false and just stick with what it conflicts with. Springee (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE seems like a problem for just saying "conflicts with the medical examiner's report". We have four sources, two of which explicitly say that Carlson's claim was false or "mostly false", and all of which say that he's making the claim about cause of death contrary to the cause of death. "Incorrectly" implies a good faith mistake, which seems like the minimum description here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "mistakenly" isn't a good choice in this case. That could imply he was unaware that his claims conflicted with for example the coroners report. Salon's quote was, "The claim that Floyd actually died of a fentanyl overdose has been made by lawyers representing the police seen kneeling on his neck for almost 10 minutes while he begged for air — something his family and attorney fiercely disputes. The medical examiner's report also confirms that Floyd died not from a drug overdose but from "homicide."". I would rather say something like that since it gets to the heart of the matter. The Independent said, "Despite claims by Mr Carlson about Floyd's death, the autopsies carried-out on Floyd’s body, showed that he died following his restraint by a Minneapolis Police officer, Derek Chauvin, from either compression of the neck or heart failure. While fentanyl and methamphetamine were found in his system at the time of his death, the drugs were not listed as a cause of Floyd’s death, as claimed by Mr Carlson." Either summation or a mix of both is better than "falsely" as it says what information is in dispute and who disputes it. Springee (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Is "speculation of a presidential run" section WP:CRYSTAL?

Carlson has repeatedly denied intentions to run for president thus far, and I'm aware of the constant speculation by both mainstream sources to amatuer politicos, but is this not WP:CRYSTAL considering he hasn't shown major signs of someone gearing up for a presidential run like going to Iowa and such? Additionally, the election would be about three years away, or two years when factoring in primary seasons, so isn't it best to wait for more further confirmation before applying this to the article? CaliIndie (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to think it is. If he announces a run we can mention it then. If thing becomes of this talk then it shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. I would support removal. Springee (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I hate these. No long-term encyclopedic value. These days, everybody and their mother has some text about how someone somewhere speculated that they were running for president. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

6 Jan Storming of the Capitol

While I think Carlson's overall views on the Capitol riots are likely due, this recent addition looks like yet another example of Carlson says something that some reporter doesn't like thus we have to add it to the article.[[4]] WashPo is a reasonable enough source but if the only other source is Mediate should this be here? It appears that the WP's concern is mincing words vs something grossly offensive that is resulting in protests from advertisers or such. How much impact do we expect before we say something is actually significant and thus DUE? Springee (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla:, can you explain why this is more than the typical run of the mill criticism of Carlson? Springee (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your updated sources are still not sufficient to justify including this material. The CNN source is an off hand mention. The Austin American Stateman isn't a major paper. Again, given the volume of criticism directed at Carlson this is a minor thing and fails the 10YT. Springee (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording seems to be synthesis. Carlson said, "There’s no evidence that white supremacists were responsible." We rebut him with the statement, "There is extensive evidence of involvement by white supremacists...." The Mediate opinion article's complaint was not that Carlson's statement was wrong but that he misrepresented Attorney-General designate Merrick Garland. "Garland did not say white supremacists were solely responsible. He said they stormed the Capitol, amongst others." The Washington Post analysis article says, "Some of this is an effort [by Carlson] to blur lines between “being involved” and “being responsible for.” TFD (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What happened here is a classic "pivot to a strawman." By pivoting to the term "responsible for," he misrepresents what Garland says, thereby creating a strawman he can then claim to knock down, but he actually knocked down what he said Garland said, not what Garland actually said. Oldest trick in the book, his credulous viewers don't notice/care and, by design, walk away thinking Garland lied about white supremacist involvement. Now circle back to 2019 when he said that white supremacy is a "hoax" and a "conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power" to see this is not an isolated incident.[5] I included Mediaite for the video so readers can see for themselves, though it does contribute to DUE. soibangla (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is this due? Carlson says many things that result in noise from the other side of the isle. What makes this particular example something that would pass the 10YT. Absent some justification removal as UNDUE is inevitable. Springee (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this issue on this talk page? This topic is not germane to an encyclopedic article about a media personalty with such a lengthy career. Carlson himself is not material to this topic. And that being true, it naturally follows that this entire section does not belong here or in this article. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, please address the questions related to this content. Springee (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

While the Mediaite and WP articles criticize Carlson for using a strawman argument, that's not what the text conveys. It makes it look as if Carlson was denying white supremacist involvement. As soibangla points out, this it typical of Carlson and we could probably find countless examples, many of which have been reported on. While we should explain Carlson's questionable arguments, i don't see why this particular example should be in the article. TFD (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The text does say that, actually, and the primary if not exclusive reason that there are countless examples of this but they are not represented in the article is because there has been a determined effort to exclude them, such that the consistent pattern cannot be seen and thus every successive example can be challenged as an outlier and undue. WP:GAMING. soibangla (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, if this is meant to represent an example of Carlson double speak then it should be in a section about that. If there are a number of examples then I think it would make sense to include them as criticism of his rhetorical style. However, as presented it isn't clear that is the reason why this example is important. Instead it comes across as if Carlson said something that was universally condemned. Zooming out, this is a problem with this article, editors add an individual event that they rightly feel is an example of a wider behavior but the source only supports discussing the specific thing. Other editors look at that thing in isolation since that is all the text and sourcing provide and, rightly, say this stand alone thing doesn't pass the 10 year test. The problem is finding sources that would discuss Carlson's rhetorical methods rather than just stand alone examples. Springee (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Austin American Stateman ref is from Politifact, which should probably be cited directly. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I used the Statesman republished version first because the Politifact link was broken for hours, they later fixed it, so then I swapped it in. soibangla (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the question regarding including illustrative examples was interesting. That is, even if this event isn't stand alone due, it may be due as part of a section talking about issues with his rhetorical style. To that end I posted a hypothetical based question to NOR [[6]]. Springee (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The WaPo source does provide broader context: There’s another effort propagated by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, in which he attempts to diminish the idea that white nationalists had a significant presence — or, perhaps, any presence — on that day. His motivations for doing so are complicated. Carlson is sensitive about people being labeled as “white nationalist” after he himself was targeted with the label following various members of his staff being outed for using white nationalist rhetoric and for his own comments about immigration and race. He’s also heavily invested in the idea that allegations of white nationalism are being used as a fraudulent predicate to attack Republicans broadly. That larger context would (combined with other sources that cover Carlson's opinions on white nationalism) fit into a larger section on the topic without being synthesis, since the connection is made in the source. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a more reasonably way to keep this content or at least the source. Springee (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, if you, quote, "think Carlson's overall views on the Capitol riots are likely due", why are you removing any info on this from the article? If you think it should be presented in a different way that's fine but that's an entirely different thing than just removing it completely. Volunteer Marek 00:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The material in the article is not a summary of his statements or views on the capitol riots. The riots are simply a backdrop in this case. We have a few sources that felt he pulled a verbal slight of hand (responsible for vs participated in). If we had a section on misleading rhetoric this material would fit. If we wanted to create a section on his views on the capitol riots this material might be useful. However, as is, this simply doesn't rise to the level needed for inclusion. This is, by Carlson standards, a trivial "controversy" and thus UNDUE for inclusion. Even if we take your comment as a support for inclusion there still isn't consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Telling falsehoods about the storming of the U.S. Capitol, as well as about white supremacy in the US (which Carlson has a track record doing[7][8][9] and fraud in the 2020 election (which Carlson has a track record of doing), is DUE. This already fits within broader themes that are in the article. The only issue is whether this belongs in the 'Claims of fraud in the 2020 election' subsection or the 'Immigration and race' subsection. I think the latter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your argument relies on synthesis. 01:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a shorter version of this information to the 2020 election section (WP:BOLD). It may pass muster in that context. Llll5032 (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I still have issues with this. Again, what does this say about TC's view on this subject? The reason to mention this material is if we want to talk about how TC uses rhetoric. This simply hasn't caused enough fuss to mention it as a controversy nor does it tell us anything about his views of Jan 6th. As an aside, this article illustrates yet another case of Politifact being less than factual. In this case PF essentially does the same thing TC is guilty of. TC is criticized for changing the argument of Garland from "supremacist involved" to "supremacist caused" yet PF does the exact same thing! PF evaluates the claim "supremacist involved" and concludes they were thus Carlson's claim is false. If it was misleading for Carlson to falsely summarize Garland's claim then it's just as wrong for PF to do the same to Carlson. PF could have been more clear and said Carlson's claim is misleading and while there is no evidence that this was planned or caused by white superracist groups members of those groups did participate. Thus it is misleading to respond to a comment about participation with one about planning. If this were a one time thing for PF I would be more inclined to let it slide. Instead this is a frequent problem with the source. PF seems to decide the outcome then builds the narrative to fit it. I do acknowledge this is a RS issue but since this PF opinion was included I think it's relevant to the current discussion. Springee (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, would it be more contextual then to put this into the Immigration and Race section, because it illuminates TC's views on white supremacy in American political discussions? Also (putting aside your RS question about Politifact), how many sources should mention a controversy to be "enough fuss to mention it"? I agree with you if you're saying that a section on Carlson's rhetorical strategies would be valuable, but I don't know that it would be the best context for this controversy. Llll5032 (talk)15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that would be OR to imply this reflects his views on white supremacy. I'm going to do some speculative OR regarding what I think Carlson is thinking. I'm not claiming this is correct or this is my own opinion. Zooming out this looks like Carlson is concerned that people are going to use this event and the fear of a violent white supremacist movement to expand federal powers similar to what happened with 9-11 and the Patriot Act etc. Hence when someone is testifying that Jan 6 was a "dangerous insurrection" and white supremacist were involved, Carlson sees these as justifications that will be used to justify a "domestic Patriot Act" and attacks on conservative free speech. Assuming Carlson's intent is to undermine the arguments he argues that Jan 6th wasn't a dangerous insurrection, rather it was protesters expressing their "concerns" (and draw a BLM protest parallel here). He also tries to argue that Jan 6th was not "planned" or motivated by white supremacist ideas/thinking etc. That is, the motives of the protesters were things other than racism/trying to terrorize non-whites. Thus I see this not as his views on white supremacy since he doesn't see these as related rather he sees it as an excuse to expand federal power. To use a 9-11 parallel, some people were concerned about the Patriot Act not because they felt 9-11 didn't happen or they were sympathetic to the terrorist. Rather they were concerned about the powers the law itself. Again I emphasize this is my OR regarding what I think Carlson is thinking. I'm not claiming it is right or wrong. As for inclusion, I don't see this as enough of a controversy to merit inclusion and it seems we have a roughly even split between those that see this as just another minor controversy for a controversial figure (ie not DUE) and those who want inclusion. It would be nice to have a good RS aggregate some of these things together for us. As I said before, I think a section of his rhetorical style would be good but I also asked the NORN if creating such a section would pass muster. I think the answer was a consensus NO. Springee (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your NORN question [10] was "Can we combine examples to suggest a pattern even if no RS notes the pattern?" The answer is no, we shouldn't do that. But obviously it's fine to say that a RS notes the pattern! As the Washington Post did. Llll5032 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I may have missed it but I don't see that the WP article sets this up as a pattern or discusses this as an example of Carlson's rhetorical style. Rather they just say that is what he is doing in this instance. That was my NORN question. In effect if I have a dozen sources that say, "Carlson twisted an argument" can I then have a section on "Carlson has a habit of twisting arguments". By my read the answer was no. Springee (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Well the Washington Post article says that Carlson was using a strawman argument.[11] But even if we accept your point here, then that would be a point against including this incident in a section on Carlson's rhetoric -- it could still be germane to a section about his views on white supremacy or on the Capitol incident. Llll5032 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

