Jump to content

Talk:Tucker Carlson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.8.184.122 (talk) at 14:35, 22 October 2018 (→‎RfC: White supremacist praise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Recent edits

I have just reverted out all of the questionable, POV-laden edits with either poor sourcing or non-reliable sourcing to support the claims. Your edits also removed well-sourced and established content. Edits like these should be discussed first, but most certainly now that they have been challenged. Diff of reversion:[1]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was an opinion piece in there from The New York Observer, that has now been removed and think probably covers your concerns about POV. The Daily Beast, Salon magazine and the Southern Poverty Law Center, however, are commonly used sources to demonstrate what an individual's political positions and views are, and hence have been included. I think you may need to actually establish what you believe is poor sourcing before removing RS cited material. Perspex03 (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perspex03, please see WP:BRD. It's not policy, but a very good guideline. You missed the 'Discuss' part of BRD by not actually discussing, rather, you chose to 'Defend'. It would have been better form and a show of good faith for you to actually wait for discussion to happen after your comments were placed. After that, when we (and hopefully others) had an opportunity to discuss the challenged content, we could have worked together regarding the content you are insisting on. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa

My friend from Portland put the faces of antifa arrests no mask on Facebook 4:00 am Sunday after the fights on Saturday night all I did was to respond I wonder how many of these people get up at odarkthirty every morning and pull there bootstraps on and go to work 5 minuets later Facebook took it off and my friend called me a rebel I just told him I call it like I see it Retired117 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa

Reliably sourced content on Carlson's rhetoric about South Africa and Carlson's influence on Trump was removed without reason. The content was sourced to high-quality RS, received international attention, spurred an international incident, and influenced the actions of a sitting President. There is no reason at all for removing the content except whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely cannot claim that there is "no" evidence that farmers are attacked at higher rates. Can say it's disputed. South African Institute of Race Relations, one of the country's oldest research groups, says rate is 1.6x to over 12x higher based on how you define farmer. BBC cited AfriForum which found overrepresentation among farmers killed, although it said the methodology has flaws. Disputed accounts for RS over racial motivations of killings. Important we accurately contextualize Carlson's comments here, without bias. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No evidence" and "false" is directly from the multiple RS cited which evaluated Carlson's claims. Your WP:SYNTH text does not belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is BBC not a reliable source? One of the sources YOU cited refers to the IRR study. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you keep adding in your efforts to prop up notions of a white genocide don't mention Tucker Carlson. It's 100% WP:SYNTH and your additions fly in the face of multiple RS which explicitly evaluate Carlson's statements and find them to be false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally in no way WP:SYNTH. I'm not synthesizing anything. Nor am I talking about "genocide" which Carlson didn't mention either.
Step 1: Snoogs claims that there are no reliable figures which show farmers are murdered at rates higher than the general population
Step 2: I demonstrate that there is in fact a reliable figure from a neutral party showing exactly that
Step 3: Snoogs accuses me of pushing genocide narrative and somehow WP:SYNTH.
Step 4: Rinse and repeat indefinitely. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RS literally say there are no reliable figures and data that show this is the case. If you refuse to read and acknowledge the sources, I don't know what else I can do for you. And again, read WP:SYNTH. I linked it for you. It's not hard to understand. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need for condescension, I'm well aware of what it means, thanks. You cite three RS as allegedly saying there are "no reliable figures" to show farmers are killed more: BBC, Pollitifact, and NYTimes. The NYTimes article said we can't know either way because the data is unreliable and incomplete. Politifact showed evidence in both directions and said it's ultimately "nebulous." BBC cited the study I showed you. You jump from RS saying "we can't know either way" to RS saying "there are no reliable figures". By that logic, RS also say there are "no reliable figures" that farmers are NOT killed at higher rates. We can say it's unclear, but the current language gives the false impression that there is definitively NOT an over representation of farmers killed, which in light of even the RS that YOU provided is not true. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go through the sources and quote them for you. They all clearly say there is no reliable data or figures for the assertion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to quote the sources. I literally just did that for you. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed edits appeared to be WP:SYNTH, as a think-tank report from 2012 is obviously not going to mention Carlson's 2018 punditry. The substance of these sources is that Carlson was wrong about the big picture, and nobody is disputing that he might be correct about a handful of details. Wikipedia should not play pedantic games over technicalities in order to support WP:FRINGE theories. Grayfell (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Disputes

There are pending disputes regarding two different sections of text.

