Talk:Tucker Carlson

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:[8]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No need to quote the sources. I literally just did that for you. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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." Carlson responded that Kristol "discredited himself years ago."

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)

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)

There's a section right above. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

Do you have evidence that the claim is not factual?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are half a dozen or so news outlets that explicitly call the claim false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(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)

"Highlighted" does carry the implication that the "talking points" are true, which is POV. Volunteer Marek 22:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(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)

"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)

-- 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)

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

Repeated is good. I would also accept "parroted".- MrX 🖋 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, come on! How about "blathered"? You know jokes don't translate well in text? Volunteer Marek 22:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 22:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• Repeated: best fit for the content, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That is def not a NPOV or accurate title. Volunteer Marek 22:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And tags aren't a suitable replacement for "I haven't done something". Volunteer Marek 22:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Is there something non-neutral about that sentence? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This type of hearsay (i.e. 'many people are saying' that X person is a X) would never be allowed on an article about a beloved liberal figure. Many black separatists approved of Obama. What would the relevance of that be? You can pick out any group of people, say they 'approve' of X person and slander them. It's not factually-based, it's spin. Many racists liked the Rolling Stones. Obama never denounced Louis Farrakhan. Who cares? Proustfala (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: White supremacist praise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• White supremacists, such as Richard B. Spencer and David Duke, and the white nationalist website The Daily Stormer have lauded Carlson's show.

References

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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,[9] The Daily Caller has published Jason Kessler,[10] Chuck Johnson,[11] Radix Journal contributor Scott Greer,[12] 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)
• 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)

"Guilt-by-association" does not usually refer to the criminal kind of guilt. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• That's an op-ed by birther and conspiracy theorist Joseph Farah published by the fringe conspiracy website WND. The difference with this praise and the one you linked to is that the other praise has been reported by RS and put in the context of the kind of discourse that Carlson engages in on his show. It actually tells readers something about the nature of the show. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• This isn't gossip so I don't see how the policy you've quoted is in any way relevant. I don't understand you linking WND - it is pretty fringe too, and you being able to find that (unreliable for facts) source doesn't undermine the weight of the reliable secondary sources cited; articles "rely on material from reliable secondary sources" and that determines the "prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Naturally, rival news entities, lacking any groundbreaking news on their own, will attempt to discredit news bureaus and news casters anyway possible. The noted refs in this case are all rivals of Fox News, so no, this is just opinion and an attempt to malign their opponent.--MONGO (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  The Columbia Journalism Review competes against Fox News? Seriously? You can't dismiss reliable sources just because they are critical Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Context seems very fitting and is well sourced by reliable sources. I see no reason to exclude. ContentEditman (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The support comments that refer context suggest to me that the intent behind including this content is to create an implicit argument through guilt by association. This is not compliant with BLP, nor NPOV. We shouldn't be selectively reporting facts to create arguments period. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Obviously well sourced (so BLP is NOT an issue, nor is POV) the only question is whether it's DUE. And seeing as how all these are prominent figures, and the text fits in with the paragraph, it's obviously DUE. Volunteer Marek 17:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I bet we could find RS for Spencer and Duke's views on the Iraq War or climate change but we don't include it in our articles. Including this tells the readers nothing about Carlson's views. I could see maybe including it their respective articles (also where we'd put their views on climate change) but not here. D.Creish (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support The (multiple, reliable) sources are making the connection, not us. I don't see why we wouldn't include it in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Guilt by association rhetoric that's meant to bias the reader against Carlson's views. Would violate the article's neutrality unquestionably. VeritasVox (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DUE; the sources discuss the subject directly and in detail, discussing why and how Carlson appeals to white nationalists. I'm not seeing this as railing against a competitor; that's media criticism. In any case, CJR and Haaretz are not competitors; neither is a TV channel and the latter is even in another country. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Korny and others. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who "lauded the show" is of relatively little importance. That can be left out with no loss to the description of the subject of this biography. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. As entirely out of line. The argument "but there are RS supporting this" doesn't mean a damn thing - you can find quotes of famous people's opinions on essentially any topic but you surely don't include them all. Not only is it 'guilt by association' it is ridiculous POV pushing. You aren't putting a list of everyone who supports his show, you are cherry picking people to make him look bad. It violates NPOV and BLP. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose per Korny O'Near and Kyohyi. Blatant attempt to paint Carlson as a white supremacist. DoubleCross (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Winkelvi, will you ever learn to talk to others like you're in a collaborative editing project, and not a fucking frat bar after three gin and tonics? Drmies (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Drmies, will you ever learn to just leave me the fuck alone? By the way, I would never touch a gin and tonic. It's not a man's drink and tastes like shit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

Dave Chappelle - Ja rule. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose. This is just silly. Carlson doesn't associate with any of these people.Exzachary (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly the point. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@Bus stop: Yikes. Brevity is the soul of wit, dude. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Having white supremacists as fans is "a major part of what Carlson is famous for"? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ONEWAY. We don't promote criminals and Nazis. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose — Per Korny O'Near, the change in wording may be interpreted to see Carlson as guilty-by-association, and hence, would be quite undue, in that, it'd add undue weightage to white supremacists's opininion of Carlson. I would like to make no comment on other points being raised, here, though; not well-versed enough in US politics to do that. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until last week the same people were fans of Taylor Swift also. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose supported by citations, but given the scope of response to Carlson's show, adding the sentence would be terribly WP:UNDUE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment By my count, 10 editors support the inclusion of the proposed text and 19 oppose it.SunCrow (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support effectively being called a nazi by a self-avowed nazi such as Andrew Anglin is highly relevant, far more so than any criticism that Carlson's critics might say. This is an inescapable quote: The Daily Stormer said of Carlson in August 2018, “Tucker Carlson is basically ‘Daily Stormer: The Show.’ Other than the language used, he is covering all of our talking points.” soibangla (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no mention of Tucker Carlson at those three articles. Can you explain to me why we find no mention of Tucker Carlson at the Richard B. Spencer, David Duke, and Daily Stormer articles? Can you explain to me why this material goes in this article when there is no apparent urgency to insert this insinuation into those articles? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Because the viewing habits of these individuals and organization are, in isolation, not notable? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between "lauding" and "viewing". The proposed sentence for inclusion in the article is not "White supremacists, such as Richard B. Spencer and David Duke, and the white nationalist website The Daily Stormer have viewed Carlson's show." Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Staunch oppose. This is very clearly the guilt by association fallacy. Who likes/endorses any particular bit of media output has jack to do with the authorship/production of it. Such material might be includable in a section on the audience and/or public reception, along with broader information on the reader demographics. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 22:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support without name-dropping. Short and simple sentence sourced to a lengthy Haaretz article. I agree that listing the names of the white supremacists is undue/guilt by association/damnation with faint praise. I don't agree with describing The Daily Stormer as a white nationalist website, but some descriptor is better than no descriptor. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading item on SA land reforms

