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)

Should we include the following statement?

Should the Black Lives Matter (2020) section include the following statement?

During the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Carlson spoke out in support of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who had shot and killed two demonstrators. Carlson said that Rittenhouse had decided he "had to maintain order when no one else would".

JimKaatFan (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

• Yes. Covered in a many, many reliable sources. Some of them I can list here: The GuardianWashington PostNewsweekUSA TodayMercury NewsMarketWatchVanity FairThe IndependentChicago Sun-Times.

Every one of those sources says Carlson "defended" the shooter or "spoke out in support of" the shooter. Amount of coverage received in reliable sources indicates a paragraph in the article is more than justified. The statement is accurate and neutral. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For the same reasons as I did on the last RfC. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your argument, then, amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I not say the same as to your insistence on this being included in the article, WP:ILIKEIT? Coverage by reliable sources doesn't greenlight something for the shake of it, what's the WP:LASTING significance of this in relation to Tucker? I don't believe you have yet to say what that is. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Coverage by reliable sources doesn't greenlight something" - actually, that's exactly what it does. WP:LASTING is a criteria to decide "whether a topic can have its own article", not whether it should be mentioned at all, so you're using that incorrectly. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't and no I'm not. It applies to individual articles as well. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose While the analogy is not quite perfect, I trust we are all aware that someone charged with a crime has a civil right to a vigorous defense. It's a common television or movie trope that this defense sometimes gets confused with support, but I think most people understand that one can provided defense of an action without supporting the action. You identified nine sources suggested that every one of them said that "Carlson "defended" the shooter or "spoke out in support of" the shooter." and use that to pick craft the sentence "...Carlson spoke out in support of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse..." yet only one of the nine items contained that phrase so I suggest that the overly strong reference to support is not, well,... supported.
  • The Guardian "Support" not found
  • Washington Post "Support" not found
  • USA Today "Support" not found
  • Mercury News "Support" not found
  • MarketWatch "Support" not found
  • Vanity Fair "Support" not found (in the context of Carlson)
  • The Independent "Support" not found
  • Chicago Sun-Times "spoken out in support of Rittenhouse"--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Jizzy krizzy. In the previous RfC the word "defended" was picked on, because one of the original sources said "Spoke out in support of". So I changed it, and now there's 11 sources that say either "defended" or "supported". I don't care which word is used in the final text. What the hell's the difference? JimKaatFan (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, I explained the difference. If you don't understand it, perhaps someone else should do this? S Philbrick(Talk) 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see the previous poll was closed, but my previous comment still stands- This is still undue, we can't include everything he's ever said that caused some people to get their knickers in a bunch. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per reasoning of JimKaatFan et al. As I and others have previously observed, a determined effort to prevent inclusion of any of Carlson's many controversial statements by characterizing them individually as UNDUE has largely succeeded, to the point that a reader might conclude Carlson never says anything controversial. This needs to stop. soibangla (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes/Support: substantial coverage internationally warrants mention. I see some argument over the word "defended" or "supported", which is not a reason for exclusion of mention (rewording is a separate matter), but the reliable sources presented by JimKaatFan would make this due to mention. I'm all in favour of cutting it down to the bare minimum number of words though, given that Carlson has said a great many things which have garnered attention. — Bilorv (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  " spoke out in support of" = "supported", or just quote his words without characterizing them. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, with editing. From WP:BLPPUBLIC: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." And "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources." Llll5032 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you implying his comments are on par with an alleged sex scandal. Which I may add Tucker has had one, yet we don't include that, but we are considering this? You've covered this is "well documented" how about we get an explanation as to how this is "noteworthy" or "relevant", did his comments influence anything related to the case? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevance: to the Black Lives Matter section of Carlson's page [1] Noteworthy: The shooting incident takes a large portion of the Kenosha protests WP page, which includes Carlson's comments [2] Llll5032 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an article on the Kenosha riots, this is Tucker's. Again, you don't seem to understand, why are we including this here. Not everything that's controversial that someone has done is included on their article, the Bitburg controversy isn't given a mention on Ronald Reagan's as an example. I have yet to receive a justifiable reason for this to be included here, aside from it getting on some headlines weeks ago. Hasn't left an inkling of significance since. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Taking your example, the Bitburg controversy is described on the Presidency of Ronald Reagan page. [3] Llll5032 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Not every controversy is to be put on the person who said it's page. Here's my suggestion, taking a cue from what you said, is it not as reasonable to transplant this to Tucker Carlson Tonight rather than Tucker himself, as what he said has little relevance to him, but if you really want this put somewhere, his show would be prime for whatever hot-button things he'd say, as that is where he said them and often that show is what gets impacted when he does. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do that when the rest of the controversies are right here on the bio page? Going by WP:CONTROVERSY: "An article about a controversial person, issue, group or organization should start with facts ... Next, the article should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant ... Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader ... For a controversial individual or organization, it is likely that many sources have criticized the person or the group. A well-sourced summary of these criticisms should appear in the article ..." Llll5032 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That quote doesn't address my concerns. It doesn't look like we're going to reach an agreement here so it's best we part ways now and let the RfC take it's course. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• No Same as before: we should say that he makes controversial statements and give the most notable examples. Currently, that's what the article basically does, giving as examples his comments about immigrants that led to a boycott from advertisers, and the comments about women that caused an additional loss of ads. We highlight this in the lead, so the concern that somehow our article does not portray Carlson as a controversial figure are unfounded. This particular incident may be due in time; we need to see how it develops, and since there's no deadline we should wait at least a few months and see whether it is forgotten, as I suspect it will be. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's still not what Mr Carlson said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Now that is overdoing it. It is very clear who the "17-year old" in the Carlson quote is. So, yes, that is what he said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think Snoogans comment in the closed RfC illustrates the problem. To put this comment in full context we have to include the full quote and context, explain the Rittenhouse situation in sufficient detail so people can understand the associated riots, questions regarding self defense vs first degree homicide angles etc. It also is hard to understand what this tells us about Carlson's views on BLM vs rioting in general. I assume even those who strongly support BLM don't support the rioting and destruction on private property aspects. Since we are saying Carlson is being criticized for this comment per BLPPUBLIC we need to make sure the full context is there. Now we have a full subtopic to discuss a comment who's long term impact is totally unknown. To repeat the quote I cited in the closed RfC, "This is a perennial problem with biographies of shitty people. It's difficult for any reality-based article to look like anything other than a hit piece. The solution is usually to focus on quality of sourcing and ensuring that it's written in narrative style, not a laundry list of the shitty things the person did." I'm not putting Carlson into the "shitty people" category but the laundry list concern is there. Springee (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  There goes the defense against the whitewashing accusations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. The article says Carlson often wore a bow-tie. If that is relevant enough for inclusion, then this is more than relevant enough for inclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's such an oblivious reasoning it's insulting to my intelligence this is counted in equal measure with other substantive conclusions presented here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not counted. This is not a vote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Many substantial and reliable sources document this, and these sources explain why it is significant. The arguments against seem to be based on WP:OR instead of what sources are actually saying. Context is decided by sources, not editors. Carlson is a pundit, and his comments are notable as a pundit. He is not an expert on crime, or self-defense, or race-relations, or the definition of a "riot", or the supposed anarchy that engulfed Kenosha... If there was some magical context which supported his comments, sources would report that, or more likely, they would not have bothered to cover this at all. The lack of such context in sources is not a problem Wikipedia is equipped to solve. Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, in essence: the incident is notable and was widely covered. The exact wording would be an ecumenical matter, but the incident itself clearly merits inclusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes its clearly been reported on, and defending a killer is rather significant. But its only of many gittish things he has said. So on balance it might just pass muster. If however we consider his sartorial elegance worthy of note, offering tacit support to a killer must be.