But a single example of using a strawman isn't worth including. To include a discussion of Carlson using strawman arguments we need a source that says (in effect), "Carlson frequently uses strawman arguments". I don't think we have a section that talks about Carlson's use of rhetorical devices in his arguments thus we can't create one. This is why I keep circling back to this content is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, when you mentioned a hypothetical section on TC's rhetoric and argument style, I thought it was a very good idea, so I began one here. I hope you can help edit it and maybe expand it. Llll5032 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look. In particular I need to look over the sources. I think the section is a good start but I would change a number of things. First, I think I would change the section title to something less confrontational sounding. I understand "argument" often is just a neutral term but other times it suggests a negative/heated verbal discussion. Next, I think the section is a bit long and uses too many direct quotes. We really should be summarizing those sources and trying to paint a single coherent picture of how Carlson debates with opponents. Also, some of this may be how the TV show producers set things up. For example, is it Carlson or the producers of his show that keep the camera on both at the same time. Also, is that anything unusual (I think most shows do that now that widescreen is the standard). That said, I'm pleased that you found sources that can work as a foundation for this material. Do any of them mention strawman arguments? If they do we could add the recently debated Garland content in as an example. Note that I would have that as a short the text simply saying sourced noted the strawman, not the rest of the debate associated with it. Springee (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Springee. I shortened the section a little, and paraphrased some quotes. Feel free to change the section title. I agree with you that more sources could be added to paint a picture in Wiki voice. Also the section could be expanded to sum up more patterns in Carlson's use of logic or fallacies (as you mention), a summary of what fact checkers have said about him and how he has responded, and maybe more about his rapport with his viewers. Llll5032 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Why are we even discussing this issue on this talk page? This topic is not germane to an encyclopedic article about a media personalty with such a lengthy career. Carlson himself is not material to this topic. And that being true, it naturally follows that this entire section does not belong here or in this article. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

At some point we're going to have to make a separate "Political views of Tucker Carlson" page, like we have with Political views of Bill O'Reilly who he replaced. CaliIndie (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone think we have a consensus to include at this time? It appears to be a 50/50 split among editors expressing support vs not supporting. Springee (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No one except Volunteer Marek and Snooganssnoogans, and he certainly doesn't count. --Malerooster (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I have just approved this article: Political views of Tucker Carlson

Editors interested in this subject may wish to review this new article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

While this article is getting pretty long, I don't agree that this section should be just cut and moved. [If the new article is to exist] the material needs to be properly summarized here, not just moved over. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think the bulk of the edit preserved the contents that the lead of the article calls back to, being the former libertarianism, the isolationism and the immigration and racial comments. I agree it should be summarized, but the idea of my edit was to cut the fluff (we don't need to know his views on GOP/Dem here, it's commonly agreed he's a Trump Republican who hates the majority of the Democrats; nor do the incendiary comments on whatever is in the news at the time contribute to the understanding of him either, it's better for the other article basically) and keep the remainers so it would be summarized later, if you catch my drift, the edit was basically to establish their independence from each other and not a permanent design choice. It's a big move, I understand, and I'm aware it's going to be a big shift since most edits on this article pertains to his views, but it's grown big enough to hold it's own weight which is my reasoning for the splitting off, similar to political views of Bill O'Reilly, who Tucker did replace after all. CaliIndie (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about spinning it out in general. My main objection is summarized later. In an article like this, where every sentence seems to require multiple talk page discussions, by just cutting it all and saying "summarize it later," that puts a huge burden on anyone trying to re-add a summary later. As this is the status quo version (more or less), it would be best to have this version here until consensus emerges on a summary (through editing or through discussion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rhododendrites here. I think shunting this content to a child article will make it a bit of a POV fork. The problem can be fixed here (if an editor is willing to take on the task and can handle the inevitable arrows). As was just said, the issue seems to be that this isn't a summary so much as a laundry list edited each time Carlson says something that gets the press up in arms. Also, this content often doesn't summarize Carlson's political views so much as provide small moments in time. As a hypothetical analogy, Carlson might be highly against a new school funding law. Does that mean he is against school funding or is it just that I'm against that bill. That bill might have some sort of poison pill buried in it or a questionable long term union guarantee. It might have some sort of "school safety" that caused alarm. The fact is, what Carlson says about a particular topic might not reflect his general view of the topic. Another example would be opposition to the ACA vs opposition to healthcare reform. Anyway, if this is meant to be a summary of his views it shouldn't read like a list of criticisms of things he has said or advocated. That would be a summary of criticisms. Springee (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Springee:@Rhododendrites: I disagree. There are numerous examples of Wiki articles where the 'Political Views' section is composed mostly of controversies or statements that have received media attention. Take the article on Laurence Fox as an example. This has done so well to meet the site's editorial standards that it has been deemed a "Good Article". This is all relevant information and will be appreciated by readers who want to know more about the figure. If the media covers these views, surely Wiki should as well? Cut some fat but keep the meat. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you disagree about? I have mixed feelings about spinning out in general, but restored the material to ensure it's properly summarized [at least] rather than just cut. What you're saying doesn't sound contradictory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the most important set of facts about a political commentator are his opinions on political issues. Having reviewed this discussion, (and despite being the person who approved the new article), I think the material would be better on this page. It's literally his job to have opinions about political issues, so putting it on the main subject page would seem appropriate to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense for his views to be well summarized on this page. In my opinion a separate page on his views isn't needed yet. Llll5032 (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Having seen material like this [[12]] added as an example of Carlson's "political views" on defense I think it's clear that article will become a dumping ground for the controversy of the week. As such it should be merged back into this article. A true summary of his positions, as opposed to a collection of things he has said that triggered the outrange media, shouldn't be too long to have in this article. Springee (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the material used on that page as opposed to its usage here. As explained by another user that page is used for material not suitable for a WP:BLP but otherwise valid for documentation thanks to RS. I wouldn't call it WP:NOTNEWS. CaliIndie (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaliIndie: You seem to be misunderstanding BLP policy, which applies to material about living people on any Wikipedia page, not just biographies. Volteer1 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: No, you don't seem to understand what I mean by that. WP:BLP dictates WP:BLPBALANCE, being material is presented . . . conservatively, as mentioned earlier, the section has grown far too large and too forthcoming for any minor controversy to come and take pride of place in it. Just recently Tucker Carlson's article has received a big bump thanks to the maternity flight suit comment and John Oliver video, take a look at how many edit have been made to this article compared to my new one, and you'll see why having this new article is very benefical. CaliIndie (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, again, WP:BLPBALANCE applies to information about living persons in any Wikipedia article. We can't split BLPs into separate articles and then throw away the more stringent sourcing and NPOV policy guidelines in those articles, we still need to cite reliable secondary sources and give due weight to praise and criticism in both articles, it shouldn't become a WP:POVFORK.

Regarding quantity, that's just a question of what is due. Given Carlson's job is to give his political opinions, that's kind of what makes him notable in the first place, so it's fine for there to be a large chunk of the article dedicated to his political views (and not for say, the Political views of H. G. Wells). If the political views section becomes as big as Political views of Bill O'Reilly I would support the split, but as it stands I think it's fine as it was. Volteer1 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: Clearly your issue stems from the content already present, if you have a problem with the wording as it stands that's present both there and in this article. There is no WP:NPOV violations present and reliable secondary sources are obviously present. Praise in this context is not one that holds much weight, how much praise can Carlson possibly achieve from simply expressing his political views, it's not our job to communicate the level of support present for his position on abortion.

Carlson is a political commentator but he's not a legislator, and considering how he's especially known for his controversial and headline-grabbing statements on current events and not exact political stances, it's preferrably apt the "Commentary" section be dedicated to that, but no consensus has officially come oto say one way or another. CaliIndie (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have much of a problem with the content, at least at present from what I can see (though the two copies have started to diverge a bit already). Volteer1 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be deleted. I get the good faith thinking that created it but it's just going to become a dumping ground for questionable content. It currently exists not because this topic needs it but because it provides a place for the rejected content to live. Additionally, there is a huge overlap between the content their and here. Anytime you have a parent/child article relationship the parent article should only summarize the content of the child article. Here we have a great opportunity for the article to get out of WP:SYNC. Springee (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm inclined to agree. Does someone want to AfD it? Volteer1 (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this represent Carlson's "view" of the military?

Starship.paint added a new subsection to Carlson's political views basically saying that he criticized something related to women in the military[[13]]. That got pushback and 3 sources are cited. Is this really DUE? This again raises the concerns regarding what level of "outrange" is needed before we add something to this article. Even if this is DUE I'm not sure how we can say this qualifies as Carlson's view on the military. I will also note, this same content was added the Political views of Tucker Carlson article which strikes me as nothing more than a POV fork where editors feel more freedom to pack a laundry list of things like this. Springee (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• (1) If three sources aren’t enough then how many would you want, Springee? I was about to remove one source for OVERCITE in the parent article but seems like you wouldn’t like it? (2) This is Carlson’s political view on Defense. (3) May I remind you that the outrage has risen tot the level of the Defense Secretary. (4) I recognise that this is the parent article so less detail was included here. starship.paint (exalt) 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the point. This is a RECENT and thus far very minor controversy for a public figure who has been involved in many controversies. Thus what makes this one significant enough to be DUE for inclusion at all? Do we see a loss of advertisers or dozens of articles criticizing him? Will people look back on this even a year from now and think this is a significant example of Carlson's views towards the military/defense? The difference in levels of detail here vs the POV fork article are small. If that is all the difference is ever going to be the other article should be merged back into this one as even this one is in danger of just becoming a laundry list of minor controversies. Springee (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You may claim that I have missed the point, but I think I am on a different point altogether. You frame this as a very minor controversy, but this section is not entitled Controversies, it is entitled Political positions. Carlson probably has thousands of political positions, but how many will receive as much coverage? I don’t think the BBC or Al Jazeera regularly cover Carlson, so when they do, it’s because this issue is important. starship.paint (exalt) 10:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • So what political position is this? Wikipedia is meant to summarize, not provide every detail. So, we can assume he is against something specific to a new maternity policy in the military. Does that mean he is anti-military, anti-extension of various maternity policies, something else? If we are interested in his political positions it's more helpful to provide examples that show his general stances on issues even if expressing those general stances doesn't cause controversies. In most cases the controversies, which is what your sources are covering, are because he expressed a general stance in a way that offended a group. Look at the Rittenhouse example, his general position could be summed up as the police and government have a responsibility to protect citizens and their property. That is a general stance (and one I assume Carlson would have). My interpretation of his Rittenhouse comments is the government (local, state, federal etc) wasn't providing that protection and thus he didn't think it was surprising that armed citizens would fill the void with the sort of result we saw. If we covered the Rittenhouse material in the mold of your added content we would say Carlson's political position is "17 year olds should shoot take up arms and shoot rioters". Of course that is a ludicrous position but so is the idea that this added content somehow is a summary of his views on defense. It in now way could be considered a summary of is position. Springee (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is why political views of Tucker Carlson is nessecary, as a political commentator his views are important but news events such as this, not to mention statements by Carlson which get reported on like this are all too frequent, shouldn't take pride of place on the mainline article. I'd say move to the aforementioned article. CaliIndie (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • But this isn't a "political view", its a specific complaint and reply. It doesn't tell us about his feelings on how our military should be used, equipped, funded, deployed etc. A comment that we should avoid entanglements that don't directly impact us is a political position on defense but perhaps doesn't generate a bunch of click baity outrange articles. This sort of low value content being called a "political position" is why that article needs to go. Political positions are high level and knowing them should allow someone to understand how the subject will react to various specific circumstances. Knowing that a person is prone to violent outbursts might help us understand how they would respond to someone trying to pick a fight in a bar. Knowing that someone was in a bar fight doesn't tell us if they are prone to fighting or if they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Springee (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • There's room for specifics but you can't tell him Carlson considering funding for women's maternity flight suits wasteful isn't a position of some kind, in our modern age it certainly is. I agree with you it shouldn't be here, but I do think it deserves placement elsewhere, being on the other article. I don't think Rittenhouse is nessecary on either, but you're using a false equivalency in that case. CaliIndie (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This reflects his view of women in the military. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that? Do we have any other examples of Carlson saying things about women in the military? It seems this is specifically about maternity issues and women in the military. So based on this how would we summarize his views? If we can't then this isn't good content for a "views on" section. Springee (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