A sentence keeps getting added which misleadingly suggests that Carlson was right about the SA government targeting whites due to anti-white racism: "President Ramaphosa had proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow some land to be expropriated without compensation; however, that amendment had not yet been voted upon." This falsely implies that Carlson was only wrong in saying that the SA government *had already* taking lands from whites, and that he was right that the SA government is *about to* take lands from whites due to anti-white racism. None of the sources support the notion that the SA government land reforms target whites due to anti-white racism. Multiple RS explicitly say that Carlson was wrong, both in claiming that anti-white racism motivated the SA government and that lands had already been taken. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your characterization of my edit as false and misleading is, in itself, false and misleading. The sentence that reads "President Ramaphosa had proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow some land to be expropriated without compensation; however, that amendment had not yet been voted upon" is true and consistent with the sources cited. The sentence belongs in the article for balance, clarity, and NPOV purposes because it clarifies that Carlson's concern about lands potentially being taken from farmers without compensation in South Africa was not baseless, although he was incorrect in his initial assertion that this policy change had already been made. For further information, I refer you to the following from the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45026931):

South Africa will push ahead with plans to amend the constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation, its president says. In a recorded address, President Cyril Ramaphosa said the ruling ANC will "finalise a proposed amendment" allowing the move. He said the reform was "of critical importance" to the economy. Recent months have seen growing anger about the slow pace of land reform in South Africa. The country's white minority is believed to have a disproportionate hold over land, with a few thousand white commercial farmers possessing the most fertile lands. However, critics fear expropriation could lead to land grabs, as happened in neighbouring Zimbabwe... Around 10% of land in white ownership has been transferred to black owners since the end of apartheid, which is only a third of the ANC's target. (emphasis added).

And from Bloomberg.com (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-29/whites-own-73-of-south-africa-s-farming-land-city-press-says):

White farmers own almost three-quarters of South Africa’s agricultural land, even after 23 years of government efforts to redistribute land to the black majority, City Press reported, citing a land audit by farm lobbying group Agri SA.

And from TheSouthAfrican.com (https://www.thesouthafrican.com/cyril-ramaphosa-sanctions-land-expropriation/):

Ramaphosa, who faces elections in 2019, has said expropriating farms without compensating their owners would “undo a grave historical injustice” against the black majority during colonialism and the apartheid era.

If the sentence to which you object is not included, the article leaves the reader with the misleading impression that there was no basis for Carlson's expressed concern about farmland being taken from owners without compensation in South Africa. That is unacceptable because (a) the ANC is, in fact, proposing to take farmland from owners without compensation in South Africa; and (b) one purpose of that proposal is to move farmland from white ownership to black ownership. Whether that proposal is unfairly racist toward whites or whether it is a laudable attempt to reverse the impact of generations of racial discrimination against black South Africans is outside the scope of the encyclopedia.

Now that I have exhaustively explained this one-sentence edit, can we agree that it should be included? If not, how could the sentence be edited so that you would find it acceptable? SunCrow (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Asking again for input. If I receive none, I will re-add this material. SunCrow (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those article seem to mention Tucker Carlson, or did I perhaps miss it?- MrX 🖋 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

We should stick to sources about Carlson for this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Many sources agree that Carlson is 100% correct. See [13] for the govt trying to expropriate land, and see [14] for farms already targeted. Just because a lot of newspapers run with false, clickbait, and/or propagandic headlines (which aren't written by the article's author, at least in most of them that we tend to cite here), does not mean they are factually correct. We cite articles, not headlines. wumbolo ^^^ 16:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

afaict, neither of these mentions Carlson, and the first one doesn't actually support your contention. Volunteer Marek 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagged South Africa section as unbalanced, as I keep trying to add the above-described sentence and it keeps getting reverted by people who did not discuss the issue above or respond to my defense of the sentence. Without it, the section misleadingly makes it appear that Carlson made the story up out of whole cloth. That is unacceptable. SunCrow (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Even the sources cited in this very article agree that uncompensated land seizures is something that the SA government is considering. As it stands, this article inaccurately portrays Carlson as being entirely incorrect while the reality is that South African farmers are losing their land and being “compensated” for it at 1/10th of its value. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Political Party

Hi all, I noticed Siri Knowledge incorrectly listed TC as a Republican, went to edit on Wikipedia (where I think Siri Knowledge is sourced from) and actually no party was listed at all. Another user who seems to have an axe to grind is deleting this factual information because TC doesn't meet their standards of what they personally think a Democrat is. Not sure how to proceed with this, as when I have reverted unwarranted deletions like this in the past, I usually end up with warnings for 'edit warring' and whatnot. Could anyone advise as to how to proceed so that factual information can be reflected in this article?

Just to clarify, TC is a Democrat. A user is arguing that it's 'extremely disingenuous'/'misleading' to then state in his bio that he is Democrat. I'm not sure I understand the argument - it seems counter-rational. But maybe someone can enlighten. Proustfala (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proustfala please make sure you do not post incorrect information when trying to influence people to your point of view. Tigraan‎ did not say it is 'extremely disingenuous'/'misleading' to then state in his bio that he is Democrat. What was said was "he might be a registered Democrat, but that is an awfully misleading thing to put in the infobox" It is misleading to put it into the infobox that he is a democrat. According to the source he is registered as a democrat, not because he is a Democrat but to influence primaries. ~ GB fan 19:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Your claim is that he did not say it's misleading, then you quote him saying it's misleading. On Wikipedia Help Desk, he said it was extremely disingenous. So you are wrong on both counts. TC is a Democrat, so the page should obviously reflect that. This really isn't complicated. Any further removal of this information is vandalism IMO. Many politicians also change parties in order to run & win in elections. Or move states. It doesn't mean they aren't actually of the party they change to, or that they didn't move to that state, because they did it for a reason. These are just simple, factual designations. Proustfala (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't complicated, if there was something said other than on this page or in edit summaries on the article you need to provide links so people can see what you are talking about. In edit summaries he did not say it was misleading to put it in the bio. He said it was misleading to put it in the infobox. It is misleading to put it in the infobox because there is nothing there to explain that he is registered for a specific reason not because he is a democrat. Removal of the Democrat designiation from the infobox is not vandalism. You need to read how Wikipedia defines vandalism. That can be found at WP:Vandalism ~ GB fan 19:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a specific reason everyone is of a political party. By your logic, you couldn't list Joe Lieberman's political party, or Trump's, or Joe Manchin's. Proustfala (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So looking at your link my initial post was correct, Tigraan did not say anything about it being disingenuous. Fish and karate did say something about it being disingenuous. ~ GB fan 19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'm not really looking to get into a big thing here. This is a simple edit reflecting factual information. Repeated vandalism of this article will be dealt with appropriately. Proustfala (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't mark edits as minor when they're contentious. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't remotely contentious to anyone but you guys. A person is a member of a political party. Tucker Carlson is a person. The party he is a registered member of is the Democratic Party. It isn't any more complicated than that. Please stop vandalizing the article. Proustfala (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. Disagreeing with you is not vandalism. And please figure out how to indent your posts some time, okay? It's not complicated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