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. There is substantial RS coverage about Carlson's comments, indicating their importance. Furthermore, experts see this particular rhetoric as extremely dangerous (prominent talking heads sanctioning vigilante violence). It'll no doubt be covered in academic publications about media, politics and extremism in the Trump era. As for Springee's "How does this comment tell readers more about Carlson?", the comment clearly indicates to any sensible person that Carlson is an extremist and that engages in incendiary rhetoric. It may tell readers a lot about him, helping to distinguish him from, say, Judy Woodruff. As for quibbling over the precise language, RS explicitly say that Carlson defended, justified or rationalized Rittenhouse's actions[4][5][6][7][8] or "appeared to" do so[9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You are suggesting we engage in OR. If you have sources that say Carlson is an extremist then those may be due. It would fit into the higher level discussion of Carlson's rhetoric with this being a supporting example. However, to put a comment in to lead the reader to a conclusion that "Carlson is an extremist and that engages in incendiary rhetoric" is something that should only come from a RS. BTW, if we include sources that say this was an extemist POV then sources that don't agree with that interpretation (assuming they are from reasonable sources) should also be included. This realy highlights the issue with this content. Is it just a blurb in the article saying, "here is another example of something Carlson said that got the talking heads bobbing" or is it, "here is why Carlson's comments are a problem". The first means it's just another example of the noise coming from Carlson and thus not overly significant. The second means it needs to be part of a dedicated section of the article with good sourcing etc. Springee (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I did not argue that we should add content that says "Tucker Carlson is an extremist". I suggest you read more closely in the future. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I did read what you said. You said the readers will see, the comment "clearly indicates to any sensible person that Carlson is an extremist and that engages in incendiary rhetoric." Then we should make sure the articel says that. We should not leave it open to interpretation as that becomes OR via leading the readers to a conclusion. Also, your comment begs the question, is this a comment about BLM or about his rhetoric in general. I would say the latter and may well be DUE in a section talking about his rhetoric. Springee (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - as written. It's missing crucial context, as in the reason Carlson was defending Rittenhouse, and why he even mentioned him in the first place. Who is no one else in the above quote? The sources make it clear that no one else was in relation to - "the authorities in charge of the city...refused to enforce the law". This is the reason he was defending/supporting Rittenhouse, because no one else would enforce the law. And where is Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense, has WP:BLP just flown out the window in relation to this person being accused of having committed a crime? I would only support inclusion of this if the full quote, context and his claim of self-defense is properly provided, but as written, no. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Rittenhouse did not "enforce the law" either, as far as anybody including Carlson knows. Which law is that supposed to be anyway? "No one else" should be "no one". But Carlson imagined a scenario where Rittenhouse wanted to "enforce the law". By that wording, he framed him as the hero and his victims as lawbreakers. Well, most of them are dead now, but WP:BLPCRIME applies to the third one at least. Not one of the CRYBLPCRIME troupe seems to care about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - it is a BLP vio per WP:SUSPECT - individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. The statement proposed for inclusion is not about Carlson; rather, it is about the accused - are we not seeing the forest for the trees? The incident was reported in the news, there will be a trial and a verdict, and until then, WP should not be involved in publishing anything about the incident at this point in time. It also fails WP:10YT and WP:DUE. I agree 100% with Sphilbrick. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The widespread coverage of Carlson's comments show that it merits inclusion. The reasons given to oppose are unavailing. -- Calidum 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Meh – He says so many wild things. Maybe in a paragraph on Carlson’s greatest hits. O3000 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Borderline no - There's no point in cataloguing every single thing he says, otherwise this article would be way too large to handle. If, in 2030, people still remember this, then it might, but as of now, I personally don't think so. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 16:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. per notable sources cited by JimKaatFan - Idealigic (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason this material belongs in the article. It was a blip in the news cycle and has predictably fallen out. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is from yesterday: "Fox News’s Tucker Carlson defended Rittenhouse on his show after his arrest on homicide and gun charges."