Here is the first:

Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol described the views Carlson expressed on his show as "close now to racism, white — I mean, I don't know if it's racism exactly — but ethno-nationalism of some kind, let's call it."[1] Carlson responded that Kristol "discredited himself years ago."[2]

I reverted this language. It seems like a rather insignificant detail and also like a cheap shot more than a piece of encyclopedic information. User:Volunteer Marek restored the language after I reverted it.

Here is the second bit of disputed language. It is an entire subsection and carries the heading "Fringe talking points on South Africa."

In August 2018, Tucker Carlson ran a segment where he hyped fringe white nationalist talking points about the South African government allegedly targeting white farmers due to anti-white racism.[39][40][41] Following the segment, President Donald Trump instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to to "closely study the South Africa land and farm seizure and large scale killing of farmers."[39][40][41] In the segment, Carlson criticized "elites" who are purportedly concerned about racism "paying no attention" to the "racist government of South Africa."[39]
The false narrative of a "white genocide" in South Africa has been pushed by right-wing groups in South Africa and is a frequent talking point among white nationalists.[40][42][43][44] There are no reliable figures that suggest that farmers are at greater risk of being killed than the average South African.[40][41][45] Some South African blacks have sought to retake land which they have made claims to, but South African police have stopped such ad hoc attempts at appropriating land.[46] In the segment, Carlson claimed that land had been seized from white farmers in South Africa; BBC News, CBS News, The Associated Press, PolitiFact, The New York Times andThe Wall Street Journal described Carlson's segment as false or misleading.[47][40][41][43][44][45][46] The South African right-wing group AfriForum took credit for Carlson and Trump's statements, saying it believed that its campaign to influence American politics had succeeded.[41]

User:Dkspartan1835 reverted this material and urged discussion on the talk page. User:Snooganssnoogans--who originally included the material--restored the language. I reverted the language again, stating that "this material was reverted for good reason--it is unbalanced and lacks an encyclopedic tone. perhaps some of it should be in the article, but it needs a rewrite at the very least. the talk page is a good place to start." User:Volunteer Marek restored the language after I reverted it. In a previous comment on the talk page, User:Snooganssnoogans contends that there is no reason to remove this section other than "whitewashing." I disagree. The heading and the two paragraphs read like a position paper attacking Carlson, not like an encyclopedia entry. I again urge that the material be rewritten. SunCrow (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on the Kristol paragraph, but the content is reliably sourced and includes a response from Carlson. The South Africa is highly notable, spurring a response from the US President, an international incident, a response from the SA government, and international coverage, with fact-checks from high-quality RS. If a half dozen fact-checkers find that you're pushing falsehoods, then duh, you're not going to come off looking well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section right above. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the issue in depth, I have taken a shot at rewriting the South Africa section without the POV. I removed the sentence about genocide because I don't see any indication that Carlson used that word. SunCrow (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hyped", etc.

The following in bold from the article is not encyclopedic wording nor is it NPOV: "In August 2018, Carlson ran a segment where he hyped right-wing talking points about the South African government allegedly seizing land from white farmers due to anti-white racism. In the segment, Carlson criticized "elites" who are purportedly concerned about racism "paying no attention" to the "racist government of South Africa." Carlson's claim that land had been seized from white farmers in South Africa was described by BBC News, CBS News, The Associated Press, PolitiFact, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal described Carlson's segment as false or misleading." Diff here

I changed it to the following and it was reverted: "In August 2018, a segment on Carlson's show highlighted the South African government allegedly seizing land from white farmers due to anti-white racism. In the segment, Carlson criticized of those he characterized as "elites" concerned about racism but "paying no attention" to the "racist government of South Africa." The examples given by Carlson of land being seized from white farmers in South Africa were described by BBC News, CBS News, The Associated Press, PolitiFact, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal as false or misleading." Diff here