As I've said in my edit summary, labelling Carlson a democrat because of his registration is misleading. The source used quotes Carlson saying that he's independent, and describes him as such. Not that that matters, because it's a blog ('Erik Wemple's Blog', in fact). Would prefer better sourcing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Carlson is a registered Democrat, so it seems logical to list him as one. Considering that he is one. Proustfala (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been told by multiple people that there is a problem with your edit. Instead of listening you are edit warring. ~ GB fan 21:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is why I don’t think party registration belongs in infoboxes for non-politicians. Obviously this is meaningful if you run for or hold office. Otherwise, depending on the state, there are other reasons to register in a party. For example, in a district that doesn’t allow cross-voting in a primary where the winning party is a foregone conclusion, your vote for a congressman or state legislator may be valueless if you don’t register in the majority party. The solution is simple. Don’t include party registration for nonpols. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Proustfala: - It appears to be on a case-by-case basis on whether to include a political party in an infobox for news personalities/hosts. Just a random sampling - Jake Tapper, Steve Doocy, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Don Lemon - yes they have their party listed. Brian Kilmeade, Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, Martha MacCallum, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Cuomo, Rachel Maddow no they do not have their party listed. You'll need to get consensus here on this talk page for your edit, and it appears at this point, you don't have consensus. Make your argument for inclusion, and let other editor's make their arguments as well, and you'll have to live with the consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Proustfala: (Using my utmost willpower to AGF) It is a fact that Tucker Carlson is a registered Democrat, and at second thought I agree the WaPo blog (not article; it is part of the opinion section) could be sufficient sourcing for that. It does not mean it should not be said without appropriate context. Tucker_Carlson#Conservatism (in its current version) contains the appropriate context. A quick mention "party affiliation: Democrat" in the infobox does not contain such context. That is the difference between changing the lead of Thomas Jefferson to state in the first sentence that he was an esclavagist vs. having an entire article about that complex point of history.

It is absolutely misleading to put in the infobox that TC is a Democrat. The fact that is is true for a certain specific understanding of the words "is Democrat" (= is affiliated on electoral rolls) does not prevent it to be understood by the general reader as something else that is entirely false (= supports the Democratic Party platform). I would not support listing him as Republican either, per Objective3000, though it would be less worse. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just going to chime in here to say that this RFC is malformed. Feel free to continue having this discussion, but if you want to actually have an RFC, create one in a section below and be careful to open it with a neutral statement, per WP:RFCST. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Question re name

Nowhere does the article state why he was born Tucker McNear Carlson and now (per the article) is known as Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson. Only states that his father married, as his second wife, a Swanson heiress. Did TC and his brother have the name Swanson legally appended to their birth names as a middle name? If so, can this be proven by irrefutable source?Kitchawan (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Carlson is a millionaire funded by billionaires" to distract people about wealth inequality

Unaired Fox interview between Calson and Dutch historian Rutger Bregman who called billionaires out at Davos as tax dodgers

Carlson lost his temper calling his guest a 'tiny brain...moron' during the interview

Tucker Carlson Blows Up at Rutger Bregman in Unaired Fox News Interview on YouTube

What does that even mean? Most media people are wealthy, and are funded by billionaires. Rachel Maddow is paid $7 million per year, Anderson Cooper earns $12 million a year, Erin Burnett is paid $3 million a year, and on and on and on. The richest man in the world owns one of the most widely distributed newspapers. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this material merits inclusion, not least because of Carlson's decision not to air the interview, in a new section entitled 'Controversy'. In terms of sources, we could include these reports and Jono1011 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Rutger Bregman confrontation

The author Rutger Bregman released an unaired interview with Carlson, where Bregman largely just denigrates Carlson. Several editors have tried to insert it into the article. I don't think it belongs here (unless it becomes a bigger thing). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, but WP:UNDUE without some continuing story. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The story has been covered in mainstream media like The Guardian and others. I added Carlson's response for balance.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I lean toward excluding this. It comes across as hyped and WP:RECENTISM, especially with the level of detail now in the article. It needs to at least be trimmed to a more concise summary.- MrX 🖋 12:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This kind of confrontation, ideological, political, , is way , way more important than this non-dancer appearing dancing, on a light entertainment programme. If this is deleted , and the five f****** lines on Dancing with the stars stays, it would make one wonder if all sense of what is Serious was getting lost. This clash was like a flash of lightning, revealing. The waffle on the dancing with the stars , where we get to find out how he likes to try things he's not good at, ( which must be most things), and how he was so upset that he had to go away and couldn't practice, and how difficult it was to remember the steps and , etc etc , drivel, drivel fawn fawn, bollox . Yet you want to delete a clash with a Dutch economist that was revelatory. ( and well covered in RS). FFS. Ridiculous. Dan the Plumber (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Bregman interview was revealing, and covered by reliable sources, so it makes sense to include it here. (While also noting that, if Carlson hadn't used obscenities and the interview had been allowed to air, this would be a non-story.) Where we disagree is on providing detail on Dancing with the Stars - I think it's also revealing in its own way, and it provides context for his appearance on a major TV show. And I hope that you're not letting your apparent personal dislike of Tucker Carlson cloud your editorial judgment. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You think the fawning tittle tattle is also revealing 'in its own way'. Do you. Well I don't. Dan the Plumber (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This is undue. Carlson interviews many people. Total non-story. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether it's a "total non-story" or not. If sources cover it a lot then it's a story. Here is a dozen sources: [15] (WaPo - can't link directly w/o subscription) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] and also mentioned in the Columbia Journalism Review [34].

Oh wait. That's way more than just a dozen. It's notable. It's due.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because it's picked up in the daily news cycle does not make it notable. We have several policies describing this, but of course you know that. Is there anything enduring from this story? It's been lost and forgotten now, everyone moved on to the next thing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source or evidence for "It's been lost and forgotten now"? This got way more attention that some other stories on this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It ran the daily cycle and now it's done. Textbook NOTNEWS. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Try that again with something to back up the assertion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Section heading reading "Misogynist remarks"