This article is from today: "Tucker Carlson did a characteristic bit about the protest devolving into “anarchy:” the kid is “not the bad guy here,” he said." JimKaatFan (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Per RSN - "Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons." I don't view either of those sources as contributing any sort of notability to the proposed text. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The opposition is perfectly reasonable. This really boils down to a question of weight. There is no question about RSing here but the debate is WEIGHT. Some argue the statement got a lot of mentions which in turn establishes weight for inclusion. Other argue the flash in the pan aspect and that many of the mentions were incidental thus the long term impact to Carlson is minimal. There is also the argument that, at the higher level what is significant is the pattern of Carlson statements getting public backlash. Thus no particular backlash event has long term significance but the cumulative effect does. The claims of the SPLC or Jezebel made less than a month after the fact are hardly proof of longevity. Springee (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously. There are dozens of dedicated articles on the comments from reliable sources (leaving out JimKaatFan's eleven sources we have: and numerous detailed mentions in related coverage:), and the proposed phrasing is very concise. We're not at the stage yet that we need to be excluding clearly notable things. If attempting to justify murder is so mundane for this guy that it's not worth including then this article should look very different. It seems like most sources describe him as "defending" Rittenhouse (which is what I think we should say instead), followed by "justify" and "excuse". ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

RR, Rittenhouse has not been convicted of murder. Referring to him as such is a BLP violation. Do keep in mind that Carlson didn't "defend", he said this was a predictable outcome. Consider a parallel example, a friend warns me to not leave valuables visible in my car when parking downtown as there have been many break ins. I ignore the warning and leave my new Macbook on the passenger seat. The window is smashed and my computer is gone. When I complain my friend asks, "What did you expect?" My friend isn't defending the thief, rather pointing out the likely outcome of the situation I helped to setup. That is what Carlson was doing here. It looks like his point was, "what do you expect when you have riots and you don't let the police enforce the laws?" This is part of why his full statement needs to be part of any inclusion. Springee (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You friend also said that the thief is "not the bad guy here", right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an actual link to where Carlson said that? I see that Jezebel claims Carlson said that but they don't provide a link. A news search for "Tucker Carlson Rittenhouse "not the bad guy here"" turned up only the Jezebel article. Springee (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Rittenhouse's defense team isn't disputing that he "shot and killed" them, though I'm fine with saying "charged". As for Carlson "defending" Rittenhouse, I was summarising how reliable sources described his comments, not giving my opinion. Many also say things like "appear to defend", which I'd be okay with too. The controversial bit of the quote – describing Rittenhouse as having “decided [he] had to maintain order” – isn't changed by context. Amid protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Carlson was criticized for appearing to defend Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17 year-old charged with killing two demonstrators, saying he had decided he “had to maintain order when no one else would”. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support something per the mountain of press coverage presented by others above. A great many of the opposes do not seem to have any basis in policy or guidelines, and I hope the closer discounts them appropriately when weighing consensus. I won't comment on the specific text proposed, since some of the concerns brought up with it seem at least plausible, and I haven't looked into the issue enough to be able to consider them properly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's totally ridiculous to suggest opposition votes should be thrown out en masse, I've seen a fair amount of support that is based in nothing yet you expect them to be counted? The continuous attack on Nay votes by users such as the one who initially created this RfC is disheartening but not surprising given the political subject matter, opposition votes are given bad faith like they're Tucker's greatest defenders yet those in support are not? What a sham. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to read the "A great many of the opposes do not seem to have any basis in policy or guidelines" part. It destroys your reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• No. Carlson makes provocative statements in every broadcast. As editors, it would be OR for us to pick which among them is especially noteworthy. A secondary source would be needed to prioritize the most significant of such statements which -- from all appearances -- he makes with careless disregard for the substance and more interest only in the publicity value. If he were to make a widely covered statement during a trial, perhaps that would rise to the level of obvious inclusion here. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. It has substantial and reasonably sustained coverage among secondary sources (eg. [10] from a week ago, [11] from six days ago, [12] from five days ago, [13] from two days ago, in addition to the sources others posted above), so it is a high-profile example of his views and therefore belongs in the article. Beyond that the protests are a major flashpoint for American politics related to BLP, and the shootings are one of their most high-profile incidents; I don't see how two brief sentences in the body devoted to the position that Carlson took in them could be undue. And finally, I'll note that many people above seem to be operating on the view that taking this position casts Carlson in a negative light and therefore must be excluded - that isn't policy, but even if it were, I don't think we should make that determination ourselves. Carlson himself has given no indication that he has recanted or regretted his statements; based on all secondary coverage, they seem to accurately represent his views on the protests and how people should respond to them, and is therefore an important part of his bio. That is to say - given how all coverage indicates that these statements accurately summarize Carlson's views, and given that he has not indicated anything to the contrary, I do not believe that Carlson himself would object to the inclusion here. It feels as though many of the opposers have produced their own personal take on Carlson and his views they want the article to reflect, irrespective of what the sources say, and are rejecting anything like this that contradicts it because to them that contradiction of their personal views on him cast him in what they see as a "bad light". But that's not how we cover people - the overwhelming and sustained coverage makes it clear that these are a key point of his outlook on the world (and it is, after all, a statement he made on his show, with the full intent of conveying his beliefs to the world). I don't think his would-be defenders here are even actually defending him; instead, they're trying to turn him into some weirdly-sanitized thing that neither he nor the sources support, based on what they want him to be or need him to be rather than what the sources say. By all accounts, he wants to be and to be seen as taking this position on these issues, and the sources cover and reflect that; would be doing both him and our readers a disservice if we ignored those sources and sanitized that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Carlson is saying this is how people should respond to the riots - let's be clear, he is talking about the rioting, looting, destruction of property, not the peaceful protesting. The Hill has a pretty complete quote [[14]] while talking about the reactions. Their summary was also far more accurate than many who characterize it as "support".