He disapproves of changes to accommodate women in the military. 10 words. starship.paint (exalt) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Carlson does not need to have published a treatise on women in the military for his views on the subject to be delineated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Here below we have a wide range of sources, from news agencies, major newspapers, television outlets, news websites, and military-related publications. I'm sure this level of coverage would be more than enough to qualify as a notable political view. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your list of sources doesn't address several issues. First is RECENT, which in a world of click to pay based add revenue means a cheep to write story like this is going to get a lot of short term press. Is this going to have any staying power or any long term impact on Carlson? Likely no, just another thing he said that causes a controversy the next morning. The second issue is that this is a controversial statement/claim. You haven't said how this reflects is his views on defense. If you can't summarize the point then it shouldn't be in an article that is meant to be a summary, not a laundry list. Certainly we can take this to BLP and ask people there. Springee (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

First, media don't write about Carlson like this every week. If they did, this wouldn't be special. Second, I've said above: He disapproves of changes to accommodate women in the military. That is one of his views on Defense. starship.paint (exalt) 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I just did a Google news search for "Tucker Carlson". It says 11,800,000 hits. If we assume he has been on the air for 22 years that works out to be 1/2 million hits per year or about 1470 hits per day. I get that many of those are Tucker's own articles or Google's phantom hits but seriously, that's a lot of hits. At some point we have to decide which aren't DUE. Perhaps a way to do that is at the end of each year we cull the list but we certainly can't keep them all. Springee (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this material is UNDUE and shouldn't be in the encyclopedic entry for this BLP. BLP's are not a collection of tabloid news stories carrying the topics of the day. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If we are presenting views we wouldn't phrase it, "In March 2021, Carlson criticized changes being made to the U.S. military to accommodate female soldiers, calling it a "mockery of the U.S. military"." It would be something like Carlson disagrees with changes made to U.S. military policy regarding...." And it would be useful to know what changes he objected to and why before launching into criticism about his criticism. Does he think women should not serve in the military or that their numbers should restricted or that they shouldn't fight when pregnant? Is there any support for his position? Since it's his position, why do we care that others disagree with it? It seems more likely that this is one of numerous controversial things Carlson has said and we can't list them all. TFD (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Recentism and the Texas blackout

Soibangla, your change of the section heading to "views" doesn't make this content DUE.[[14]] We really need a better way to deal with sorting out which provocative statements of the day should/should not be included. Regardless, this comment on Texas's power grid issues is not a "view" on the environment. Springee (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The whole addition violates WP:NPOV, it doesn't give any explanation into Carlson's view and instead segways into why his view, whatever it may be, is wrong. I'd remove purely for that reason alone. CaliIndie (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this, non-encyclopedic content that should not be in the article. What, exactly, is the "view" and how is that not just the journalist's opinion? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Same, agree with Springee, CaliIndie & Mr Ernie. Seems like WP:RECENTISM. What I've been saying on similar posts that deal with this exact same problem is just give the content in question the 10 year test ( WP:10YT. If nobody will care in 10 years , it doesn't belong in an article. We always have to remember this is an Encyclopedia which is different than a celebrity blog that WP:COATRACKs every single controversial thing somebody does. Thats my thoughts. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Change subtopic Views to Notable Statements (or similar)

I'm not a fan of loading up the article with a laundry list of things Carlson has said that got someone beating away at the keyboard. Part of the problem is we have these items in a section titled "views" which would suggest we are going to summarize his views on major topics (we don't). What if we changed the name to what this section really is, a subtopic containing notable statements (and reactions). Those who have read my comments above will note that one of concerns with so many of the additions is even a DUE "controversy of the week" may not accurately or with anything remotely comprehensively summarize Carlson's view on any subject. A "shock statement" talking about say a new law to help minority owed businesses may only be a reflection of his opinion of that law, not the broader topic. So does it make sense to change the name from "Views" to "Notable public statements"? With such a structure the items could be sorted by their ostensible topic vs what underling view may be driving the comments. This wouldn't specifically a criticism section thus comments that got a lot of support could also be included. It also makes it easier to justify the current disconnected style of prose. The section really doesn't have a hierarchical structure, most paragraphs are all but unrelated to the next. "Notable statements" fits that sort of paragraph list format better. Springee (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, this sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps title it "Views and commentary" or "Views and reactions". Logical summaries of his views under this heading could include notable instances that set off a severe backlash or are seen as major departures from norms. Llll5032 (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Notable public statements" sounds better than "Views", which is just so monstrously generic and all-encompassing it's laughable it's been kept for as long as it has. But what would be left of the current section if we were to execute this? CaliIndie (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably all of it. It would be more inclusive, not less. Llll5032 (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the majority of what is here would fall under "notable public statements" though, and it's going to become difficult to decipher what is notable and what isn't notable. Until a deletion proposal occurs for political views of Tucker Carlson, it isn't proactive just ignoring it. We should ideally keep "notable public statements" to comments on widely reported incidents. CaliIndie (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

My intent would be the content stays the same, we just make the header more broadly inclusive. What about Notable Comments and Commentary? Commentary can include the comments of others about Carlson's statements. I mean this isn't an ideal solution since it seems like a category to create a list but since we have so many instances of content that aren't really "views" it seems like a realistic patch. If nothing else it makes for a better catch all. Springee (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of "Commentary" or something along those lines as the header replacement, considering he is a political commentator, it works itself out rather nicely. CaliIndie (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with "commentary", as it's definitely more inclusive, and avoids some of the pitfalls of calling something "notable" in prose. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If we called it just "Commentary" would it be clear this is a combination of things Carlson has said/done as well as responses to those things? I'm trying to keep it as clear as possible without calling the section "topic dumping ground" :D Springee (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Commentary" is good. Llll5032 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Absent any dissent here, I changed the heading. Llll5032 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

Add in "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" or " Tucker Carlson actively supports white supremacists" 2600:1014:B10A:42A1:E44F:AE4E:2CEB:DAD2 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Volteer1 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it accurate to call Carlson a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories?

Hi all

The article currently talks about Carlson promoting several conspiracy theories on his TV series (the most watched cable show in the US) including white supremacy, QAnon, COVID denialism, anti vaccination and conspiracies around immigration, muslims and white genocide. Is it accurate to describe him as a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories? What specific rules define describing someone as a conspiracy theorist or not?

Here are some additional references I wasn't able to find being used in the article which speak about his conspiracy theories including a few I didn't see in the article e.g President Biden and his wife's marriage being fake:

• https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/04/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-says-coronavirus-isnt-deadly-we-tho/
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/06/fox-news-host-tucker-carlson-qanon-followers
• https://edition.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/03/12/tucker-carlson-women-in-military-fox-news-roll-the-tape-keilar-vpx.cnn
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/12/tucker-carlson-conspiracies-fox-news-dangerous/
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/fox-news-has-brand-new-conspiracy-for-joe-biden-era
• https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-goes-full-conspiracy-044020213.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMkfYP5MhKoe2sHT-n4LXKqfyKCwebcXbtCw9ZBU4HZ8-Px04LAbDAQsNKe87NBTcWgSy4UzRiPerAf_0PelpjK-Lyq5OjpMPXvCdJgJz-F51EUouBu7sERhMMYJ1TXOwsqYihaYs0yyKTGKlJNEUbMUXJCDwU7uoP78OtPAm_7Q
• https://www.good.is/tucker-carlson-joe-jill-biden-marriage
• https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-tucker-carlson-defends-qanon-conspiracy-theory-movement-2021-1?r=US&IR=T
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-oliver-breaks-down-why-tucker-carlson-is-a-white-supremacist
• https://slate.com/culture/2021/03/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-tucker-carlson.html (the video linked in the piece)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Do RS say he does, if they do so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Make sure that we don't overstate it. Some of these sources say something more like "he defended a conspiracy theory", or that he speculated sarcastically, or they are opinion columnists who might not be entirely RS. In some cases it may be more appropriate to say he has defended conspiracy theorists. But if many RSs are using the phrase "conspiracy theorist" to describe him then so should we. Llll5032 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OR to gather examples of where someone has repeated conspiracy theories and conclude that they are a conspiracy theorist or that they promote conspiracy theories. We would need to show that this is how one is normally described in reliable sources. We don't say for example the Dick Cheney is a convicted criminal who served as VP of the U.S. because that would not be seen as an impartial tone. Normally the description is used for noted conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and David Icke. TFD (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks The Four Deuces, a couple of questions:

1. I don't understand why collating examples of his numerous promotions of existing conspiracy theories and his creation new ones cannot accurately be summarised as 'promoter of conspiracy theories' or 'conspiracy theorist'. Why do you think this would be original research and not Wikipedia:Summary style?
2. How to deal with his promotion of conspiracy theories within the main body of the article. Currently the fact he promotes conspiracy theories is partially included within the 'Commentary' section and also described in the article Political views of Tucker Carlson, however it jumps between personal views e.g he described himself as conservative and conspiracy theories he promotes eg climate change denial. Its unclear which are personal views and which are talking points for his TV show. Would it be better to create a specific section on promotion of conspiracy theories? I'm aware of at least 15 he has promoted and even a few which appear to be his creations e.g "there was no physical evidence that George Floyd was murdered by a cop".

John Cummings (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" seems to have become a catchall term among some left-wing media outlets for "a view we disagree with". So, for example, the view that snowfalls will still happen 50 years from now is spun into some sort of conspiracy theory. I haven't seen a single actual conspiracy theory that Carlson has promoted - only standard conservative political views, plus even more anodyne stuff like "QAnon supporters seem to be well-behaved people". Korny O'Near (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

When you call Carlson a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories you are implicitly stating that there is a pattern or that he has attained notoriety from this. While that may or may not be true, you should have an expert source that reports this conclusion. In fact Exceptional claims were require more than a few isolated examples. If reliable sources don't routinely refer to Carlson as a conspiracy theorist, then I would ask why we should.

Most Republican politicians believe and promote many of the same conspiracy theories that Carlson does, yet we don't routinely call them conspiracy theorists. Maybe that is what they should be called, but policy requires us to follow descriptions generally used in reliable sources, rather than our own.

As I said above, instead of a rap sheet that leads readers to inevitable conclusions, we should use reliable secondary sources that describe Carslon in general terms and use a select number of his statements to illustrate that. If the sources don't exist, the solution is to wait until they are available, if ever.

To answer the last editor, the term conspiracy theory is overused in corporate media, so that the reliability of their claims is sometimes dubious. I would only use the description if it was sourced to an expert. Articles about conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon can be sourced to experts and they also provide us with information about the main proponents. That's why we are able to call Alex Jones and David Icke conspiracy theorists.