Pretty much anything in political articles these days that is edited from POV to reflect NPOV wording in non-Wikivoice is reverted, so I wasn't surprised this was, either. Anyone care to comment? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Highlighted" is not neutral because it makes it seem like these conspiracy theories are legit. "Hyped" may be too much. How about "repeated right-wing talking points"? Volunteer Marek 22:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that highlighted is not neutral nor that it legitimizes anything. He did highlight the topic, it was the subject of an entire segment. Hyped most certainly is over the top and most certainly not encyclopedic language/tone. "Talking points" is POV as it always has a negative connotation no matter if it's said about the politically right or the politically left. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hyped is fine. "Highlighted" is not fine, because just like the term "noted", it suggests that Carlson is making a factual observation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the claim is not factual?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are half a dozen or so news outlets that explicitly call the claim false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Hyped" is not encyclopedic language nor does it have encyclopedic tone - it's slang.
(2) "Highlighted" doesn't suggest anyone is making a factual observation.
(3) Speaking of factual observations, how is "hyped" a factual observation and not editorializing?
We're supposed to be writing encyclopedic content, not echoing what sources say. Just because sources say something, we aren't obligated or required to include it. Especially not verbatim. Write your own prose rather than being so dependant on repeating verbatim, or even paraphrasing, what sources say.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Highlighted" does carry the implication that the "talking points" are true, which is POV. Volunteer Marek 22:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Sticking to sources is Wiki policy. (2) Sticking to what sources say is a good way to avoid being bogged down in never-ending forum-style debates that will never go anywhere, in particular on controversial topics where a sizable share of editors simply do not live in reality and are incapable of distinguishing falsehoods from facts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sticking to what sources say is a good way to avoid being bogged down in never-ending forum-style debates that will never go anywhere" I don't think that's part of the policy on WP:RS or talk page discussions. Got a source for your assertion?
Do you have an answer for Sphilbrick's question? I'd be interested to know your answer as well. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-- ψλ is 100% correct. The use of the word "hyped" is completely non-encyclopedic and POV, as is the language about "right-wing talking points." -- ψλ is also correct that the presence of blatantly POV language in a source does not justify importing that POV language into the encyclopedia and then arguing that it's reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans, please stop insisting on POV language. We all agree that the South Africa information belongs on the page. It just can't be presented in the slanted manner that you keep arguing for. There really is no reason to argue. SunCrow (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look. "Hyped" is bad one way. "Highlighted" is bad another. So how about just "repeated"? Volunteer Marek 22:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated is good. I would also accept "parroted".- MrX 🖋 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, come on! How about "blathered"? You know jokes don't translate well in text? Volunteer Marek 22:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O_O - MrX 🖋 22:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Harwood, John (2018-01-25). "Bill Kristol hits Fox News, Tucker Carlson for 'dumbing down' coverage, pushing 'ethno-nationalism'". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-03-20.
  2. ^ "Tucker Fires Back at Bill Kristol: 'Former Intellectual Who Now Exists Primarily on Twitter'". www.mediaite.com. Retrieved 2018-03-20.

Tucker is a progressive

He believes that the federal government should have enforcement powers beyond the 18 clauses in the Constitution and apparently believes in the “federal government supremacy fallacy”. I’ve heard him state that cities are subverting federal law (when, Constitutionally, that’s impossible) and that federal agencies should be able to enforce non-constitutional empowered federal law within the states without warrant (which directly contradicts the federal system of government). I’ve also heard him say that some people in the US don’t have rights (when they do.) We should label him what he is – here on Wikipedia. He is definitely not a conservative. Anyone who wants to “update” or change the Constitution without amendment is a Progressive. Anyone who stands for conserving the original intent (with amendments) of the Constitution is the conservative, of which he is not one. Anyone agree with me here that we should apply to him the proper label? Solri89 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solri89: To be frank, it doesn't matter whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with your assertion about Tucker Carlson's political ideology. It matters whether there are reliable sources that support your statement. Are there? SunCrow (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Solri89 (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? SunCrow (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I wrote came from statements he made on his own show. Solri89 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia can't state that Carlson is a progressive unless there are reliable sources that call him a progressive. The fact that he has made statements that you deem to be progressive isn't enough. Please see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. SunCrow (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with immigration section and Tucker Carlson Tonight section

I have just tagged two sections of the article.

I tagged the Political Views/Immigration section as unbalanced. Rather than offering a holistic summary of Carlson's views on immigration, the section begins, "Writers at The Washington Post and Vox (website) have accused Carlson of demonizing immigrants, both legal and undocumented." I have no objection to this material (and the similar material that follows it) being included; however, it must be placed in a broader context. Right now, the section reads more like a hit piece than a portion of an encyclopedia article.