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Wednesday sparked vehement backlash online after saying it was not surprising that the teen accused of fatally shooting two protesters in Kenosha, Wis., took matters into his own hands because “no one else” would maintain order in the city.

Effectively he is saying, "what did people think would happen". This isn't condoning or supporting any more than one would support/condone the theft of a cell phone or wallet out of an unlocked car. Such a theft is not surprising even if it is not condoned. BTW, this is why, if the material is included, a full quote needs to be included. Too many sources are falsely summarizing what was actually said. Springee (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This nuance could be worked out through the usual cycles of normal article editing, couldn't it? Llll5032 (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If included, yes. In fact I feel it should be a requirement for inclusion per BLPPUBLIC since many sources are putting their own spin on his statements. However, that does raise a concern regarding weight. How do we balance the length of text needed for an impartial telling of the issue with the WEIGHT this incident might otherwise have in the big picture? Springee (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that can be entrusted to future WP editors and RS? Also, doesn't WP:WEIGHT govern inclusion of viewpoints, not events? Maybe WP:WEIGHT should be less of a worry for the inclusion of Carlson's statement (he said it, this is not in doubt), but editors should follow WP:WEIGHT in contextualizing it fairly? Llll5032 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps BALASP? I think we are all getting at NPOV where we are trying to decide how much, if any, coverage this specific event should have in the article. Often this is referred to as DUE/WEIGHT. I do get your point in that WP:DUE seems to suggest trying to balance opposing views on a single subject while I think on talk pages it's often used to mean, how much coverage should a particular subject get in the body/lead of an article. BALASP is probably the part of NPOV we should cite. Springee (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you — WP:BALASP seems to apply: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." (To me, proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject argues for a brief inclusion, as Aquillion argues better than I.) Llll5032 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• That sounds like discussion over interpretation or analysis, which is best handled by collecting a bunch of sources and comparing their takes on it to determine what the majority and minority takes are among reliable sources. I am not, however, at all convinced by "I think several sources are getting this wrong", which leads to a No True Scotsman argument where an editor determines for themselves what they think a quote means, then excludes all sources that disagree with it on the basis that they're not getting it right. We decide how to interpret and present a primary source to readers based on coverage in secondary sources; if there's substantial disagreement, we can talk about the overarching balance of it and how to describe it, but "this is definitely what I think he meant and those other sources are wrong, so we need to exclude them" isn't helpful. We do have to be cautious with our wording, but the massive amount of sustained secondary coverage provides plenty to go off of in terms of determining how it is generally interpreted by mainstream sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. What I'm saying is we include the full quote because many sources clearly are applying their own spin to what Carlson actually said. We certainly offer some range of how those sources read the statement but, given the gap between the plane language statement and the meaning some have applied to it, the full quote needs to be included. A link to a transcript or broadcast segment (effectively the original source) should also be included. Springee (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. For all of the reasons given above. Mariolovr (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as it is now written, because it makes it sound like Carlson supported Rittenhouse in his act of shooting the protesters. Whereas Carlson was providing a putative understandable state of mind for Rittenhouse, in going to the rally armed with a gun. I think it would be more fair to say, "Carlson provided a sympathatic motivation for the decision of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse to attend the rally armed with a rifle, stating Rittenhouse had decided he 'had to maintain order when no one else would.' At the rally, Rittenhouse had shot and killed two protesters." It would be