TFD (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Not as of yet weighing in on this proposal itself, but in response to this specific comment, it's worth noting that Carlson is mentioned as having (directly or indirectly) fueled the White genocide conspiracy theory, the conspiracy regarding the Murder of Seth Rich, various COVID-19 conspiracy theories, as well as some of the conspiracies surrounding the 2020 Presidential election. All in reliable sources, including some academic ones. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Fueled a conspiracy theory" is quite a nebulous accusation. What specifically has he said? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that and there may well be a pattern, but policy requires that we can only say there is a pattern if that conclusion has been reported in reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:No original research, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Per Synthesis of published material, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is particularly important, since it is a Biography of a living person. It says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources." TFD (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

About Trump

Llll5032, I see you are putting a good bit of effort into the article. It looks like balanced work to boot. One small thing, this material[[15]] looks like something that is opinion/commentary on the part of the NYT. I don't mean it's an Op-Ed but it's the opinion of the writer. It might be good to attribute the view to the NYT or the article author. I don't think it's something that should be in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed about the time I posted this you added a second source. I would still suggest we treat this as a shared opinion. Perhaps "sources saw Carlson as" or similar. Springee (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Springee, there are five sources now, from the Atlantic, NYT, New Yorker, WP and the Bulwark. I added a phrase to attribute the view. Llll5032 (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we aptly summarize this in the article? As it stands, it just says he an exemplar "anti-anti-Trump" person, I don't know most readers are going to understand that at all. CaliIndie (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read the sources so I'm just guessing but what about saying "Sources note [I think this is a good term but "note" is often contested] that Carlson frequently attack critics of President Trump" or "Carlson was seen as defending President Trump by attacking the President's critics". I don't see why we need to retain the confusing "anti-anti-Trump" term. That seems like kind of convoluted language. Springee (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Springee, I changed some language to your idea, for clarity. I also kept "anti-anti-Trump" because this is a known phrase that all five of the analyses used. Llll5032 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wife's maiden name and year of marriage

"Susan Andrews" is named twice in the article body, once in a sentence attributed to this source and again in a sentence attributed to this source. The former appears to refer to her only as "Susie" (implying but not directly stating that she now goes by Carlson, something stated in the sentence attributed to the other source, but not mentioning "Andrews" anywhere); the latter refers to her as "Susan Anderson" and very strongly implies they were married at some point after he graduated college in 1992. There is apparently a separate source, not linked, for the following sentence, which is presented as "Weddings/East: Andrews-Carlson". Detroit Free Press. August 28, 1991. but if that source is available, couldn't it be referring to a different Carlson who married someone named Andrews in Detroit in 1991? This appears to be the worst kind of OR/SYNTH, but am I just mistaken?

This source (which seems much better than either the WP source or the CJR, as it is more in-depth and has at least been cited on Last Week Tonight) says they were married when he was a college senior, so it's possible they were married in 1991, but we need to locate a source that actually says that the Tucker Carlson of Fox News fame (as opposed to some man or woman with the last name Carlson in East Detroit?) was married in 1991.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident the author the of CJR article miraculously bungled two bits of detail in a row, no source refers to her as "Susan Anderson" or attests that he married her in 1992 anywhere else. This profile in People says Carlson graduated in 1991 and asked for her father for her hand in marriage six months before graduation. CaliIndie (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

"Tucker"'s actual name

I know that "Tucker" is his stage name, and that US-ians are world leaders in inventing words and names, but what is his real name? "Tucker" isn't an actual name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.224.47 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is his real name. Mgasparin (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But "Tucker" isn't a first name at all.

It's certainly a weird name, prompting the puzzled non-American bystander such as me or 86.190.224.47 in England, above, to wonder what it means such as "the person who folds the bed linen under the mattress" or "the nurse who folds a covering sheet under the patient" or "origami practitioner" or "rugby player who shoves the ball under his armpit." One who tucks? At least his name does not begin with "F". — O'Dea (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any sources describe a stage name or name change? I'm not finding any. For what it's worth Tucker lists 10 people named Tucker. –dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

RE: Tucker Carlson Television Career

Specifically, his lawyers argued that Carlson's statements were just "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." Carlson's use of the word "extort," was nondefamatory because it was only "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet." Moreover, this means Carlson Tucker is not running a news program and is therefore an entertaining pundit and talk show host who's beliefs and comments are not to be factually or credibly believed by the majority of the American public. Carlson is therefore only clowning around and titillating his viewers with fantasy, fables and tall tales purely of his own making and viewpoint without need for unbiased or even factual journalistic integrity of any kind. 2603:6000:A346:76CE:E154:4671:CF72:5069 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't actually see an edit requested here, so I'm closing it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor: If you have a source that supports that was his lawyer's argument then I think we should include it. However, we can't speculate and we need a source that is reliable per WP:RS guidelines. Springee (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Political views of Tucker Carlson article was created by a sockpuppet

CaliIndie[16] is a sockpuppet. Should the article they created be deleted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• At least not under CSD. This edit by User:Starship.paint probably well meets the no substantial edits by others criteria of G5. GMG^talk 15:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• There was a lot of discussion and support in favour of deleting the article in the section above, though no one ever got around to it. It seems as well no one has yet attempted to remove the content from this article that is duplicated in the ancillary article. There just doesn't seem to be a need for it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I already favored deleting. My opinion hasn't changed. Springee (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to deleting. TC's views belong in this article, not a different one. Llll5032 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And we could bring the information added there by User:Starship.paint into this article.

• The article is now up for deletion. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

In the last paragraph of the section entitled "Tucker Carlson Tonight (2016–present)." please,

change

  "between him and Fox News for him to host"

to

  "with Fox News to host"

I am certain of future readers' gratitude if they knew what they were spared. 69.251.152.73 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, that did make for a needlessly complicated sentence structure. AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlson's economics contradictions

this reverted edit:

In March 2021, Carlson criticized the economic policy of the Joe Biden administration, which sought to invest in infrastructure and worker training and to narrow income inequality, financed by increasing tax rates for corporations and households earning more than $400,000 annually, and particularly those earning over $1 million. Carlson asked, “Why would you even consider raising taxes on families making 400 grand? Why would you even do that? To punish you, obviously,” also asserting, “No billionaire's going to suffer. You're going to suffer, and for no good reason.” About 1.8% of Americans earn $400,000 or more annually.

should be restored in light of this previous content:

In an interview, he said that economic and technological change that occurs too quickly can cause widespread social and political upheaval, and stated his belief that a model to follow is that of President Theodore Roosevelt, whose interventionist role in the economy in the early 1900s may have, in Carlson's view, prevented a communist revolution in the United States.

TR advocated creation of the income tax, an inheritance tax, and an economic interventionalist role for government, as outlined in his 1910 New Nationalism speech, which is a litany of proposals that reads like the modern DNC platform.

Yet when Biden says he'll raise taxes on the top 1.8% and corporations to modernize the infrastructure and improve worker training and generally modernize the economy, Tucker appears to do a 180 on his previous position and says his viewers will be punished with taxes that few of them will actually see but are more likely to benefit from, as economic changes have caused significant dislocation in recent decades and that has been cited as one of the reasons for an angry populist uprising, and goes a long way toward explaining why Carlson has so many viewers. This exemplifies his tendency, which I think this article does not adequately document, to dramatically alter his positions over time, evidently depending on what is politically expedient at any given moment. After all, his team of writers and producers have to come up with something for him to say over an hour, five nights a week, often with comical results. His current opposition to tax increases is SOP for the GOP, but it's not consistent with his previously stated advocacy of TR's economic interventionism supported by taxes.

That's why the edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is very weak content and your justification for including it is based on your own SYNTH. The removed content was based on two sources, the first was Business Insider which isn't a great source on which to establish weight. The other source, CNBC, doesn't mention Carlson at all. So as stand alone content the only sources is BI which is too weak to justify yet another, "Carlson said X" quote in this article. Neither source ties Carlson's comments to the material in your second block quote which means you are requesting inclusion based on synthesis so again, that isn't solid grounds for inclusion. Even if the sources did both mention Carlson and contrasted the recent statements with prior comments as you are trying to do, this article is too long and really, this section should be summarizing his views rather than presenting a long list of specific quotes in response to specific bills/laws/political actions in a way that may hide context and may not help a reader better understand the logic, right or wrong, that governs Carlson's views in this subject area. Springee (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing is a little light right now. But in my opinion, a short and neutral sentence about TC's stand on Bidenomics would be helpful to readers of this article, especially if a green WP:RSP ends up writing about it. Llll5032 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer a more general statement on his views of economics in general (emphasizing summary style). I can see merit to the Bidenomics specific content if done objective/impartially. What we had above was a good example of how we shouldn't do these things, a cherry picked quote + why a reporter mixing facts and opinion writing disagrees in one sentence. Springee (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, are you suggesting that Carlson is a dishonest hack who will say anything to try to persuade his viewers to oppose Biden's agenda even when it's plainly to their advantage? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Great Replacement

Not a forum and nothing purposed. Nip this in the bud before it goes even further down hill. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Imagine if you will the reaction when people realize that Tucker Carlson's new writer (who replaced the one sacked for being a white supremacist) has been working elements of white supremacist mass shooter manifestos into his monologues. https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1381236305514860546 To paraphrase Lady Bracknell: to lose one writer for white supremacism may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC) For the obvious relevance of Trevor Noah's commentary, see below and also coverage in Rolling Stone. But don't just take liberals' word for it: VDARE said "This segment is one of the best things Fox News has ever aired and was filled with ideas and talking points VDARE.com pioneered many years ago". That's VDARE the white supremacist website, not some other VDARE. [17], [18], [19] (so did Stormfront and David Duke, but luckily this was largely ignored by the reality-based media). Needless to say, Carlson doubled down. AP covered ADL's condemnation [20], as did WaPo [21] and the NYT [22], so we can clearly include mention of ADL's letter. The New York Times covered the original material: [23]. At some point we're going to have to get off the fence and admit that this is an article about a white supremacist - or at least (and arguably worse) someone who plays one on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC) JzG, you are an admin, you certainly should know that comments like that last sentence are clear BLP violations. The rest of this is a violation of NOTFORUM. Springee (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Springee, it's not a BLP violation to note what reliable third party sources are saying about someone, and what impact this has on our coverage. It's not like this is the first time he's had problems with spouting white supremacist nonsense on air, is it? Last time it was Stormfront who said this was as gfood as they could hope for, this time, VDARE. When the white supremacists think you're the best white supremacist on prime time TV, maybe the problem is not Wikipedians pointing to the coverage of criticism of that fact, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC) You just said he is a white supremacist. As an admin you should be avoiding such gray areas not trying to find the lines. Springee (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Gerson comment on Carlson’s rhetorical style

this content in the context of Carlson’s recent comments:

Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, wrote that Carlson's rhetorical style "is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like."