The section titled "Misogynist remarks" is in violation of BLP and NOTNEWS, and should be removed pending consensus of the wording here on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Section seems fine to me. The commentary was misogynistic, the commentary was covered by several RS, Carlson responded to the tapes, and RS covered Carlson's response. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't accurate or reliably sourced. The way it is written is somewhat out of context. USA Today carried a bit more neutral story - link here. Comments were made on a shock jock radio show. I'm only asking we get consensus for the wording. Someone should list NOTNEWS for deletion. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the stuff at first as not well sourced. But, the sourcing is now acceptable fitting WP:RS. It may be that this just came to light. But, it occurred over a period of time years back – which negates WP:NOTNEWS. It appears well documented and widely covered, and he is a public figures, which negates WP:BLP concerns. There were many appearances over years, he’s now responded, and the statements are dramatic, fitting WP:DUE. It could be written with WP:POV in mind. O3000 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know the context in which the comments were made? Does it even matter? Also I'm not sure being a public figure negates BLP concerns. I will ask at the BLPN for some additional input. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The text notes the context in which the remarks were made. If you want to clarify that the ... "Bubba The Love Sponge Show" is a shock jock show, be my guest. Not sure how that makes those remarks ok though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the section, as there is clearly not consensus for its addition yet. Seems like a strong case of WP:RECENCY, and the section's title was too strong and not necessarily indicative of RS. Would be glad to include the content if editors can make an argument for it here and gain consensus, as it's certainly attracted some coverage, but we can't jump the gun. Right now there's not even consensus on its inclusion, let alone the wording. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh... how is it "not indicative of RS". And until you showed up consensus was to include. So now it's your job to convince others not to include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Just in this section we have one user disputing the wording, another disputing its inclusion--and now thirdly me (UPDATE: I now count an additional two editors a whole bunch more editors urging patience). Interesting definition of "consensus." I'm not necessarily opposed to its inclusion, but I think it can be written in a more NPOV manner. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This issue needs time to breath. It probably needs included in some form, but not at all as it is by the very persistent Volunteer Marek. I believe underscoring that this was said on a Howard Stern "shock jock" type of show, is critical context as well. 2601:982:4200:A6C:B483:3CEE:2B29:2D0 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Be patient and see if further RS appear but oppose inclusion at this point.--MONGO (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's decided to include it, it should not have its own section, but just be included with other controversies. If there is a section, it should not be titled "Misogynist remarks" because calling them misogynistic is an opinion in and of itself. Generally I would't include it because their 'discovery' is not a news story, as they were public back when he made them. This is just an attempt to make old news new news.. or something. The main point is regarding the title, though. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"because calling them misogynistic is an opinion in and of itself." - no, it's what sources call them. Are you saying that comparing women do dogs and saying they are "primitive" and "should do what they're told" and calling them "cunt-y" is NOT misogynist? What's next? Someone's gonna claim that referring to someone calling African Americans the n-word as "racist" is "just an opinion, maaaannnn". Gimme a freakin' break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(posted after below comments) : Misogyny is a hatred of all women. I don't think you can make a value judgement that a statement is misogynistic, especially not just because a news outlet called it such. That's why we have "Controversy" sections, not "Proof that x is a misogynist" sections, etc. It's about NPOV - nothing else. I mean, I did say I lean towards exclusion, but that's just because public comments on shows/whatever is just essentially a part of the subject's career. But no, making value judgments on a comment is not acceptable, at least how I view this. We can't make this political, which, may be hard, but is necessary. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Marek is edit warring against the consensus on talk. Something needs done. 2601:982:4200:A6C:B134:CA94:2F50:BB64 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

He is only at 3RR. That first one was a self revert and doesn’t count. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

One of those might actually be mine. I mistakenly reverted it as it looked like unexplained section blanking. My apologies. PureRED | talk to me | 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nevermind - that's 4: 1, 2, 3, 4. @Volunteer Marek: I think you've hit 4 reverts today, you may want to comment or self revert one of them. Well nevermind the article is protected now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• The remarks are covered in RS and warrant inclusion. The man is a very WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Negative content is allowed if depicted by multiple reliable third-party sources. The man has essentially admitted making the comments. No opinion on the currently proposed section title. starship.paint ~ KO 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see any source disputing that the remarks were misogynist. That Carlson, a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, did not apologize [35] does call for restraint per WP:BLP, but it does not justify removal of a mostly uncontroversial short paragraph that can be improved by a few simple edits and discussion instead of edit warring. The bigger problem here is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism, both of which almost no editors pointed out. Since this is a very fresh story, there is a strong argument to be made that this does not justify its own section. It may also not even justify its own sub-section if Carlson isn't fired and the coverage dies down.
  As others have said above, this needs to be put into context. Just like the article James Gunn says, "In July 2018, alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich drew attention to tweets that Gunn wrote between 2008 and 2012, joking about topics like rape, child abuse, and pedophilia.[38]" (emphasis mine), the article Ralph Northam says, "On February 1, 2019, images from Northam's medical school yearbook were published on the far-right website Big League Politics.[81][82][83]" (emphasis mine), this article Tucker Carlson should point out that the quotes were published by Media Matters for America, a progressive organization that critically analyzes conservative media.
  Finally, I support adding future developments to this high-profile story that has coverage across the nation and abroad (of course with WP:BLP considerations, e.g. NOT calling someone a cult leader in wiki-voice), but I oppose including individual quotes because there are too many of them, they need too much context if this doesn't have its own section, and tons of other arguments at Talk:Sarah Jeong where a very similar "incident" happened (of course, if the WP:10YT is passed, some quotes can be included). My proposal is below. It incorporates a lot of the things mentioned by other editors above, plus some copyediting and my insistence on omitting the worst remarks. If this gains enough support, a {{Edit fully-protected}} request should be placed, thanks. Also, someone please format the references below, thanks again. wumbolo ^^^ 10:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of this material in the article, I would avoid using 'misogynist' as the heading. I think this content would be best placed in a "Controversy" section. While I agree that providing individual quotes may be problematic, I do think that his racist comments about "Primitive Monkeys" are noteworthy and should be mentioned Jono1011 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

==Misogynist comments==
In March 2019, the progressive non-profit Media Matters for America that critically analyzes conservative media released audio recordings of Carlson in which he made remarks demeaning to women between 2006 and 2011 on the call-in show hosted by shock jock Bubba The Love Sponge. Among other comments, Carlson called rape shield laws "unfair" and defended fundamentalist Mormon church leader Warren Jeffs, who had been charged of child sexual assault. After Carlson's remarks had been widely reported, he did not apologize for making them.

Sources

• This material should be in the article as well as the broader meltdown of Carlson's career that is currently underway at the hands of MMA and the "leftist mob's". Noteworthy are his racist comments about "Primitive Monkeys" [36], his defense of statutory rape [37], his homophobic remarks[38][39]. We should also include any new material about advertisers dropping the show[40], and be ready to include material about his dismissal from Fox News, should that occur.- MrX 🖋 11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support adding the above material as covered by WP:RS. As well as the above proposed section starship.paint ~ KO 09:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It really should be a no-brainer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• That seems to be how RS are covering it, so I guess that's the way the article will go. Personally I wouldn't take seriously any comments made in jest or to provoke a reaction on the Bubba the Love Sponge radio show from a decade ago, especially reported by Media Matters, but it isn't up to me. If you're on the right, jokes (even if in bad taste) aren't allowed anymore. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think these were "jokes", I think it was just uncensored expression of true opinions. In none of his subsequent comments did he actually disavow the statements or call them "jokes" afaik. He just said he "was caught doing something naughty".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

OT- MrX 🖋 11:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

*Just please be sure to link to Bill Maher and his comments. We don't want people to think Wikipedia is biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Not clear on what point you're attempting to make. See WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC) If you have a problem with another article, bring it up at the approriate place. WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn’t put misogynist in a heading. If it’s used by stellar RS, I’d say OK for the text with a qualifier. O3000 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• The above text is good, but the content seems too short for a section on its own. If it were two or three paras, then sure. But not a separate section for just one paragraph. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fix references

Please fix the references in the section "Misogynistic remarks", as they were placed there without the proper citation information. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Lisa McNear Lombardi

Tucker Carlson's mother later remarried. She died of cancer in 2011. It should be mentioned.