different if Carlson had said, "it's a good thing that Rittenhouse killed those two protesters." He did not say that. The way that paragraph is written, it could even give the idea that the killings were Rittenhouse's way of maintaining order. And that is just not a reasonable interpretation of Carlson's words. To be a little bit more technical - there is not really support for saying that Carlson, "spoke out in support ... " Saying, "A decided B" does not imply that the speaker feels the decision was a reasonable one. It is not necessarily "speaking out in support." For example saying,"Don Quixote decided that he had to charge with his lance at the giants that were in fact windmills" is not speaking out in support of Don Quixote. We could say, "in his teenage confusion, Rittenhouse imagined that he 'had to maintain order when no one else would.' But his obvious youth led a seasoned protester to conclude that he could be disarmed, leading to a tragic result." That is the sad, sad truth here, if (forgive me) a little off the point.Truth is King^TALK 03:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a little more. I would support saying Carlson "defended" or "supported" Rittenhouse's decision to attend the rally armed with a rifle. But I don't think it is fair to reference Carlson's statement in a way that could cause a reader to reasonably conclude that Carlson spoke out in support of Rittenhouse in his act of killing two protesters. To me that would be an aggressive misconstruction, and wp:POV. If you just hate Tucker Carlson, it might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but surely we must be fair to all.Truth is King^TALK 03:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely - per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. In addition, including this really important (per the coverage in RS) statement is not anything bad or damaging for the subject of the page. Just the opposite. He stated his view, and he wants everyone to know about his view. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: has been extensively covered; no policy-driven reason to exclude. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: One of the more notable instances of his laundry list of trolling. Those who are fretting about the size of that list should remember WP:NOTPAPER. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously, multiple reliable sources, significant story. We can follow up with any clarifications, but the statement he made is one of the most important and covered during the Kenosha-area protests, or even the Floyd protests as a whole. ɱ (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The question posed in this RFC asks if the following statement should be included: "Carlson said that Rittenhouse had decided he "had to maintain order when no one else would"." I oppose including that exact statement because that is not a correct reflection of what Carlson exactly said. The phrase "had to maintain order when no one else would" is part of a longer question that Mr. Carlson posed to his audience: "How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?” So, in the spirit of having exactness in a WP BLP, I oppose including the statement as specifically presented in this RFC.Kerdooskis (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes covered in many reliable sources, WP:DUE to include. (t · c) buidhe 08:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Pinging the following, based on their participation in past: @Slatersteven: @Springee: @Calidum: @Snooganssnoogans: @Hob Gadling: @Llll5032: @Volunteer Marek: @Shinealittlelight: @ImTheIP: @The Four Deuces: JimKaatFan (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion: Rephrase this so it (a) includes Carlson's full quote, (b) includes text from RS saying Carlson defended, justified, rationalized, or "appeared to" do one of those things (BBC uses the later wording[15] whereas some RS explicitly say Carson defended, justified or rationalized Rittenhouse's actions[16][17][18][19][20]), and (c) include what Rittenhouse was charged with (homicide) and how officials described his action ("vigilante justice"). No consensus can be reached on inclusion of the content unless there is agreement on the precise wording first. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I just adjusted the wording, slightly. The larger issue is whether something about this should be included at all. The previous "no" votes were split between people who had a problem with the wording, and people who predictably delete anything negative about Carlson from the article whenever it appears. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black, and people who predictably delete anything negative about Carlson from the article whenever it appears, please keep your bad faith out of the talk page.