was reverted twice by the same editor within 24 hours on the basis that it is an opinion. I do not find that to be a valid rationale and suggest the edit be restored. And[24]. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I can think of an objection, why is this one mans views really relevant, he is a speech writer.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He was a presidential speechwriter. He knows something about crafting rhetoric to convey meaning to large audiences. Oh, and he’s a Republican. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Significant opinion published in a prominent reliable source. No valid reason for removal has been given; opinion pieces are acceptable sources and in fact just about everything in that section is sourced to one opinion piece or another. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –dlthewave ☎ 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source is an OpEd and as Slatersteven said, why is his opinion significant. We already have a long list of sources critical of Carlson's statements, why add one that is an OpEd? Dlthewave restored it without consensus (or commenting here) but I see that Willbb234 reverted that edit. Honestly, another reason to remove this is the material on this topic is getting really long. This is yet another outrange of the week sort of things related to Carlson's show. At some point we need to condense things and just say, this statement was viewed as X and criticized by XYZ. We don't need to quote the variations of outrange hurled from each bully pulpit. We are supposed to summarize, not provide every click baitie quote. Springee (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:WAPO, notable commentator, due weight, inclusion seems reasonable. Acousmana 15:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your views above the content should not have been restored prior to establishing consensus. Springee (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Acousmana 15:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The original addition was Bold, it was Reverted that means we are in the Discuss phase. It shouldn't have been restored. Springee (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't include a comment in an opinion piece unless it had received wider attention. Weight does not require us to report comments that have not been reported in reliable sources. (Opinion pieces don't count as reliable sources, wherever they are published.) TFD (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TFD here. Has this been widely covered by talking heads recently? Just curious. --Malerooster (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are considered reliable sources for attributed opinions. This case would be acceptable per WP:RSEDITORIAL. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are considered reliable in a SPS sort of way. However, it's not clear that this person's opinion is particularly notable. But really we need to zoom out and look at how this whole section is written. It relies way too much on specific "soundbite" or "shock value" quotes. If the important thing is to get Gerson's opinion into the article why aren't we just summarizing it vs deciding this specific quote, out of the entire OpEd article, is the one we need to include? The same question really applies to every quote related to the opinions/views of others on this subject. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the tabloid pages. That is why this section should be written as Carlson said [thing]. It was viewed as X by a number of sources [cites]. Calls for [action against Carlson] were issued by [those calling for action]. When we put so much emphasis on including attention grabbing quotes such as the one in question here we are moving from encyclopedic summary to "if it bleads it leads" quality journalism. Springee (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:SPS? It's entirely irrelevant to an op-ed published by the Washington Post. Springee, you've been around long enough that you can't possibly be making that argument in good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think my intended point was lost in this discussion. I was thinking of the part of SPS referring to material published by experts. You are saying this WP OpEd is reliable for the views of the person writing the OpEd. I agree. However, that begs the question, are their views DUE? Are they some sort of noted expert? So like a SPS, if the person is a noted expert on the subject then yes, perhaps the OpEd would be due. I don't think anyone has made that case thus far. If you don't understand the argument please don't jump to suggestions of bad faith. I think you and I have debated often enough and long enough [[25]] to at least assume the other editor isn't acting in bad faith even if we are unable to persuade the other. Springee (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The "expert" part of SPS is irrelevant here because it's not published by Gerson, it's published by the Washington Post. It's not self-published in any way, shape or form. The reputation of the publisher contributes to reliability and due weight, although I would consider a presidential speechwriter to be a prominent voice as well. –dlthewave ☎

Gerson's comments are noted by Poynter Institute, owner of PolitiFact[26] soibangla (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

But that article is also an opinion piece. The controversy over Carlson's use of the term "great replacement theory" has been reported on in actual news articles, including one which is used as a source of facts in the Poynter article.[27] News media, when it is working properly, reports relevant facts and opinions in a neutral manner. That doesn't mean necessarily that they give both sides equal weight, instead they let us know the weight of expert opinion. Columnist OTOH read news reports and add their commentary, based on their expertise and political views. TFD (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE opinion. Doesn't need to be in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - per Dlthewave. Gerson is a notable commentator providing a relevant and widely held opinion on the nature of Carlson's content. Handy History Handbook (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but only if reported in secondary sources (see [28]). An admirably succinct statement from a reliable source with no taint of "liberal bias", but still an opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - this is a succinct expert opinion reported by an RS and quite frankly I don't know why it's even contested. There seems to be mistaken (and quite bizarre) opinion going round that any piece marked "op-ed" or "opinion" cannot be used in a BLP article. I don't believe this has any basis in Wiki policy. If it does please produce this policy
• Oppose - Looks pretty undue and not a board statement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral. WP:SECONDARY sources have mentioned this commentary [29][30], but a green non-opinion WP:RSP has not yet. Llll5032 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It was published by a green source of the highest order, which surely counts for something. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The news articles are a green source, but are the opinion articles? Llll5032 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So...if the Gerson comment alone is deemed UNDUE, and the Hemmer comment alone is deemed UNDUE, would they be deemed DUE if included together? soibangla (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Part of that is because this section is ballooning. We simply don't need this level of play by play commentary on this issue. We are supposed to present a summary. These guys are basically just agreeing with the other opinions. So why include them in the actual text? This whole section is too long given the scope of the article and coverage of Carlson over the years. Springee (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

They will be WP:DUE if reliable secondary sources mention them: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We probably have WP:CONSENSUS that if the comments are included, they should be succinct and non-repetitive per MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them". Llll5032 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE, personal attack, BLP vio, not even close to acceptable criticism, and cited to an opinion piece. Our BLPs are not the place for columnists to get exposure for their trash talk. Who cares what he thinks about Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, or Sean Hannity? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Our job is to help build this encyclopedia, not try to tear it down by including indiscriminate BS opinions by somebody who doesn't know Carlson from Jack Schitt. Let's show some human dignity here, and stop wasting our valuable time having to discuss the inclusion of unhelpful material, not to mention that it contributes to the desensitization of a very serious global issue like racism. Atsme 💬 📧 03:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - BLP violation and personal attack from an untrustworthy person, also UNDUE. Gerson is a propagandist who was a big pusher of the illegal Iraq war based on lies about WMD. From Media Matters: The Washington Post has hired Michael Gerson who as President Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001-2005 crafted the false and misleading rhetoric the Bush administration used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- to be an op-ed columnist. The Post editorial board repeated without question some of that false and misleading rhetoric in its support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has passed up several opportunities to re-examine its support of the Bush administration's push for war. Yodabyte (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - suited to the topic, appropriate and well-framed. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:303A:E3B4:36F5:3C98 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:303A:E3B4:36F5:3C98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RfC: Hemmer and Gerson comments

I propose these comments in bold be included in the article:

In a letter to Greenblatt, Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch wrote, "A full review of the guest interview indicates that Mr. Carlson decried and rejected replacement theory" when he said, "White replacement theory? No, no, this is a voting rights question." Greenblatt responded in a letter that Carlson’s "attempt to at first dismiss this theory, while in the very next breath endorsing it under cover of 'a voting rights question,' does not give him free license to invoke a white supremacist trope. In fact, it’s worse, because he’s using a straw man – voting rights – to give an underhanded endorsement of white supremacist beliefs while ironically suggesting it’s not really white supremacism.” Historian of conservative media Nicole Hemmer wrote, "In the post-Trump era" Carlson "is among the leading voices working deliberately to mainstream a set of virulently racist anti-immigrant ideas."[31] Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, wrote that Carlson's rhetorical style "is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like."[32]

soibangla (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support: as proposer. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The above discussion shows a lot of good reasons not to include this content. Two primary reasons are 1, the section is already getting too long and this is turning into a dump everything including the kitchen sink into the topic question. Second, as was discussed above, the source for this opinion is an OpEd article. There is nothing to suggest Gerson's opinion should be considered notable. It is a highly contentious claim about a BLP subject and thus should only be included if the issues of weight are clearly in favor of inclusion. They are not. Springee (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

How should we source opinions, if not from opinion articles? –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If RS report on the opinions then that establishes weight. If the person is clearly a notable opinion (say the opinion of a Supreme Court justice on a legal question, a noted physicist on a question of physics, Larry Bird on a question of Basket Ball). It's not clear that either of these people are noted experts in the analysis of rhetoric nor can we assume they are offering an unbiased opinion vs the view of someone who was asked because they gave the answer someone was looking for. Springee (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. WP:BLPBALANCE says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Although Hemmer and Gerson are prominent, and Hemmer's book may be a WP:RS, both of these quotes are from their opinion articles, and I have not seen green WP:RSP secondary sources mentioning either quote yet. Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper that gives detailed excerpts of comments. Instead, it is supposed to summarize controversies. The reader doesn't know who Hemmer and Gerson are, so has not idea how valid their opinions are. Per weight, articles are supposed to explain how accepted their opinions are. This isn't mystery theater where we dump a whole lot of evidence in someone's lap and ask them to figure it out. TFD (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• The reader doesn't know who Hemmer and Gerson are The edit tells readers who they are: Hemmer is a subject matter expert and Gerson wrote for a president whose political base likely comprises a significant proportion of Carlson's viewers. soibangla (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As an expert, is Hemmer telling us what the consensus view of experts is or just her own? Is she a liberal or conservative and does her opinion reflect her political views? Is she writing for a peer-reviewed journal or a partisan op-ed in CNN?

If you think it is relevant to Gerstein's credibility that his president's supporters overlapped with Carlson's views, then the text should say that. It should also be clear whether this is a typical Republican view or if Gerson is merely expressing his own opinions.

The trouble is that the opinions are sourced to op-eds, which establish no weight, since they aren't reliable sources. If you used secondary sources, your text would read something like this: "Historians of conservative media see Calrson as promoting racist and nativist views. Most establishment Republicans agree with this assessment."

TFD (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Expert opinions published in top-tier reliable sources carry sufficient weight for inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm baffled as to why anybody would want to reject these expert opinions. Noteduck (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Too important not to be included. Sea Ane (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Include Hemmer, exclude Gerson. Hemmer is a scholar and expert on the subject of conservative media and politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TE & WP:NOTOPINION. Cherrypicking quotes from opinion articles (and from obviously biased authors) in order to call someone a "racist" is not how we should be writing BLPs. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This in-text-attributed commentary from relevant experts is due weight here. If there are countervailing views from similarly relevant experts or commentators, then perhaps those could be included, but our job is to summarize the relevant sources, and this summation seems appropriately phrased and proportionate. In fact, I find this necessary as this content gives an external view/context to the Murdoch-Greenblatt colloquy. Perhaps in the long run this could be phrased along the lines of what TFD proposes above, but there is no prohibition on using op-eds as sources for in-text-attributed opinion. Neutrality^talk 04:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose An "expert opinion" does not mean it should be included. What is an "expert opinion", anyway? The sources are OpEds and there should be something to demonstrate that these opinions should be included or that they are notable enough. Carlsen is a controversial figure so there's naturally people who have views like this and so there's nothing to say that these particular views somehow stand out for inclusion. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Criticism that comes from reputable sources and is presented in a balanced and neutral way should be included in the article. Not including critical opinions because they come from opinion articles seems like a funny argument. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Both statements are attributed (see WP:RSOPINION) and substantial (the point illustrated being that Tucker works to bring otherwise unpalatable views into the conservative mainstream). The idea that despite being published in separate, well-known reliable sources (again, see WP:RSOPINION) these must be fringe views worthy of being chucked out because they mention the word "racist" is flatly contradicted by even a brief glance at the article. Hemmer in particular is both an academic and subject-matter expert, and Gerson (for whom conservative rhetoric was his actual job) at the very least demonstrates that Hemmer's position is hardly unique. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• I hate primary-sourced opinion. Regardless of who the opinion is from or about. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I am not opposed to inclusion of comments about Carlson's role in mainstreaming white supremacy, but drawn from secondary sources, noting the primary commentary. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to see some secondary sources reporting on this to consider it WP:DUE, especially given how controversial those statements are. If we had sentence or two for every op-ed ever written about Tucker, this article would have quite literaly hundreds and hundreds of paragraphs worth of material on those op-eds. There needs to be a reason to include these specific quotes over the thousands of similar opinions people have expressed about him. That reason would be coverage in reliable secondary sources, and so far that has not even attempted to be established yet. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support: as per PraiseVivec above. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This rfc is essentially the same as the question above and another thread below. I think it's legitimate to cite the attributed opinions of leading historians and commentators concerning the subject of a biographical Wikipedia article. This is a well-sourced and valid point of view that ought to be noted in the article. Handy History Handbook (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Include Nicole Hemmer’s comment and exclude Michael Gerson. She is a conservative expert on the subject matter and hence her opinion should be considered in this article. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - just because those 3 individuals see immigration as a racial issue, not everyone sees it that way. Unfortunately, racism has become a political talking point, in some cases a platform, for a growing number of white Democrats as I will demonstrate. There is an in-depth article about the politicizing of racism in Vox: Key to this view, as Adam Serwer wrote in the Atlantic in November 2017, is that we should see racism as a question of “institutional and political power” rather than being “about name-calling or rudeness.” That same author wrote an opinion piece in a WaPo article titled Not all ‘anti-racist’ ideas are good ones. The left isn’t being honest about this. There are numerous articles that cover it, but I'm of the mind that The NYTimes published the well-balanced approach without politicizatization. I am also concerned that some editors naturally tend to choose sources that align with their POV, and also tend to ignore the opposing views presented by those same sources. For example, WaPo published one of the most balanced articles I've seen from them in a long time. If we include criticism in a BLP, we should avoid noncompliance with value-laden labels per MOS:LABEL. We also need to include other substantial views which is what NPOV requires of us: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Atsme 💬 📧 12:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper reporting every opinion that emerges. I see there is a policy here on that point [33] A former speech writer is not an expert opinion and neither is the supposed historian who was a "research scholar with the Obama Presidency Oral History project at Columbia University". Both sources already have a political basis and slant and Wikipedia would need non partisan sources when it comes to political pundits like Carlson. In news sources you are going to find many sources saying political trash talking and Wikipedia is not the place to dump trash talking pieces. The standards should be higher and also racism is a very overused term because when Latino news organizations say racist things Like Jorge Ramos, no one calls them out on it as racist.216.2.69.77 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Outdoor mask 26 April content