I also tagged the Tucker Carlson Tonight section for undue weight. In an eight-sentence section about a show that occupies significant space in the cable news industry, one sentence summarizes an accusation of racism against Carlson, one sentence deals with Carlson's response to that accusation, and one sentence deals with white supremacists' opinions of the show. This seems to me to be quite lopsided. I would propose that this material either be moved to the Tucker Carlson Show or omitted altogether.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not in a position to make that kind of decision but I would have no problem moving it to the shows site as long as the information is verifiable. I believe this request is worth discussion. Solri89 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "broader context" supposed to be? Also, if you think there's an undue weight problem in the TCT section then expend it. It looks fine to me and the tag is spurious. Volunteer Marek 04:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek , I haven't gotten around to expanding the immigration section or the Tucker Carlson Tonight section yet. The tags needs to stay for now. Alternatively, to more accurately reflect the content of the immigration section, the section should be renamed "Attacks on Carlson's immigration views." SunCrow (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is def not a NPOV or accurate title. Volunteer Marek 22:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And tags aren't a suitable replacement for "I haven't done something". Volunteer Marek 22:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was being facetious about the section title. And the fact that I have not fixed the two tagged sections yet does not mean that they do not need to be tagged. If you are impatient about getting the tags removed, please feel free to go ahead and fix the problems that are identified by the tags rather than just removing the tags without fixing the problems. SunCrow (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one adding the tags, and claiming there are "problems", you're obviously the one that needs to "fix it". How am I suppose fix "problems" I don't actually think are there? I'll give you some time, but right now this seems like spurious tagging. Volunteer Marek 19:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that tags were subject to a four-day limit. Again, if the tag bothers you, fix the problem. A section on Carlson's views on immigration should include a summary of Carlson's views on immigration, not just a litany of attacks from people who disagree with his views on immigration. The same goes for anyone else who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. If you can't see the problem, I don't know what to tell you.SunCrow (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have balanced the section on the Tucker Carlson Show by adding information and by deleting the cheap shot about David Duke's views. SunCrow (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need in some way to note that Carlson's show and post-2016 commentary has stirred controversy for being racially charged. That's what several sources in the article note, including the recent CJR in-depth profile that I added the other day. Adding more text on the controversy would give less prominence to Bill Kristol's comments on Carlson's show. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans, I have no objection to including legitimate, sourced information on that controversy, including information from the CJR piece. But I object to the inclusion of David Duke's opinions of the show, which I contend are not important enough to be included and which compromise NPOV. And I tend to think that details about people's reactions to the show should be added to the Tucker Carlson Tonight page rather than the Tucker Carlson page. With that said, the nearly 7,000-word CJR piece--which I read in its entirety and thought was well-written--could certainly be used as a source for relevant, noteworthy information on race and other issues. Perhaps there should be a section of the article devoted to race. I would have no objection to that, provided that it was written from a neutral point of view and that Carlson's responses to the criticisms were included. SunCrow (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I was dismayed to find that some of the blatantly POV language that I had removed from the immigration section weeks ago had returned. I have just spent some time revising the section to bring it closer to a neutral point of view. I will be watching carefully to see if the same POV language rears its head again. Everyone, this is an encyclopedia. If you love Tucker Carlson and want to create a webpage extolling him, that is your prerogative--but this isn't the place for it. Similarly, and more to the point in this situation, if you hate Tucker Carlson's guts and want to create a webpage trashing him, that is your prerogative--but this isn't the place for it. SunCrow (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist

There's a line in the section "Tucker Carlson Tonight (2016–present)" stating that "White supremacists, such as Richard B. Spencer and David Duke, and the white nationalist website The Daily Stormer have lauded Carlson's show." It seems to me already quite clear that the show has been criticized for promoting white supremacist views.

It doesn't seem necessary to mention that noted white supremacists like the show. Presumably that's why SunCrow felt compelled to insert the undue weight tag. I think it's entirely appropriate to delete the line but if someone thinks it's necessary to include information about some of the show's fans, I'd be interested to see how it could be done neutrally.