To get consensus, I think you should cite the precise RS that you intend to use in the article, mirror their phrasing, and quote Carlson in context, essentially as Snooganssnoogans and North8000 suggest. The RS should be neutral as judged by the WP:RSP list. Llll5032 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, How did you choose whom to ping? I contributed four edits to the discussion including a response directly to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I got everyone. My apologies if I missed you, I simply went into the edit window and thought I copy-pasted every username. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, You also missed:

• @Kyohyi:
• @Calidum:
• @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken:
• @Trying to reconnect:

What are the odds that you'd accidentally overlook five contributors, all of whom were not supportive? I'm not going to suggest anything nefarious, but given the substantial problems with the first attempt, the continued problems with the second attempt, and the inability to take care to ping all contributors, I urge you to let someone else take a stab at a proposal. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Calidum was supportive, so your hypothesis stands on a faulty premise. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, Granted. (I saw Kyohyi opposing on the basis that the sentence was a misquote, and Caldium chimed in, with a corrected quote. It looked to me like Calidium was supporting Kyohyi's point that the quote was wrong. Apparently that wasn't the right conclusion although it seemed plausible.) S Philbrick(Talk) 01:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I too was unpinged so maybe your count remains correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I did think my exclusion was quite odd, especially as I'm clearly visible at the bottom alongside Trying to reconnect. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Comment:The actual quote says that he found it unsurprising that the situation would evolve into that, not that he defended the action. Particularly with a WP:BLP situation the wording is problematic. The actual quote is sourced and only two sentences and could be included thus avoiding that problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If we follow Snooganssnoogans's suggestion, we will have a long section about something that may be forgotten tomorrow. I prefer just to say that Carlson is known for making comments that legitimize right-wing extremism and perhaps provide a couple of examples. If readers want an extensive list of stupid things he has said, they watch him on Fox. TFD (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TFD on this. We editors can't evaluate DUE WEIGHT real time. We need RS to provide summary narratives, in this instance about his provocative extremist trolling. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It could be added for now, and abbreviated, omitted or combined with other examples tomorrow (WP:10YT). Llll5032 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Still getting slight coverage [[21]], [[22]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, it's drifted out of the news cycle. If you google "tucker carlson rittenhouse comment" and click on "past 24 hours", the only story that comes up is one from the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, and if you read that article, it has absolutely nothing to do with Carlson or Rittenhouse. If you "Command/Ctrl-F" for Carlson, the only thing that comes is an op-ed from Sep. 11, and it's just talking about his senseless comment about Lindesy Graham secretly being a disloyal Republican. If you sort the stories by "past week", one story from 6 days ago reads "Fox News’s Tucker Carlson defended Rittenhouse on his show after his arrest on homicide and gun charges." That's it. One more from 4 days ago has one passing sentence, "Rittenhouse has been lionized as a hero among some far-right figures, including Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson." That comes from 963bigfm.com. So now, the only media coverage that's happening of it is a passing mention, one sentence at most, and it's also only really getting mentions in small, local news sites. The site that Slatersteven mentioned, Jezebel, is part of Gawker Media, which isn't really an RS. I'm not some sort of right-wing hawk or something, but it's already mostly fallen out of the news cycle. There's no chance of it passing WP:10YT. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 12:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop acting like WP:10YT is a policy or guideline or that it is meant to apply to every detail in an article. It is not a policy, it is not a guideline, and even if it were, it's meant to apply to the test of whether an article should exist, not whether a detail in an article would pass the 10-year test. You're way out of line. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, out of the criteria on WP:RECENTISM, two of them glare out to me. Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens, point number one, and Impassioned discussions on talk pages that debate not just the notability of the recent event ("Is this topic of lasting importance?") but also where (if anywhere) it should receive coverage on Wikipedia, number 5. You said that it's meant to discuss if an article can exist, but Wikipedia's not a newspaper. Additionally, on WP:TOOMUCH, in the second paragraph, Is it something the topic is widely known for? Carlson's known for making bigoted, controversial statements, but this really isn't the best example. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add "Carlson's known for making bigoted, controversial statements" to the article and use you as a source. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, he is, and I have an extremely low opinion of him. The article literally states Carlson's controversial statements on race, immigration and women have led to advertiser boycotts against the show. I'm not some sort of right-wing hacker, but Wikipedia should be greater than a politics squabble. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, I call your attention to this edit. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, what's the point of this? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21 You said "Carlson's known for making bigoted, controversial statements". So I changed the text of the article to reflect that. It was immediately reverted by Carlson's biggest defender, and remover of all things negative from this article, Springee. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, comment on content, not editors. Why would you use my quote in your edit? I'm definitely not an RS. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 22:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Carlson again focusing on Rittenhouse last night [23][24][25] Llll5032 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

wp:IMPARTIAL tone used in the introduction of BLM material

The BLM section's opening sentence is problematic. "...Carlson attempted to stoke fears about the intentions of Black Lives Matter protestors, ..." The current version has been around for a bit over a month. Prior to 6 August the sentence had been stable stating, "Carlson blamed the Black Lives Matter movement for the looting and rioting that followed the police killing of George Floyd" The problem with the current version is "attempted to stoke fears" fails impartial and is not an accurate summary of any of the supporting citations. Per IMPARTIAL the Wikitext should stated the facts without "picking sides". Stating that Carlson is attempting to stoke fears suggests a motive beyond stating his POV on the subject. It suggests an attempt to mislead for ulterior or nefarious ends. To avoid issues of impartial I used language that mirrored that of the NYT (one of the sources), "Carlson cast doubts on the intentions of Black Lives Matter...". JimKaatFan, your reversion claiming "stable text" is questionable given the last stable text was the version before the 6 August edit. That edit was never discussed so it has limited SILENT consensus. The fact that Incerto501 changed the sentence in the past few days says the sentence has now been challenged. Can you justify why we should use the impartial text vs that which mirrors the NYT? Springee (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Absent any explanation why the impartial text was restored I've reverted back to the NTY based phrasing. Springee (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Daily Caller description