I wanted to get community input on this recent addition to the article [[34]]. The addition says Carlson is telling viewers to harass people wearing masks outside. My concern is this appears to be taking something Carlson said out of context. The DB article, while highlighting the harassment statement, does provide a larger context for Carlson's statements. As the judge in the deformation case said, Carlson's comments are rhetorical hyperbole. It is not reasonable to take Carlson's statement, when presented in context, to mean Carlson is encouraging viewers to literally harass people wearing masks in public. However, that is what the edit is suggesting he meant. Perhaps there is a way to fix this else I would suggest removing this as both UNDUE and not a clear summary of Carlson's position on COVID etc. Springee (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I half agree, lets just quote what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed around the wording to more closely resemble the framing in the Guardian source instead. In general you shouldn't be using the wording Daily Beast does for controversial statements about living people as per the advice at WP:RSP. I think it's fine as it is now though, we probably don't need to make this article even more of a dump of Tucker quotes than it already is. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am less sure about this, given how many it could affect, and the fact it does appear to almost be a call for intimidation. This is not the usual Carlon gobing off.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it's true, we can't really say it without great sourcing for it. That it's harassing/intimidating/whatever to call CPS on people is probably not an unreasonable thing to think, but it's not really our job to make that connection in wikivoice if it's just something Daily Beast said. Maybe we could add it as an opinion attributed to someone? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, but he did suggest calling child services on them, which is a pretty significant thing to do to anyone. This is why I think this is relevant, that and the fact it is not only Covid misinformation, but goes beyond that. It is a suggestion that wearing as a mask is morally and (possible) legally) wrong, making to harming your child.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is of course a very significant thing to have the CPS called on you, but what are you suggesting the article should say? We could include opinions quoted in the Guardian piece like Elizabeth Spiers, a progressive pollster and journalism professor at New York University, wrote... Calling CPS is something that should be done for legit reasons... It’s traumatizing for children, and it can result in children being separated from their parents, with attribution, and that should be fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is questioning the value of masks outside COVID misinformation? The DB article tries to make the case that Carlson is flip flopping on masks. I think that might be a stretch since there is a difference between mask effectiveness when used indoors vs outdoors. Still, that isn't the part of the article which was added to Wikipedia. This is one where I think the context of the comments needs to be clearly included or the comments need to be left out. My feeling is leave it out of this section since we have to read between the lines to understand his position on COVID and masks. At the same time this is a clear example of using rhetorical hyperbole to try to make a point (unsuccessfully in my view). This would be a clear example of when the use of hyperbole is likely detrimental because the message gets drowned out by the negative reaction to the snipped quote. However, that is my analysis and I don't see a RS making (or even discussing) this. Springee (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am suggesting we say what we are saying, he suggested calling the cops. Its the the fact he is calling they may not work outside, its the fact he is trying to imply its child cruelty.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Should we summarize the total message (not endorse it, just summarize for the sake of context)? I have to admit, I found this particular monolog somewhat hard to follow. Still, we could say this was stated as part of a monolog arguing against the use of masks in outdoor settings and include the Pew virtue signaling context. Again, I'm having trouble trying to summarize his arguments since it seems to be a bit along the line of "liberals bad, outdoor masks aren't effective, liberals harassing you if they say wear a mask so herass them back"? Regardless, he didn't just say these things in a vacuum so we should not present them in a vacuum. In the bigger picture of things I think this content is probably UNDUE, yet another case of Carlson says something that gets some people in a lather. Springee (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the content. We can't build encyclopedia entries like this, otherwise it would be a long list of On X date, Tucker Said Y, on and on and on. That particular blurb isn't any more notable or due than any of a thousand other things he has said on his television show. We have to get out of this mindset. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• We do not quote him directly. We do not quote what the Daily Beast says he said. If credible heavyweight sources cover this, then we report what they say about what he said, but we don't include primary sources, especially primary opinion sources from hyper-partisan websites. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

LIke the Guardian you mean? Or the Independent [[35]]?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

And no it does not appear to just be this issue of calling the police [[36]] but encouraging people to directly confront mask wearers to make it (in his words) "roughly as socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator,". This is about stopping people wearing makes, and that is dangerous.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to include this as a paragraph where Carlson is now advocating against outdoor mask use and is being criticized for the position and/or presentation. A few days ago The Atlantic ran an article that advocates dropping outdoor mask mandates[[37]]. Under the rhetoric there is a common message between Carlson's monolog and the Atlantic article. Springee (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, as it is part of a pattern.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a good source really looking at Carlson's rhetorical style/methods/appeals. It seems that his pattern is say something that may not actually be an extreme position (do outdoor masks make sense) but wrap it up in inflammatory rhetoric. The result appears to be his comments trend on social media. I see a parallel to what Trump did going into 2016. I'm sure lots of people talked about that but I don't think Carlson's behavior gets the same attention. Lacking such a source I'm not sure how to cover it since we run into the issue that we are just listing the outrage of the week. Springee (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The CDC released new guidance that said vaccinated people do not need to wear a mask outdoors, in line with the thrust of Carlson's comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not according to RS. Nor do I recall the CDC saying it is OK to never wear a mask outdoors for anyone, which is what Carlson is saying, confront anyone in a mask.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlson used rhetoric to make the point that it is silly to wear a mask outdoors, which is the message endorsed by the CDC today. Per the CDC chart, even unvaccinated people need take no preventative measures when outdoors. See this chart for more information. Many RS are writing about this today, so I'm not sure which RS you are talking about that do not agree with the CDC messaging. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read that chart more closely. It definitely does not say "even unvaccinated people need take no preventative measures when outdoors." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The chart literally says "Prevention measures not needed" as what the maskless symbol means placed by "Walk, run, or bike outdoors with members of your household" and "Attend a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends." It's a very straightforward chart, but my comment should have included "for certain activities outdoors." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie The chart you posted says it's safe to be maskless when "walking, jogging or biking, or dining with friends at outdoor restaurants", not when people are in public with strangers, or when kids are in Walmart (where Carlson encourages harassment of parents). W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 02:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, he called upon people to do something, that is the point here. It was inflammatory language.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It was clearly and obviously rhetorical hyperbole, which is a common thing used on Carlson's show (as well as the opinion shows on the other networks). Time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, we've seen that hundreds or thousands of times Trump, Carlson, Whoever... was just joking. Please never post that again. It has no basis in policy and if even one editor bothers to reply, it wastes everybody's time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, sooner or later when all you do is insane conspiracist "rhetorical hyperbole", people conclude that you're an insane conspiracist. Carlson appears to have reached that horizon. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, here is RS describing the new CDC guidance that it is ok for people to be maskless outdoors. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, but since Carlson was exhorting people to harass anyone who does wear a mask, that's irrelevant. Thanks for playing, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the part where we say that the CDC says 2 and older should wear masks when outside is out of date. Here is a WP article that both mentions Carlson's rant as well as the CDC guidelines noting that many outdoor activities don't benefit from masks even without a vaccine. [[38]] Springee (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some additional articles that contextualize the hyperbole aspects of Carlson's presentation (without forgiving or excusing it)[[39]][[40]]. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've read the three articles, but it appears their guidelines still recommend masking when around with strangers? Also, the positioning of the CDC sentence makes it look like the decision to loosen masking is a consequence of Carlson's rant, but it clearly is not, as it was in the works even before the monologue. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 03:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't seem to draw a connection between the CDC guideline change and Carlson's comments; WaPo simply mentions both in the same article. If we're going to include it then we should have a clear explanation of why it's relevant. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And its still getting coverage [[41]], and Dr Fauci has wadded in [[42]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

New! Improved! Now with secondary sources!

If you want to include Gerson's commentary, you need to show that it's considered significant by reliable independent sources, so not undue, right? So:

Former George W. Bush adviser and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson criticized Carlson for "providing his audience with sophisticated rationales for their worst, most prejudicial instincts" and "reinterpret[ing] moral criticism of his bigotry as an attack by elites on his viewers". "This is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like." After the Anti-Defamation League called for Carlson's firing, Lachlan Murdoch defended Carlson's advocacy for the voting rights of white people, and his invocation of the Great Replacement Theory, in a segment that white supremacist website VDARE called "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired". Carlson's show had previously been praised by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and Stormfront have called him "literally our greatest ally".