If no one objects, I will delete the line tomorrow. Flyte35 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Critics have accused the show of promoting white supremacist talking points, (2) White supremacists love the show. Both of these two points seem pertinent. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so how do you propose including that information in a neutral manner? The fact that some white supremacists like the show is pertinent, yes. But mentioning that is not necessary. That's presumably why the line is tagged as a POV problem. Flyte35 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something non-neutral about that sentence? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: White supremacist praise

Should the following sentence be added to a paragraph on Carlson's white supremacist discourse:

References

  1. ^ "People are calling Tucker Carlson out on Twitter for his segment criticizing 'changing demographics in America'". Business Insider. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  2. ^ Lenz, Lyz (September 5, 2018). "The mystery of Tucker Carlson," Columbia Journalism Review.
  3. ^ Business, Tom Kludt and Brian Stelter, CNN. "White anxiety finds a home at Fox News". CNN. Retrieved 2018-10-16. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ "How Fox News' Rising Star Tucker Carlson Is Winning Over White Supremacist America". Haaretz. 2017. Retrieved 2018-10-16.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a transparent case of guilt-by-association - the implication being, presumably, that white supremacists love Carlson's show, therefore Carlson is a white supremacist. First of all, these are fringe figures, so their opinion doesn't belong in articles that don't directly apply to them. Second, I'm sure that white supremacists, like everyone else, have opinions on lots of things, some expected and some unexpected. (In the latter camp - did you know that David Duke endorsed black and Muslim politician Keith Ellison in 2017?) It would be silly to put Duke's and others' opinions in every article on a subject on which they've made some comment. The fact that no other fans of Carlson are named in the article (except Donald Trump, I suppose) also seems to put this in the WP:UNDUE category. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So "guilt by association" means because a fact is unflattering we should ignore it? No, I don't accept that "guilt by association" is a valid consideration here. Factual associations sometimes make someone appear negatively. That's not a problem unless we make it one by avoiding the issue. Likewise, they are fringe figures, but these are not fringe sources. We have multiple reliable sources documenting Carlson's popularity among an audience that espouses extremist fringe views. We are not using Duke's own website to support this, we are using reliable sources to explain this, and they are also explaining why this is significant to the topic. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the guilt-by-association article, if you haven't already, to see why it's a logical fallacy. As for "fringe" - I probably shouldn't have linked to WP:FRINGE, since nothing in that guideline quite describes this situation. It's true that there are mainstream sources stating this - I believe that what they're saying is accurate but nevertheless inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article is not a debate transcript, it's an encyclopedia article. We are documenting facts about Carlson and his audience according to reliable sources. Using these facts to make claims about Carlson which are not supported by those facts would be inappropriate, but that doesn't make the these facts themselves incorrect. It's tempting to say this is a fallacy fallacy, but again, this isn't about induction or debate, this is about baseline facts. Grayfell (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that this sentence by itself is not a logical fallacy, but it certainly seems to be getting used to imply that Carlson is a white supremacist, which would be the logical fallacy. That seems to be the only point to the inclusion of this sentence. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how your argument bears any basis in the core content policies, specifically WP:NPOV and of it WP:WEIGHT, or any other policy or guideline? Including it to help the article "fairly and proportionately represent the sources" seems a perfect valid reason, and indeed would be the main basis for inclusion or dis-inclusion as NPOV is the most relevant policy here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - to quote the "WEIGHT" section you linked to, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Duke, Spencer et al. seem to represent only a tiny constituency - though you might not know it based on how often they're mentioned in the press. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "views" in this case are the views of Business Insider, CJR, CNN, and so on. This isn't a tiny minority, these are mainstream sources. If these sources find this fact to be significant, it isn't our place to decide that it isn't significant after all just because the sources are talking about a tiny minority. Again, we are not using Duke's own publications for this point, we are using reliable sources to explain the well-documented and undisputed fact that Carlson is popular among white supremacists. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the line immediately above the "tiny minority" one from WEIGHT specifically mentions "prominent adherents"... Well, Duke and Spencer are, unfortunately, prominent, so this threshold has been met. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the guidelines. The example given there is "flat earth" theories - you can find lots of mainstream publications discussing flat earth theories, but nonetheless these are classified as the views of a tiny minority. What matters is who espouses the views, not who reports on them. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm confident I understand the guidelines fine. Who reports on these views matters because that's our job as a tertiary source. Fixating on FRINGE views like flat-earth stuff is misleading and as you've already admitted, not entirely relevant. Nothing proposed so far is a fringe position, because nobody is disputing the statements made by reliable sources. We have reliable sources saying that "Carlson is popular..." which isn't disputed by anyone at all. The issue is that in addition to general FOX viewers, he is also popular among white supremacists, which again, isn't a fringe view. "Tucker Carlson is popular with white supremacists" isn't a minority view, it's something that many mainstream reliable sources accept. Sources support this and as far as I can tell nobody is disputing it, right? If you want to discuss why these opinions are encyclopedically significant, you can find that context in the linked sources, and I support expanding the article to explain this as well, as appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Tucker Carlson is popular with white supremacists" is not a minority view, but "Tucker Carlson is great because he mirrors my views about white supremacy" is a minority view - though one that has been reported on by mainstream sources. In that way, it's not totally different from "The earth is flat". Korny O'Near (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This isn't surprising or extraordinary, and it is significant and well-sourced. Is anyone even doubting this? Carlson once tweeted a link to a Red Ice page,[2] The Daily Caller has published Jason Kessler,[3] Chuck Johnson,[4] Radix Journal contributor Scott Greer,[5] and more, as well. The amount of sources discussing Carlson's specific connection to white nationalism are too numerous to even list. This isn't a WP:FART, it's Carlson's defining miasma. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Grayfell. It is encyclopedic to mention the association. The prosed text says nothing at all about guilt. Promoting white supremacy is not a crime as far as I know.- MrX 🖋 10:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Guilt-by-association" does not usually refer to the criminal kind of guilt. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per my previous comments on this talk page. Korny O'Near has made an excellent argument against inclusion. I second that argument. SunCrow (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Snooganssnoogans, the comment about "Carlson's white supremacist discourse" was both uncalled-for and indicative of the POV that you have been pushing on this page in various ways for quite some time. SunCrow (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support supported by several sources so has WP:WEIGHT. Guilt by association is not a policy based reason to exclude, and the sentence merely states the fact that these figures have praised the show, which in no way states any sort of "guilt"; it would be fallacious to state that Carlson is a white supremacist because white supremacists are supporting his show, but that is not what the sentence says. Not liking/not personally wanting to include (what "unencyclopaedic" or "inappropriate for an encyclopedia article" means, usually) what mainstream sources have said or highlighted as prominent in no way invalidates WP:NPOV Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In a vacuum, I would not support the inclusion of this content and if it were only touched on by one RS. However, there is a context here and that is that Carlson's show has been widely described by RS and critics as promoting white supremacist talking points and discourse. As a consequence, it is pertinent to note that white supremacists themselves laud the show. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Spencer etc. aren't notable as experts on Carlson. WP:BLPGOSSIP says to ask whether material is "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" and this statement isn't. I had no trouble finding "High praise for Tucker Carlson" by someone else, and I'm not pushing the poor argument that what's sourced must go in, but am observing that if it's easy to find others then it's indeed undue to prefer fringe players. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individuals in question are mentioned in a paragraph specifically about Carlson's promotion of white supremacist rhetoric. Do you think the suggestion here is to just randomly list white supremacists who like his show? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make more sense to say at Richard B. Spencer, David Duke, and The Daily Stormer that those entities "laud Tucker Carlson's show". Their lauding of Tucker Carlson or his show does not redound upon Tucker Carlson. At the least this initiative is a case of misplaced emphasis. Yet more problematically is the unintended implication that Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist, which he categorically is not. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't cherry picking out quotes but using sources specifically on Carlson's show that highlight this praise as being important. The Haaretz source is entirely about how Carlson has gained support among white supremacists, and another source is a profile of Tucker Carlson in the Columbia Journalism Review that mentions it in the context that Pointing out the similarities between Nazi supporters and positions advocated by Carlson has become a subgenre of DC media. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Korny O'Near and Kyohyi. Blatant attempt to paint Carlson as a white supremacist. DoubleCross (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Just one more attempt to falsely associate a visible political Conservative with the KKK, White Supremacy, Neo-Nazis, etc. and skew the public perception that all Conservatives wear white hoods and carry torches in their spare time. Anyone remember an RfC by the same people !voting "Support" here to make sure Hillary Clinton's article(s) highlighted the support she received in 2016 from the California KKK and its leadership? Yeah, didn't think so. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this per Korny and El Cid. Brings to mind the Chappelle skit - What would Ja Rule have to say about Carlson? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Chappelle - Ja rule. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lots of people like lots of things; they don't all need inclusion. This kind of linking needs to be much stronger; I can imagine a proper section being written up about the obvious right-wing and possible supremacist leanings (or at least attraction), but this is not it. Something that starts with "According to CNN,..." is all too newsy for me. The Columbia Journalism Review is a good start to write something decent--but then, this is the Carlson article, and the comments were about the show. Since there is a main article this section should be brief; I don't understand why trivia like a change in the programming time is important here, for instance. Sure, the content is verified and all that, but it's too much leaning toward personal criticism and guilt by association, and while I understand it's difficult to differentiate between the man and the show (that's the cult of personality...), I do not believe this content is appropriate in this article, in this way. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is just silly. Carlson doesn't associate with any of these people.Exzachary (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. The arguments above basically seem to boil down to "nothing anyone but Fox says about Carlson can ever be used as a source because they're all competitors" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regard to the conclusions that the sources draw. Our job isn't to decide what the sources ought to be focusing on, or to decide for ourselves that their reporting is driven by vaguely-defined sinister motivations; our job is to reflect what they say. And it's very clear from the sources that this is a major part of what Carlson is famous for and, therefore, deserves a prominent place in his biography. I urge the closing admin to disregard any arguments based on expressing simple disagreement with what the sources say or their decision to highlight it as significant, since that isn't a policy-based objection; the position many people above seem to be taking is that no amount of coverage by sources, no matter how high-quality or high-profile and no matter how deafening the coverage is, could ever justify including this in the article. In particular I would single out Korny's opinion (and anyone who merely said 'as Korny') as being clearly, unequivocally groundless - none of the main sources for this could ever, in good faith, be called WP:FRINGE, while the rest of his statement just amounts to stating that he dislikes what the sources say or their decisions about what to cover. RFCs allow for a broad degree of opinions in reaching consensus, but opinions like those - which are unequivocally without grounding in policy - need to be kept out of it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source says that Tucker Carlson sought or values the approval of Spencer, Duke, and Daily Stormer. Their approval is irrelevant to this article. Tucker Carlson isn't mentioned in those 3 articles. Spencer, Duke, and Daily Stormer expressed approval of Tucker Carlson. So what? What does their approval have to do with Tucker Carlson? This is the Tucker Carlson article. This isn't the Spencer article or the Duke article or the Daily Stormer article. Please explain to me, Aquillion, why the Tucker Carlson article should apprise the reader that Spencer, Duke, and Daily Stormer expressed approval of Tucker Carlson. You are expressing "Strong support". Can you tell me: what does their approval have to do with Tucker Carlson? Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources make the connection, not us. C'mon, dude. Don't pin this on the editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand that we are not writing about Spencer, Duke, and Daily Stormer—not in this article, anyway—we are writing about Tucker Carlson in this article. The 4 sources tell us that Spencer, Duke, and Daily Stormer express approval of Tucker Carlson. The sources do not tell us anything about Tucker Carlson, the ostensible subject of this article. This material can be placed in those articles. Why? Because those 3 entities expressed approval of Tucker Carlson—not the other way around. The 4 sources don't provide us with any response from Tucker Carlson to the approval voiced by those 3 entities. For instance—does a source tell us that Tucker Carlson is heartened by the approval he receives from Spencer, Duke, or Daily Stormer? No. Does a source tell us that Tucker Carlson had been courting the support of these 3 entities or the support of other white supremacists? No. The argument that this material is relevant for inclusion in this article is misguided. An editor can certainly go to the articles on Spencer, Duke, and Stormer and add this material to those articles. Tucker Carlson is not at all mentioned in those 3 articles. I have heard of the tail wagging the dog. Perhaps this is akin to that. Perhaps we need a policy called WP:TAIL. It could articulate that we don't necessarily include in biographies opinions expressed by others, that we are permitted to do so but that we are not required to do so, and that factors to be considered would be whether or not the subject of the biography has meaningfully responded to the opinions expressed by others. The only problem with WP:TAIL is that it conflicts with WP:KUDZU. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: Yikes. Brevity is the soul of wit, dude. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tucker_Carlson&oldid=865216587"