• http://www.famemagazine.co.uk/michael-vaughan-and-lisa-lombardi-cheerful-but-disturbing-art/
• https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=lisa-lombardi-vaughan&pid=154563219 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy8Kahn (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree Above information about his mother should be mentioned.Dogru144 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Syria material in wrong location

The following was in the section on his views on Russia. These sentences are more appropriate under the Syria section: "Carlson has called for the United States to work with Russia in the Syrian Civil War.[51] He opposes overthrowing Bashar al-Assad.[50]"Dogru144 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please make the above move of content.Dogru144 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2019

Please add the following to the Career section:

Bubba the Love Sponge Show (2006-2011)

Between 2006 and 2011, Tucker Carlson spent approximately an hour a week calling in to the Bubba the Love Sponge Show, a popular shock jock radio program where he spoke with the hosts about a variety of cultural and political topics in often-vulgar terms. In addition to making many misogynistic remarks and sexual comments about underage girls, Carlson also repeatedly made racist remarks.

Reference: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/03/11/unearthed-audio-shows-tucker-carlson-using-white-nationalist-rhetoric-and-making-racist-remarks/223105 PatsyWalker (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That source isn't appropriate. There's many others covering this. There's a section open above where you should propose your wording with better sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Work on getting consensus by contributing to the discussion above. ~ GB fan 11:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Remove "The Anti-Defamation League's Jessica Reaves has analyzed his use of "white genocide" rhetoric in a 2018 monologue." Not only is that not given in the citation, I could only find one relevant source [41], and it is being misrepresented in the article. Jessica Reaves did not specifically mention Tucker Carlson or his monologue. wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Wumbolo: that page is not protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. She may as well have been talking about him -- but didn't directly say so. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Antifa protesters outside his home

Let's use this section to discuss the potential inclusion of the information removed here regarding the protesters outside Carlson's home. The material is well sourced, and notable, but may not be DUE. Volunteer Marek's justification for removal seems to be that it runs afoul of NOTNEWS. Other editors didn't bother to give a reason, instead just edit warred. Should it be included in a small section or not? I would lean towards inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to understand the NOTNEWS rationale for adding a section on the MMFA inspired boycott but removing the section on the protestors, which got more sustained coverage. Especially when consensus above was against a dedicated section for the added material. 51.75.75.162 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question - me too. Maybe those who reverted will share their rationale. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything about this story anywhere since it happens, nor has it had any long standing implications. And Mr Ernie, I'm happy to discuss this issue with you, but I'm not going to waste my time on an obvious sock puppet account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is where we need to use our editorial judgment. After most of these BLP topics move past the current news cycle there won't really be any more coverage of them, by definition. So we have a number of these events now, namely the Antifa protests at Carlson's house, the confrontation with the Dutch historian that wasn't aired, the release by media matters of Carlson's statements from a couple years ago, and the coverage on Carlson's show of the media matters founder's own controversial writings from years ago. All of these events were covered, more or less, by RS, so which ones should go in the article? In my opinion we should include the Antifa protest at his home and the controversial statements Carlson made (which clearly has consensus above). The rest doesn't seem encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The material should be included in brief form. I suggest something like this:

Protest at Carlson's residence
In 2018, a group of about 20 activists from Smash Racism D.C., a local anti-fascist group, protested outside Carlson's Washington, D.C. home. In a video, a participant with a bullhorn was heard saying that Carlson was promoting hate and leading a chant "Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!". Carlson's driveway was vandalized with a spray-painted anarchist symbol. Police responded within minutes and the protesters were dispersed.

Sources

Anything more than that would be non-encyclopedic and WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC) ETA: Also, let's not call the protester group "Antifa". There is no such group. Antifa is a movement.- MrX 🖋 12:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned, and I think the brief version proposed by MrX is reasonable, as a whole paragraph would be excessive. Fish+Karate 14:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I agree with avoiding the label Antifa as it's just an amorphous grouping. O3000 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for drafting. I understand about the Antifa label. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek can you live with this?- MrX 🖋 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE is a policy about giving equal proportion to multiple interpretations around a controversial fact. That policy doesn't apply here. The harassment incidents that Carlson suffered involved death threats not only to him but also to his family, and it ultimately led to a police investigation. The group even threatened Tucker's co-workers in Fox News. This information is result in port of criminal investigation and it's well sourced, it's not a controversial fact with multiple interpretations or multiple theories or nothing like that. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant information about the person and should be definitely included. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 March 2019

Replace:

Encounters with protesters

On the night of November 8, 2018, a group of Antifa activists protested outside Carlson's home in Washington, D.C.. The group shouted "Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!" and one individual was heard saying she wanted to "bring a pipe bomb" to his house. Carlson's driveway was vandalized with a spray-painted anarchist symbol. His wife, thinking it was a home invasion, locked herself in the pantry and called 911. Carlson, who was not home at the time, asserted that "someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door", although a police report did not note any visible damage to the door. "Smash Racism D.C.", the group that organized the protest, was unapologetic the following morning, posting, "Tonight, we remind you that you are not safe either". Twitter suspended the group's account the same day. Police opened an investigation into the incident as a suspected hate crime.

With:

Protest at Carlson's residence

In 2018, a group of about 20 activists from Smash Racism D.C., a local anti-fascist group, protested outside Carlson's Washington, D.C. home. In a video, a participant with a bullhorn was heard saying that Carlson was promoting hate and leading a chant "Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!". Carlson's driveway was vandalized with a spray-painted anarchist symbol. Police responded within minutes and the protesters were dispersed.

Sources

Per the consensus in the previous section. - MrX 🖋 01:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Climate change

The following text was deleted with the stated reason "You're going to need better sourcing than this for such a strong statement. The Atlantic piece didn't say anything about Carlson's views.":

• Carlson rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Carlson has argued that the extent to which humans contribute to climate change is "an open question," and "unknowable."