Secondary sources establishing significance and putting in context. Will that do? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Opinion pieces, like that Bloomberg article, are not reliable sources for statements of fact about other people. So, as written? No, this is worse than the original proposal. Edit: to be clear though, broadly speaking it's in the right direction. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. We don't need to find a way to get this particular quote into the article. I'm not OK with the guilt by association linking Carlson to any supremacist groups. Springee (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, people seem to want to, and I am just showing how. Not mining the internet for primary sourced opinion quotes that say what you want, but looking at what secondary sources say about that commentary. I am sure we'll be the last reality-based source on the internet to come out and acknowledge that Carlson is pushing neo-Nazi propaganda, and that's good, but it will happen, and when it does, I am here to make sure it is done properly. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Associated Press and Independent articles clearly satisfy WP:BLPBALANCE, and probably the Guardian and Buzzfeed News articles do too per WP:RSP. Crikey and Bloomberg Opinion probably fall short per WP:BLPBALANCE. We don't need to second-guess the content of what the WP:RSPs say, unless one clearly conflicts with another WP:RSP, or violates a Wikipedia policy that we can cite chapter and verse. Llll5032 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL applies here as well - use WP:INTEXT - but we also include all significant views. If one RS (per WP:RSCONTEXT) provides a different view/opinion, we use intext to include it. If the statement is a single "biased" allegation/claim in an article, then that is how we judge WEIGHT. If the entire article goes on and on about it, then we use editorial judgement to determine how much of that opinion is worthy of inclusion, but again we use INTEXT. I think a quote is plenty for both views because there is nothing scientific about biased accusations of racism or white supremacy, etc. It has actually become a talking point for progressives, and we don't consider political talking points as DUE much less having any weight on either side of the isle; common sense is required as is compliance with NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, BLP, GUILT and NPOV. See the WaPo piece, Not all ‘anti-racist’ ideas are good ones. The left isn’t being honest about this. about this very topic: Nothing is gained if the different parties in this debate call each other racists or invoke the specter of “white supremacy” to discredit their opponents. Atsme 💬 📧 13:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, we include significant views from reliable sources. Those all seem in agreement at this point: Carlson's show is explicitly racist. Being anti-anti-racist is being racist. As is, well, being racist. When David Duke, VDARE, Stormfront and The Daily Stormer are all applauding you from the sidelines, you're saying racist shit. If you don't want to be called a racist the solution is to stop saying racist shit not to come up with excuses about how advertisers deserting your racist show is cancel culture gone mad. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is more than enough sourcing to establish due weight. AP, Independent and Buzzfeed are particularly strong secondary sources that provide factual coverage of what others are saying about Carlson. –dlthewave ☎ 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I got as far as your first two sources. They are both opinion pieces also, hence fail rs. I think we are approaching this wrong. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources, we should identify reliable sources and report what they say. Furthermore, if we quote Gerson, we should explicitly state his relevance to the article. Is he speaking for a wing of the party? TFD (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Could you explain why you think opinion pieces fail RS? That's not what the relevant guideline, WP:NEWSORG, says. –dlthewave ☎

Dlthewave, WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is an earlier discussion above that is still open, and I just iVoted there before I remembered there was yet another discussion here. I provided updated material from well-balanced RS in my comment above. Bottomline, opinions are not statements of fact, and like you said, everybody has one. There are plenty of politicized opinions that denigrate talking heads on cable & broadcast TV, both right and left leaning, and alot of it stems from advocacies, COI, and clickbait, the latter of which is how most online news sources survive. That is not what WP represents. We should not be cherrypicking criticisms to RGW or SOAPBOX or to denigrate opposing voices, especially when it is noncompliant with WP:GUILT, which it appears you are attempting to do now by using white supremacist approval. While the sources you have chosen above support your POV, that is not how we achieve NPOV. The fact that white supremacists like what Carlson said means nothing to this encyclopedia - they probably would agree with him if he said we need lower taxes. We're building an encyclopedia, not writing articles for ADL or SPLC. Atsme 💬 📧 13:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Racism Accusations

This article conflates racism with objections to changes in the US electorate caused by unfettered immigration. The US is not peopled sole by those with European ancestry. As recent immigrants, legal or illegal, tend to vote Democratic, it is undeniable that immigration changes the political landscape of the country. Carlson has repeatedly made this point. This article violates WP:POV. There are many sources with conclusions that differ from those cited here. For example, see:https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/14/the-left-claims-tucker-carlson-is-a-white-supremacist-for-quoting-their-plans-for-crushing-republican-voters-through-amnesty/ sbelknap (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and the federalist is not an wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This does seem to be an issue with articles like this. Call it a twice removed problem. The article subject says something. A number of opposed sources saying they don't like it but rarely do we see a reply to the replies. I don't think it's any secret that Democrats do better with citizens who immigrated to the US thus they disproportionately benefit in terms of voters. [[43]][[44]][[45]][[46]]. In finding these articles I found others that disagreed with the position so this isn't something that should be considered clear cut. I think if we had a second wave of replies this might not look so one sided. The Federalist may be acceptable in this case since it may be OK to use it as an attributed opinion on this event which is inline with RSP. I think it would depend on the specific use. Springee (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Progressives seem to be more successful at embedding biased content into wikipedia as well. The current state of the Tucker Carlson article seems like a blatant violation of WP:BLP as well as being factually inaccurate. You can pull up on youtube clips where Tucker Carlson goes to get pains to explain that his objection is not a matter of race, but instead a matter of respecting the economic and cultural interests of American citizens. He has made the point that illegal immigration of low skill workers hurts African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans and benefits the ultrarich oligarchs, most of whom are of European ancestry. This article is the poster child for wikipedia unfairness. sbelknap (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Sbelknap - actually, we are supposed to choose sources from a NPOV, and cite those sources to support what we choose to include, and avoid becoming a mirror of news sources. See WP:NOTNEWS & WP:NEWSORG for further information. While The Federalist is not a RS for statements of fact, we can still use it to cite opinions using WP:INTEXT. We should also keep in mind MOS:RACIST - Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. When editors choose only those sources that align with their POV, and are excluding other opinions or factual information, then noncompliance with NPOV may very well be at issue. That can be resolved either by local consensus on the article TP, at WP:NPOVN, or by calling an WP:RfC. Our job as editors is to present all substantial views, and not promote, advocate for, or include only those views in RS we have chosen - NPOV applies to choosing the RS we cite. Furthermore, if those sources are in the echo chamber (reciting a single source newswire) then that material is considered as originating from a single source. Atsme 💬 📧 11:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. We should not report opinions form the primary source, ever. That especially applies to think-tanks, whjose entire aim is to promote specific opinions.

If you want to counter the large number of sources identifying this as a massive red flag, feel free to identify those reliable independent secondary sources that say Carlson's promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory was a legitimate point and not promoting a white supremacist / white nationalist trope. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with your sentiment about "opinions" and they come in all flavors - left, center and right. How those opinions are judged is where we differ because you tend to give more weight to opinions that align with your POV while discounting opinions that don't. I don't judge opinions the same way I do statements of fact. Having 10 different publications repeat an opinion that was initially published by the AP, or Bloomberg, or WaPo or NYTimes doesn't give that opinion any extra weight - context matters when considering the reliability of a source. Aligning with one opinion over another doesn't make either opinion right or wrong - WP editors are not the judges of what opinions are right or wrong - that's OR. When dealing with opinions, we use in-text attribution. A single opinion that is politically opposite to what the echo chamber has published should not be discounted. In fact, in WP we have WP:WEIGHT - ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Some seem to think that when multiple sources publish the same view, be it in a sentence or a paragraph, it's the number of sources publishing it that give it weight rather than the prominence of that view in the source itself. They are overlooking the fact that WEIGHT is about the prominence of each viewpoint in the relative RS (which actually applies more to scientific opinion, and not so much politics). Some tend to completely overlook the following: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents - and to the latter, I'd say liberal views are as significant as conservative views (and vice versa) regardless of whether or not we agree with them, or that they were or were not published in the mainstream echo chamber. Editors are allowed more leeway with opinion pieces, and that also applies to today's opinion journalism. IOW, we don't suppress opposing views based on IDONTLIKEIT - we include all significant views, and let our readers decide. Atsme 💬 📧 22:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, no it does not. It equates the Great Replacement conspiracy theory with racism. Because it is. It equates content that has been welcomed, across a series of segments, by Stormfront, VDARE and The Daily Stormer.

It does so, moreover, based on reliable independent secondary sources, which all reach the same conclusion. If Carlson is not genuinely a white supremacist, then he certainly plays one on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am trying hard to take these assertions seriously but this is difficult, as they are clearly contrafactual. According to the US Census bureau, about three-quarters of Americans are white. Thus, one-quarter of Americans are of some other race or are of mixed race. Immigration dilutes the political clout of those who are *currently* legal residents or citizens with those who are *not currently* legal residents or citizens. This dilution happens to citizens who are white, black, and asian people. Also, as most of the immigrants are Hispanic, and Hispanic is not a race, it is absurd to think of this as racist. One of Carlson's points is that immigration of low-skill immigrants disproportionately affects American citizens who are hispanic and American citizens who are black. The larger point is that the current American citizenry is being diluted by large-scale immigration of persons who are illegal aliens of whatever race. Race isn't the issue at all. (Whether or not one agrees with Carlson about the benefits/harms of immigration is a separate point.) sbelknap (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, weird how so very many people come up witht he same "counterfactual", including actual white supremacists. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

sbelknap, you added a neutrality-disputed tag to the top of this article, but you have not explained with a WP:RS or quoted any policies at WP:NPOV or WP:BLP about what the problem is or how we should fix it. Can you please exactly quote from WP:NPOV or WP:BLP what the violation is? Llll5032 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe I clearly explained what the problem is above, but I understand that you do not agree. Perhaps, it would help to take this bit by bit. The article says, "Critics have accused Carlson's show of promoting racism, a charge which he has denied. Interviewed by the Columbia Journalism Review in 2018, Carlson said, "I’m not a racist. I hate racism."" Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center has said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the U.S.]." Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol described Carlson's commentaries in 2018 as "close now to racism" and "ethno-nationalism of some kind, let's call it."

In this paragraph, political opponents of Carlson make an assertion which is countered only by Carlson's own words. These assertions provide no specifics, the charge of "promoting racism" or "mainstreaming…white nationalism" is vague and subjective, and there is no counter from secondary sources, although these do exist. More importantly, this seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:BLP. Accusing somebody of racism or white nationalism is an extremely serious assertion. I propose that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety. sbelknap (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:GRAPEVINE This paragraph is poorly sourced and does not meet verifiability standards. sbelknap (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sbelknap but I don't see how these well-sourced quotations violate WP:GRAPEVINE. Also I think it conforms to WP:BLPBALANCE. I agree that we should include other WP:RSP sources if they have different assessments, but we must not WP:CHERRYPICK from lower-quality sources, because that would violate WP:BLPBALANCE. Can you explain with a quote from WP:BLP how the wording violates WP:BLP? Llll5032 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

These quotations are vague claims made by political enemies of Carlson, reflecting formed conclusions but without citing specific statements made by Carlson. In my view, this is because there have been no such specific racist statements by Carlson nor by his guests. These are thus not verifiable and are of poor quality. There is no denying that these various progressives disagree with Carlson. Yet, doesn't it seem distinctly odd that not even one of these critics musters a specific statement by Carlson that is verifiably racist? The reason for this is that Carlson is not racist in his immigration views, he objects to the volume of immigration (legal and illegal) and to the harmful effects that low-skill immigrants, regardless of race, have on the economic prospects of low-skill American citizens, regardless of race. sbelknap (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, VDARE is not an "enemy" of Carlson. They called it "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired". The Daily Stormer is not a political enemy of Carlson. They like his white supremacist talking points too. Stormfront are not political opponents: they have called him "literally our greatest ally". David Duke thought Carlson should have been the former guy's VP.

Carlson may claim he's not pushing white supremacism, but the white supremacists absolutely think he is, and so do the reality-based media.

References

Guy (help! - typo?) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the wording could certainly be improved by removing the WP:MANDY nonsense - after all, Fox's defense in a libel case is that you can't take Carlson seriously, so we should follow their advice there.

But let's just talk about the sources. ‘Antisemitic, racist and toxic’: Tucker Carlson faces calls to resign after promoting white supremacist ‘replacement’ theory. Notice how the characterisation of his content is not couched as opinion: the great replacement conspiracy theory is white supremacist, and he is promoting it. We can have a spirited discussion about whether he's doing that for clicks or because he's genuinely a white supremacist, but it's very clear that both media commentators and white supremacists think his content is white supremacism.

