Talk:Tim Pool

Swatting incidents

Pool has been swatted several times, which has no mention in the article. Why is this the case when less popular people in the political sphere such as Keffals have an entire section of the article dedicated to it? 142.186.88.120 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Independent covered one January 2022 swatting incident. Has there been more coverage in reliable sources about that incident or others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hard to find sources Wiki deems reliable, considering such reliable sources will purposely ignore it. But I did come across two more (albeit seen as questionable sources per Wiki standards): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tim-pool-swatted-livestream

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/tim-pool-podcast-swatted-for-ninth-time-this-year-40k-viewers-stayed-to-watch-abandoned-studio-for-three-hours/

Number of available sources aside, my question remains - is this not mentioned in the article due to a lack of plentiful sources, or because it is somehow not notable? And does the reliabiity of these sources actually mean we can't verify if the swatting occurred? This event is obviously true with video evidence. The only thing that makes the sources questionable is their potential bias, but that can easily be avoided for a case such as this. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason (as far as I know) beyond no one having added it yet. I wouldn't favor adding content about it unless there's more coverage. The Examiner is considered a marginally reliable source (see WP:RSP). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The irony about The Independent being considered reliable is that the article alleges Pool is a right-winger, and the ones "marginally reliable" do not mention his political affiliation. I'm surprised this event hasn't even been mentioned on this talk page until now. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

right-wing audience, again

A changed the description to:

According to The Independent, BuzzFeed News, and The Daily Dot Pool has a "primarily right-wing audience," is "popular among the right," and "spout[s]" "an endless font of right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories."

That way readers can make up their own mind. To treat these publications as authoritative sources is, to put it politely, not adequate. The linked articles merely assert a right-wing stance and/or appeal without any political analysis or polling that would prove the point. tickle me 20:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the concern regarding the sources and agree with using attribution but it would probably be better to just drop the latter two and stick with the first. Also, the quotes really suffer in terms of IMPARTIAL tone. Springee (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

And what policy grounds is that agreement based on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are for the most part authoritative sources. If you want to challenge the consensus on reliability of any of them you can do so but for now, to put it politely, they are completely adequate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither BFN nor the DD should be considered authoritative. Springee (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

BFN is generally reliable, for internet and pop culture things we consider them authoritative. DD is no consensus. But Tickle me isn't just questioning BF and DD they're questioning The Independent as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Pool's extremist comments on right-wing mass shootings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

Tim pool is not a right wing commentary host. He’s a centrist libertarian 2600:100C:B229:8416:DDB:1658:D9BC:C1AC (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In light of very strong sourcing that says he is right-wing, you'll need multiple high-quality sources to back up your claim. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

You seem to have forgotten he worked for The Young Turks as well! I suggest you do more research! 2603:7081:4702:53ED:98D9:AEB2:D761:3214 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 This is not a proper edit request. For your information, only use an edit request template when you are going to specifically state what you want to add. You are not supposed to use it as a means of suggesting to other editors to add more content to an article. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Pool is NOT right wing.

Anyone who has actually listened to him knows this. Wikipedia needs to fix this. A single NY Times article as a citation to prove Tim is right wing is pathetic. At most Tim is a classical liberal who agrees with some conservative policies. Get it right Wikipedia. 2607:FB91:129F:4C56:545A:391D:F7B9:EF0 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your point. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable description based on his comments. Certainly members of the Right are not in 100%s agreement on everything and may side with progressives on some issues. That doesn't mean they are left wing. TFD (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; Matt Walsh (political commentator) is described as right-wing. To put Pool in the same category as Walsh is preposterous. Even Michael Knowles is only described as conservative. NYT is left-leaning so of course Pool will be perceived more conservative than he actually is. Plus NYT doesn't even back up why they believe Pool is right-wing, the article just uses "right-wing" to attract clicks and fear monger (liberal media frequently uses the term right-wing for any conservative leaning person to stoke fear and demonization). It shouldn't be up to us to find "reliable sources" it should be up to NYT to prove their case why they slapped that label on him. Also, why is Wikipedia using sources people have to pay to view? 142.116.121.165 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; Matt Walsh (political commentator) is described as right-wing. To put Pool in the same category as Walsh is preposterous.

That's some of the most brazenly sophistic arguments I've ever seen. Two people can be right-wing without being interchangeable in their views.
Plus, it's not like there's much to distinguish between Pool and Walsh these days especially when it comes to peddling hatred against the LGBT community. Tim Pool actually called the victims of the LGBT bar shooting groomers; even Matt Walsh didn't go that far. 177.134.220.205 (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)