References

However, the sources cited behind the first sentence do describe Carlson as engaging in climate change denial. Furthermore, the scientific consensus on climate change is human activity is a primary contributor to climate change, so Carlson's statements that human activity is "an open question" or "unknowable" should be identified as fringe per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the New Republic cite, which off-handedly calls Carlson a climate denier without quoting where he's said he denies climate or showing any evidence of research, it's just the usual name-calling. Even with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it should be regarded with care, since Emily Atkin's BA isn't proof she's qualified to smear people's scientific understanding. Mr Ernie acted correctly in reverting Snooganssnoogans's insertion of poorly sourced controversial material in a BLP . Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The first source writes "Climate-change deniers like Carlson" without actually showing any statements Carlson has made where he "denies" climate change. There's nothing provided to enforce that claim, made by the author, who is not a scientist. Carlson doesn't deny that climate is changing, he simply questions the notion that humans are 100% to blame for it, as the source describes. The Atlantic source goes on to support this, saying Carlson was nodding along with the climate scientist (Judith Curry) stating "Yes it’s warming and yes humans contribute to it. Everybody agrees with that, and I’m in the 98 percent [of scientists who agree]." It's not enough (a New Republic source) to make a statement in Wikipedia voice "Carlson rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" when in fact he doesn't challenge that climate is changing, but disagrees to the extent which humans are responsible. His questions “What do we know? What don’t we know?” reinforce that point. Thank you for opening the talk discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The scientific consensus (in case you were unaware) is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Carlson does not accept that consensus. It's as simple as can be. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Now Candido has re-inserted the edit. Perhaps Candido was not aware that this is being discussed on the talk page? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I was not. But I agree that the current sourcing is enough to state he is a climate change denier. Should I revert myself then? Candido (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you revert until a consensus is reached on the talk page. At the moment the consensus is to not include that information. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Candido (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Child marriage

I added the following to the article:

• Human Rights Watch criticizes Carlson's view on child marriage, because of the "devastating impact child marriage has on girls around the world."

it was reverted with the comment "misrepresents his view, poor sourcing". Does my edit poorly represent his view or does the HRW article do that? Is my edit poorly sourced or is the HRW article? Is there a better reference to Tuckers views?Snipergang (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the revert, and I think Human Rights Watch is guilty of misrepresenting his views. Carlson (if I can paraphrase his statement) said that Warren Jeffs, who got a life sentence for arranging two marriages between adult men and underage girls, was sentenced unfairly, because Jeffs had not himself had sex with those girls (he may have also had sex with other underage girls, but that's not what he was sentenced for), and because statutory rape should be treated more leniently if it's within the context of a marriage. Carlson never said he condoned anything that Jeffs did or advocated. The HRW post, in my opinion, deliberately quotes snippets of what Carlson said (the post never even mentions Warren Jeffs by name) to make his views sound more extreme. I'm not against having this article mention Carlson's quasi-defense of Jeffs, but if it's done it should be done straightforwardly. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your parsing of his statements does not match the sources, which quote him as saying "The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's be honest about it," Carlson said of Jeffs' marriages, before clarifying that he's against the practice. He is unambiguously saying that he feels rape is less serious provided it comes with a "lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person", not that Jeffs had not had sex with them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding that sentence: "Jeffs' marriages" seems to refer to marriages he presided over, not ones in which he was the husband. (See the sentence in the Business Insider article directly before that one.) Korny O'Near (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

HRW is RS. But, this isn’t an HRW report. And, it’s written in an opinion like style. Must be a better source. O3000 (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this work? Also this, this, this, this, this. I think there's enough sourcing for a sentence or two, at least. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that'll do. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I would propose a sentence, but there seem to be many people, here who are more familiar with the matter. Does anyone have an idea?--Snipergang (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see how we can seriously take anything Carlson said while called in to the Bubba the Love Sponge show as his real views, as it is clear he was trying to either be funny, provocative, or controversial with his comments then. Sure we can document what he said or that he said it, but does anyone really believe Carlson seriously thinks what Warren Jeffs did is ok? Mr Ernie (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to necessarily say that the holds the view, but it should mention that he expressed it. I am not sure how the exact wording should be, but I agree with Aquillion that there is enough material for at least a sentences or two. --Snipergang (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What view? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Gender and sexual assault

I removed a section titled "Gender and sexual assault" from the views part of the article. The one sentence blurb cited one source - a Newsweek piece. I read the article and it doesn't actually really say anything about Carlson's views on gender or sexual assault. The Newsweek article itself is pretty badly written, and shouldn't be used here. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Racism allegations belong in lede

Regardless whether the allegations are right or wrong, they are constantly mentioned in reliable sources, and (whether one accepts the allegations that he is using his platform to promote racial hatred, or dismisses them as political correctness which Carlson is boldly rejecting) a key part of the OP's notability and public image. They should be mentioned in the lede. I added them but we should work together to find a neutral sounding version. GergisBaki (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hard to argue with. But, I'd keep it brief in the lead. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This section[42] needs to be summarized in the lede, but I have no specific suggestions as to how to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding this edit, I have several objections to the rewrite - first, characterizing his critics as "political opponents" isn't how the sources describe them and is WP:POV commentary, since it implicitly dismisses their comments as politically-motivated. Second, while the Iraq comments don't seem to be focused on in the article that I can see, the rest are detailed and need to be summarized in the lead; we can report that this is what those critics believe and how they explain their position without taking it as gospel. The argument that those critics are cherry-picking or playing guilt-by-association is irrelevant, since we're reporting their views rather than saying whether they're right or wrong - readers can decide that for themselves. (If you really think that they're being unfair, find a reliable source saying so and cite that, though I generally feel that sort of argument-by-proxy thing is a poor way to structure an article.) But the implicit argument that "people should not criticize him for this, therefore we cannot report that he is being criticized for this" doesn't make sense - these criticisms are major aspects of his bio, whether they should be or not. Finally (a problem in both versions) I don't see anything in the article that matches the last sentence. Also, both the lead and body should probably mention white nationalism (which is how his views are often characterized and which is more precise than just "racism"), but that will require a more substantial rewrite, since the body itself isn't talking about it much yet. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with reporting criticism, whether valid or not - but enumerating it in detail in the intro is out-of-place and non-neutral. Reading the intro, you wouldn't know that he has the 2nd-most-popular cable news show in the U.S., watched by almost 3 million people every episode. And the intro doesn't mention any of the positive things that have been said about him during his career. Yet somehow the views of his boycotters get pride-of-place. How many people have actually boycotted his show, or his advertisers? A few thousand, maybe? In the context of his career and life, they and their views are just not that important. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A New York Times article today shows the El Paso shooter's manifesto was heavily influenced by and included statements from Carlson, among other Fox contributors. Indeed, the first two words in this front page, above-the-fold article are "Tucker Carlson". This would appear to be WP:DUE and, it would appear, lead worthy.[43] O3000 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't because we're not a newspaper. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Further, will you go to Warren's article and add the Dayton shooting to her lead considering that the shooter was a fan of hers? No, I don't think we should be doing any of that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between "happened to be a fan of Warren" and "manifesto implies motivation was heavily influenced by Carlson." Coverage has repeatedly said that investigators have found no political motive for the Dayton shooter, whereas it has directly connected the El Paso shooter's motivations to his political views and, in particular, to Tucker Carlson. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "coverage" you're talking about, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this shooter had even heard of Tucker Carlson, let alone was influenced by him. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I supplied the cite. He repeatedly used his exact wording. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that article just says that they both used the words "invasion" and "replacement" when talking about immigration. Carlson is hardly the only person who's used either word, as even the article itself notes. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Carlson is mentioned 18 times in the article. O3000 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want any 'boycott' content in the lede. As is usually the case, the Fox News boycotts usually blow over. BUT Carlson's anti-immigration views and racially charged rhetoric should be included in the lede. It's by far the type of content that attracts him the most attention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the shooter comment since the views of clinically insane people generally don't affect what goes into article intros. As for what gets him attention: let's not forget that he has an audience of three million, so the views of some commentators, though noteworthy, are not all that defines him. And let's also not ignore WP:RECENT here - he has had a roughly 25-year-long career, so criticism that has started in the last two years or so should not overwhelm the intro, as it seems to now. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