So really the only question we have to answer is whether to present Tucker Carlson as a far-right talking head whose show is full of white supremacist talking points, or as a white supremacist talking head. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not at all what Carlson has said. In fact, each time he covers this issue, he painstakingly makes clear that he is objecting to immigration as a means of dilution of the political power of current American citizens. It simply is not a racial issue at all, in his telling. sbelknap (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, isn't it odd how both white supremacists and liberals both, pretty much universally, conclude that yes, that is exactly what he's said. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing like that has happened. There is no specific, verifiable assertion that Carlson has said racist things or promoted racism or white nationalism. There are some cherry-picked quotes from various progressives in this article. That is not "pretty much universally."sbelknap (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, nothing like what? VDARE the Daily Stormer and Stormfront praising his segments? It absolutely has. VDARE called it "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired". Carlson's show had previously been praised by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and Stormfront have called him "literally our greatest ally". Guy (help! - typo?) 17:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, the argument you are making is not logically sound. During the run up to the US involvement in Vietnam those opposed to involvement could be broadly classified into two camps (and I'm using hyperbolic language to make the point), this "commie beatniks who hated their country and were too chicken to stand up and fight for it" and the "pragmatic patriots who knew what it was to fight in WW2 and Korea and who assessed this situation and saw it as an unwinnable war that we were inheriting from the French". On the other side you had those who wanted intervention. The interventionists found it very handy to suggest that those who wanted to avoid the conflict for pragmatic reasons were actually just commie beatnik druggies who didn't love their country. We should not confuse the support one might get from racists as reciprocal. However, if one wishes to suppress a message it is often handy to tar that message as something undesirable (commie beatnik, racist etc) rather than actually addressing the substance of the message. Springee (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy This is an instance of the association fallacy. You can learn more about this informal fallacy at Association fallacy, and more about similar logical errors at Informal fallacy.sbelknap (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, it is not a fallacy to cocnlude that someone who pushes whiute supremacist talking points, to the point of being hailed by actual Nazis as "literally our greatest ally", is advancing the cause of white supremacy.

Guy Perhaps when you have had a chance to read the wikipedia article on association fallacy you will have a different opinion. There is no evidence that Carlson has pushed white supremacist talking points. This article does not provide even a single example of Carlson doing that. Instead, there is a flurry of argumentum ad hominem both in the Tucker Carlson article and on this talk page. sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I know what the association fallacy is. I also know that it's completely irrelevant here. It's not us who are drawing the conclusion, it's reliable independent secondary sources, on the one hand, and literal Nazis (as also reported in reliable independent secondary sources) on the other. When both agree that Carlson is white supremacism's greatest champion on TV, it's very hard to argue that we should suppress that because we personally think that it's fallacious to report it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

None of these sources nor the editors on this talk page can point to any specific example of Carlson supporting white supremacy. There is only opinion and no factual basis for that opinion. Here at wikipedia, we distinguish between opinion and fact. We can agree that the quotes are correct when there is a reliable source. However, that only establishes that somebody expressed an opinion, it does not establish the fact. To do that, there must be a pointer to some evidence of some kind. In looking through the sources for these claims, I have found no factual basis for the opinions expressed about racism or white supremacy. If you have some source that presents evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, the article could be improved by removing the libelous, unfounded assertions about a living person. sbelknap (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the problem is that you have personally concluded that promoting the "great rpelacement" conspiracy theory is not white supremacism, but large numbers of reliable sources have reported that it is, and so have large numbers of actual white supremacists. When your personal conclusion differs from both the reality-based media and the people whose views you claim are not being promoted, then it's past time to consider the possibility that it's you, not everyone else, who is wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The only question at this point is whether Carlson is actually a white supremacist, or whether he merely plays one on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As noted above by Springee, there is a twice-removed problem. Some enemy of Carlson makes a vague assertion of racism without any specific evidence yet somehow this bad argument is considered OK for inclusion in wikipedia articles because the source is on the list of reliable sources. Strong counter-arguments are made to these ridiculous assertions of racism, yet these strong refutations are not presented in a source that is on the list of reliable sources. The original ill-constructed argument is strongly refuted yet the original weak arguer never replies to the strong refutation. See, for example: https://jrnyquist.blog/2020/10/14/in-defense-of-tucker-carlson/ sbelknap (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap are you arguing that WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:PSTS should not apply here? Both advise that we go by secondary sources, not our own interpretations of primary sources. Llll5032 (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we follow the guidance provided by wikipedia on articles of this type, including but not limited to WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:PSTS. Specifically, in WP:RS, we have WP:NEWSORG which states that "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." and "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The current draft of the Tucker Carlson article includes much editorial commentary that is presented as fact. Removing this editorial content, much of it written by enemies of Tucker Carlson, would considerably improve the article, in my view. sbelknap (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, unfortunately this is often how Wiki articles turn out. We can see rational arguments why the view of a bunch of outrange articles from one side of the political fence might not be giving a vocal critic from the other side a fair hearing. But as others are saying, we need RSs to put that into the article. I can understand the concern about how much emphasis is put on yet another outrange of the week. This article might have a NPOV issue but if everything in it is sourced to RS the its not due to a sourcing issue. Instead you might look at how much weight is devoted to various aspects/topics and if any particular one is getting too much emphasis. I personally think some of this could be reorganized into "views" which would attempt to actually explain Carlson's views on subjects (ie, his actual views, not the hyperbole or related reaction) and another full section on the actual hyperbolic rhetoric and associated reactions. Springee (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I agree that Carlson's hyperbole could be addressed -- I think in the "Rhetorical style" section, and also if a WP:RS calls a specific quote from this article hyperbole. Llll5032 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, as a data point, we have the (successful) argument advanced in court by Fox News that no reaosnable person could take what Carlson says seriously. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Fox's court defense is probably the best single data point on hyperbole -- thanks Guy. Llll5032 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Reorganizing to describe views seems to me like a worthy goal. What we have now are a series of straw man fallacies far removed from Carlson's views, each accompanied by vague yet harsh attacks. A reader might carefully peruse the article and when finished, have almost no idea what Carlson's views are, but have an excellent understanding of how his enemies mischaracterize and attack him. From WP:RSEDITORIAL, we have this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The Tucker Carlson article would be much improved by removing those reliable sources that are clearly editorial commentary, analysis, or opinion but are presented in the article as descriptions of facts. sbelknap (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, Sbelknap, I think you are misunderstanding WP:RSEDITORIAL here. The quotes and assessments in the paragraph you object to came from news articles. They are quoting people's opinions, but they are not opinion articles themselves. That is one reason why they are such reliable secondary sources, per WP:BLPBALANCE and per WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Consider the Heidi Beirich quote, “Tucker Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in this country, which is fear of immigrants, fear of Muslims, keeping them out and arguing that whites are under attack,” This quote first appeared in an Amanda Marcotte piece in Salon, then is quoted verbatim in this Aiden Pink piece in Forward, and now is being quoted in the Tucker Carlson wikipedia article. The source here is Heidi Beirich and it is clearly her opinion, with no supporting evidence. Filtering this quote through Salon and then Forward does not change the nature of the quote into news. The quote itself is still opinion. It is evident that Forward accurately quoted the Salon article and it is possible that Salon accurately quoted Heidi Beirich, but none of this quoting changes Heidi Beirich's opinion into fact. WP:RSEDITORIAL obviously applies "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The contention that filtering a direct quote through a news article somehow converts opinion into fact is absurd. sbelknap (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If that's so, Sbelknap, why do you think WP:BLPBALANCE ("Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources") allows criticism in biographies at all? Under what circumstances would critical statements ever be allowed? 05:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Under the circumstance where editors follow the guidance that wikipedia provides. As per WP:RS editors are advised to distinguish between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Here is the relevant WP guidance again: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." sbelknap (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"described by various writers", so yes we do sort of attribute it, as we do not say it is a fact. What we do not want is a list of all the people who have called him a racist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG recently made an argument on length that I might steal. Call it the Hooke factor. Look at the length of the article on Robert Hooke and look at the list of things Hooke contributed to the world. Now look at the length of this article and all the details included in it. Hooke's page is ~75kb while Carlson is 2.4x longer at ~180k. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most editors would feel Carlson is less significant than Hooke. Springee (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

True, but then we need to decide what is significant about Carlson, and that seems to be his deliberate courting of conteoversy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point Slatersteven. His job is to be a very controversial and influential political host and commentator. The WP:RS all say this, and this article must describe the major controversies to be WP:NPOV. Llll5032 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

By attributing the Heidi Beirich quote to a news article in Forward, the wikipedia article is presenting this information as fact. The original quote of Ms. Beirich in the Salon editorial by Ms. Marcotte remains an opinion. No facts are presented that support Ms. Beirich's opinion. WP:RS also advises, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The Forward article presents no facts that would support Ms. Beirich's opinion. Ms. Beirich also speaks in the context of her position at the Southern Poverty Law Center; according to [[47]], "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list." What we have here is an extremely serious accusation that Carlson is "mainstreaming white nationalism" quoting a questionably reliable source. No facts of any kind are presented. This specific quote does not belong in this article. Lets apply the Hooke criteria by removing this clearly inappropriate content. sbelknap (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean this "Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center has said...", in other words, we attribute it, to her.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and more generally the quotes could be attributed to the person and their affiliation; that would clarify what is opinion and what is fact. Although this claim by Ms. Beirich borders on libel and no supporting evidence is provided. Therefore, for that particular quote, I'd favor removing it entirely. sbelknap (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

How is "Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center" not saying who she is or what her affiliation is? have you actually read our article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the article could be improved by removing this paragraph, as this quote from Ms. Beirich is not buttressed by any facts in Forward nor in Salon. The guidance recommends assessing information from articles on a case-by-case basis. In this case, a possibly libelous opinion without any supporting facts is not particularly informative as to Tucker Carlson's views on immigration. sbelknap (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, it doesn't need to be. SPLC is a noted authority on extremism, reliable sources have noted that SPLC made this claim, and that's it. It's not for us to second-guess the sources here. Rejecting an attributed opinion notes in reliable independent secondary sources because you disagree with the basis on which the opinion was drawn, is the very definition of OR. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You are far away from the guidance in WP:RS, which distinguishes between opinion and fact. Please review WP:RS and you can see for yourself. There was no factual basis provided for the opinion. There was only opinion. Thus, we agree that we have a reliable source for the *opinion*. However this source does not meet the criteria in WP:RS for a reliable source on the facts. Neither Ms. Beirich nor the authors of the two articles that quote her provide any facts that buttress this opinion. sbelknap (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, nope. It's a notable opinion (as demonstrated by its mention in literally dozens of reliable sources), from a noted authority on hate speech, and we're citing it, with attribution, from the secondary sources not from the original. That is a textbook example of how Wikipedia represents significant opinions. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap If you need more background on how we use secondary sources, please read WP:SECONDARY. Also the section it is in, WP:PSTS, on the differences between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. (edited) Llll5032 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts to the talk pages. sbelknap (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Llll5032 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove the neutrality tag as we discuss? Llll5032 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the neutrality tag is to attract interested editors who may help to improve the article. So far, the article is still very far away from a NPOV. I'd prefer to keep the neutrality tag for now. Lets rapidly work to make progress on consensus, though.sbelknap (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above, yes. As we do in fact say what they want us to say, we attribute the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, yes, per WP:1AM. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Llll5032 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)