Regarding this removal and this revert to keep it in place, the page has used "right-wing" as the descriptor for the Daily Caller since sometime in July; and before that the descriptor was conservative, which was in place since at least last October (I didn't look back further than that). Aside from the change from conservative to right-wing it's been stable the entire time, so demonstrating consensus is required to remove it, not to keep it. Beyond that (to get to the actual discussion that matters rather than red tape, heh), it's an important descriptor because it is part of the reason why editing the Daily Caller is significant and provides vital context for what that position means - the relevant sources emphasize it, often in the headline or byline in addition to their text. It's also completely uncontroversial that the Daily Caller is both conservative and right-wing (it proudly describes itself as such). If the issue is that it's not discussed in the body enough, we should add a bit more about it to the body rather than adding it to the lead. Personally I would prefer right-wing as a descriptor, and that's the recent longstanding version (going back several months, as I mentioned), but I went for conservative for now to be on the safe side, because it used that version for even longer; and the meanings are fairly close in this context because both are obviously applicable. --Aquillion (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

While I don't think it adds much, I think at this point there isn't consensus for removal so Aqullion's restoration was policy correct. Springee (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Mid-class promotion

@Emir of Wikipedia: According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic, a mid-importance article "fills in more minor details", and a low-importance one "is mainly of specialist interest". Template:Importance scheme provides additional explanation: a mid-importance subject "is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area", and a low-importance subject "is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study." Tucker Carlson is considered a major political commentator within the conservative movement. His show is the "most-watched cable news show in the United States" in cable news history (source used by the article) on a major news network. Furthermore, if Tucker Carlson is "not particularly notable or significant" in any WikiProject's scope, why is this a vital article? Wikinights (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussion

This discussion has been closed per WP:FORUM. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will never watch Tucker Carlson again after he blatantly lied about one of the best Lawyers in the U S, Sidney Powell. After watching her phone interview with Maria on 11 - 20, she set the record straight. She offered to send an affidavit to Carlson and he through his typical hissy fit and tried to make her look bad. After all, Tucker, you are not the only host on Fox News and will be the only one that I will black ball from now on. Also, Mrs. Powell cannot give out any more information that she has until she takes it to court. Which she will. If you had listened to their meeting on the 19th, you would have known that. No more, Tucker from this former great follower. David R Ms. Powell's comments: (I will take her word over Tucker's any day) “Evidence continues to pour in, but a five-minute television hit is not my focus right now. Collecting evidence and preparing the case are my top priorities.” However, during a live-on-air call to Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Friday, Ms Powell said that while she “didn’t get angry” with Mr Carlson’s request, his behaviour was beyond the pale. Insisting she had sent him an affidavit and even offered him “another witness who could explain the mathematics and statistical evidence” far better than she herself could, she also claimed that “He was very insulting, demanding and rude, and I told him not to contact me again in those terms.” The surreal Thursday press conference at which Ms Powell appeared saw her, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis complain about negative press coverage and claim they have “six paths to victory” in their campaign to revoke the president’s defeat – despite almost all their legal actions having already been thrown out of court. PS I WILL BE WATCHING FOR THE LAST TIME TONIGHT TO SEE IF YOU APOLOGIZE AND CORRECT YOUR STATEMENTS FROM LAST NIGHTS SHOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driley2643 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC) 1. Please learn to WP:INDENT your comments as I had already done for you, for I literally thought at first that the two comments above were your one long rant. 2. In which way do you suggest we edit the article, according to reliable sources? FreeMediaKid! 06:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Comments moved to new section, as they are unrelated to the discussion about the article's importance rating. Wikinights (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2020 (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 [[26]]. This Salon article is a more balanced take [[27]]. 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 corners 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.[[28]] 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.[29] 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 [[30]]. 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[31][32][33] 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 [34] 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.[35] 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 [[36]] 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)

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[[37]]. 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)

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)