He has risen considerably in the last few years. Besides being ridiculed on Crossfire by Jon Stewart and starting the Daily Caller, what were his claims to fame? And I have no idea why you're saying he has a big audience? What is the relevance of that? If anything, it indicates that what he does today (with his huge audience) is more meaningful than being a fairly unknown media guy a few years ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Claims to fame: he's written two books (one a bestseller), many columns, and appeared for thousands of hours on TV. Those are all mentioned in the intro to some extent, but there's nothing about the content of any of them, save for his switch from libertarian to nationalist, and of course a few controversial statements. He's said many things about foreign policy, wars, the last five or so presidents, and more recently tech monopolies, the status of men, and lots of other things. So some balance is needed. And the fact that he has a large audience I think means that his less-controversial statements are notable as well. It also undercuts the most egregious part of the current intro: the statement that he's popular among white supremacists. If he was some obscure broadcaster with a heavy white supremacist following, that would be one thing, but given that he has 3 million viewers, the fact that there are some white supremacists among them hardly seems important. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• The New York Times article isn’t just a news story. This is a front page article in a highly respected source about the underpinnings of a mass shooting with 22 dead and 24 injured that has its own article. The story touches on major issues including gun control, the US Congress, Trump, Fox, media censorship, immigration, racism all of which have their own articles here. Tucker Carlson, the subject of this article, is mentioned 18 times including the first two words of the article. Carlson has been focusing on themes related to racism for a lengthy period of time. Some semblance of this belongs in the lead. O3000 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't just a news story. In fact, it's not a news story at all - just a half-baked analysis that tries to tie Tucker Carlson and other conservative commentators to the El Paso shooting through the flimsiest of threads. The article doesn't actually say that the shooter was influenced by Carlson and the others mentioned, or even that he knew who they were - as far as I know, there's no evidence for either of those. It says only that he "echoed" their statements in his writings in his use of the words "invasion" and "replacement". That's literally it - the shooter used two words that they also have used. This is a pointless attempt at innuendo that I don't think should be mentioned anywhere, let alone in the introduction. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to ask. Did you actually read the article? There is vastly more than the use of two words. And if you think the article is a "a half-baked analysis" and "pointless attempt at innuendo", you are welcome to take the New York Times to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I did read the article. What was it beyond those two words? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

He's mentioned 18 times with numerous quotes. Do you think a Pulitzer prize winning reporter just repeated himself over and over? O3000 (talk)

Yes, numerous quotes, all involving Carlson saying the words "invasion" and/or "replacement". And all proving nothing about any influence on the El Paso shooter. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

We are not here to "prove" anything. We are here to create articles based upon RS. Here's another:[44] O3000 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Great - you've now found two articles that kinda-sorta imply that Carlson and others influenced the El Paso shooter without actually saying it. Which means that there are exactly zero reliable sources so far who directly claim that Carlson played any role in the matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And all I said was that we should include this in some manner, obviously as per how the RS document. RS show that the manifesto was influenced, not the shooting itself. I never said we should claim Carlson was behind the shooting. Clearly we are not going to agree. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither article says the manifesto was influenced either. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, we aren't going to agree. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead

GergisBaki, the lead isn't a place for every controversy about this BLP. Please self-revert. The shooting comment is already in the body of the article. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

OK I cut the comment out of the lede. GergisBaki (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki if you want to know more about this you can read this MOS:BLPLEAD. Happy editting!.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead controversy (again)

Re-starting the discussion about comments by Tucker Carlson added to the lead section by GergisBaki. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with AnUnnamedUser. The information being added over and over again by GergisBaki is appropriate for the article. First of all it does not belong in the lead section. Second it is undue weight on a small, small, small number of Carlson's viewers. Third, GergisBanki's argument that we should ignore whether is it guilt by association because it is not our job as editors is simply not correct. That is the exact type of thing we need to discuss and evaluate. I agree with AnUnnamedUser. Fourth, GergisBanki's bold edits have been reverted. He needs to work on the talk page and provide a rationale for his addition, which at this time GergisBaki has not done.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for the editing my friends and I will accept the block in stride. I am still fairly new here. But I recognize the policy of edit warring and also the rationale behind it; what I did was inappropriate. I hope we can work to improve this page productively together in the future. GergisBaki (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the newly added material to the lead per WP:BRD. --Malerooster (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody, as I understand it, is arguing that the entire paragraph is inappropriate, and there's a clear consensus to include in some form above. This discussion is about the exact wording, about what details to include, and especially about references to support by white nationalists and neo-Nazis, which have already been removed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you don't understand. There is no consensus for including this in the lead. This is also BRD. --Malerooster (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I see at least four people arguing it should be included in some form, about two people arguing for changes or improvements, and one or two at best arguing for exclusion of the entire paragraph. People have raised specific objections (which have as far as I can tell currently been addressed), but almost nobody is arguing to exclude the whole section. You can't just come into a discussion about improving a section and out-of-the-blue demand it be removed by citing WP:BRD, that's not how BRD works. If you have objections to the paragraph, you have to raise them and then answer the implicit consensus for inclusion in some form in the discussion above, or convince the people who think their issues with it can be addressed that the whole thing needs to go. But, more generally, meta-arguments about consensus and WP:BRD aren't useful - if you object to the entire paragraph, you need to explain why rather than revert-warring to keep it out and trying to deny a consensus for inclusion in some form that (prior to your edit) seemed reasonably well-established. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus for adding this "material" to the lead. 57 editors have now said it doesn't belong in the lead. I know that this is not a vote but just get a clear consensus for addition which there clearly isn't. How about an RFC or ask the BLP board for more eyes. And yes, BRD is completely reasonable here, this section was boldly added to the lead just a few days ago. Revert it and discuss. --Malerooster (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think an RFC makes sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the person who wants to add this "material" to the lead should craft it? --Malerooster (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)\

There are virtually no objections to the entire paragraph (you still haven't articulated yours, and everyone else is focused on one part that was already removed.) So it's unclear what an RFC would ask - do you feel there should be no coverage of criticism of Tucker belongs in the lead? If so, why? Do you think it's WP:UNDUE? Would more sourcing convince you? Do you object to the wording or tone? Do you feel it should be balanced out with other things? You have refused to articulate why you're revert-warring to remove it from the lead, and there's only one comment proposing taking it out entirely, so I can't actually answer your objections or create an WP:RFC over them. I count a single objection to the entire paragraph, four people indicating it should be there in some form, and a few people objecting to smaller details. That's not something that would justify deleting it entirely the way you are. And, more generally, you seem to be misunderstanding WP:BRD; you are the one who has objected to the paragraph, which means that if you want to invoke WP:BRD you have to actually discuss it - that is, articulate what you object to about it so those objections can be addressed. Reverting an addition and saying "WP:BRD" and nothing else isn't actually following WP:BRD. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

7, count them, 7 have said no for this in the lead. If you want to go against that consensus, fine, do a RFC. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC) ps, you are the one who is clueless about BRD. This was boldly added days ago. It has been removed. We are now discussing it. --Malerooster (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I count only a single person objecting to the entire paragraph. Stop edit-warring to remove it and actually give your explanation for why you think it shouldn't be there; when you try to invoke WP:BRD, you have to discuss - explain your actual objection. You have not done so, and only one other editor, by my reading, has said anything that could remotely be construed as objecting to the entire paragraph, while four editors have expressed unreserved support for inclusion and a few others have requested wording tweaks or objected to specific aspects of it (which were resolved.) By my reading, there was some discussion over the paragraph, some people objected to one specific sentence (which was removed), and there was a general consensus to include after that - until you arrived, misread the consensus by interpreting every objection to that sentence to an objection to the entire paragraph, and started edit-warring to try and remove it (without even attempting to engage in discussion, as far as I can tell, outside of asserting a consensus that you manifestly do not have.) The other editors that you are clearly counting as opposing inclusion merely opposed specific parts which they edited appropriately; this is what most of the discussion above refers to. Until you arrived and started revert-warring it out without trying to explain why, it seems as though we'd reached a general consensus on how it should read. If you disagree, point me to the specific diffs where you think people opinioned that the entire paragraph should be removed, because I am not seeing it. Seriously - stop, read the discussion, and try to find those diffs for me, because I feel you skimmed the discussion and misinterpreted it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't help if you cant count even though iam a sped teacher. Multiple people above have objected to inclusion in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Again, most of the discussion is about the "guilt-by-association" connection to white nationalism specifically (here). I'm not seeing very many people objecting to the entire section, and the comments focusing on that specific aspect implicitly accepted the rest as WP:DUE. If you have an objection to the entire paragraph, you'll have to vocalize it rather than arguing that it lacks consensus - suggestions for improvements and tweaks aren't a justification to violate WP:PRESERVE by removing it wholesale after the issues people raised with it have been addressed. I count myself, GergisBaki, O3000, and Snooganssnoogans supporting inclusion in some form; Korny agreeing controversy should be present but objecting to the specific "guilt by association" details (which were removed) and wanting more about his achievements to balance it out; CharlesShirley and Joseph agreeing to remove that specific aspect; and only SharabSalam clearly arguing that all parts should be removed. (You yourself have not indicated an opinion, which might help? Despite invoking WP:BRD, you're not participating in discussions. You need to make it clear if you have objections to the content rather than just what you see as the process. You need to actually participate in discussions - as WP:EDITCONSENSUS says, consensus is assumed unless there's a reason to doubt it, and right now only one other person has expressed the view that the entire paragraph should be removed.) Regardless of whether we count you or not, that adds up to a clear consensus to include in some form, with the caveat that some people might want to tweak the wording further. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion and this is a matter of common sense, all of Tucker Carlson controversies should not be in the lead because they are RECENT. They will not stay notable for a long period of time like ten years.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Several of these date back around two years, which is well beyond WP:RECENTISM, and most of them have pretty good sustained coverage over that time period. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Target of Harassment

The fact that Mr. Carlson and his family have been the targets of harassment is relevant and important, and I cited to Washington Post - a reliable source. I re-inserted the language that was removed by Snoogans without good reason. Further, I have been accused by Snoog of stalking. I was of the understanding that an editor can edit any article he chooses; indeed - those may even be Snoog's own words. I don't appreciate the lightly-veiled attempt at intimidation. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

BattleshipGray, It doesn't seem that Tucker Carlson or his family have been a target to harassment that often that it deserves a mention in the lead. Many politicians and their families have been target to harassment more often than Tucker Carlson. We dont need that in the lead it is already in the body of the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that this doesn't belong in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Poll: Do allegations of racism belong in the lead section?

Days ago, this was added to the lead section:

Commentators have characterized Carlson's statements and positions as racist, citing his view that the number of Hispanic immigrants to America should be curtailed to maintain traditional demographics, and his claim that such immigrants make America "dirtier and more divided"; his show has been the target of multiple boycotts and has lost dozens of advertisers. Carlson has denied being a racist and has said that he hates racism.

Do allegations of racism belong in the lead section? --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Include this in the lead:

• I'd prefer

  Commentators have characterized Carlson's program as promoting a white nationalist agenda, which he has denied. The program has faced boycotts resulting in the loss of dozens of advertisers.

  but in whatever final form, this must be in the lead. soibangla (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include in some form, though there's plenty of room to tweak the wording (part of the reason I objected to starting an RFC is that it seems premature, since discussions on improving it were continuing productively up until Malerooster insisted on removing it entirely.) But either way, we should cover the racial controversy about him in the lead in some form, yes. It's extensively-sourced, has sustained coverage over the past few years, and is currently a major part of his reputation and, therefore, his notability. Agree on the boycotts sentence; soibangla's sentence would be sufficient overall, making it terse enough to avoid undue weight or tone issues while catching the important points. I'll also point out that so far, there have been almost no actual arguments for excluding the topic entirely from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• As an aside, note that MaleRooster has been clearly WP:CANVASSing for this discussion; see [45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. While some of these people participated in previous discussions on the topic, others did not (I think it's reasonable to conclude that they were contacted because they expressed opinions elsewhere on this talk, on other aspects of the topic, that MaleRooster viewed as supportive of Carlson); they're clearly not a balanced, impartial list of frequent talk-page contributors. Even as far as contacting previous participants in the discussion goes, I think it's clear MaleRooster only contacted ones he thought would support his point of view - he skipped @Snooganssnoogans:, @GergisBaki:, and Objective3000 (who later commented here regardless), despite all three making clear statements on the topic of this RFC above. Pinging those two now so all participants in the previous discussion who have not yet commented here have been contacted (which seems to make at least that aspect more reasonable and less canvas-y), but noting that that can't completely cancel MaleRooster's canvassing because he also seems to have contacted people, uninvolved in previous discussions, who he simply thought would support his position. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

* I think it can be mentioned in a summarised way. I think the text that Soibangla suggested is prefect.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include, per sources. Volunteer Marek 04:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include. I think it's definitely worth referencing the specific views he's expressed, as the current version does. Cutting the summary down too short leaves it as a vague "they say, he says" situation. It's a good chunk of the article and we have plenty of space to explain. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include, provided that they are only referenced as "accusations" and no specific organizations or fringe political groups/ideologies are mentioned. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)}. 16:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think that "his show has been the target of multiple boycotts and has lost dozens of advertisers" should be removed, but everything else is good. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)}. 16:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Also, "accused of racism" is less harsh than "characterized as racist." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's vital to show he's lost dozens of advertisers because "money talks," it's not just boycotts by "fringe leftists." Companies have decided he's toxic to their brands. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Boycotts" and "advertisers" are only part of the picture. It's better to describe something like "loss of financial support motivated politically". From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, businesses have made cold, hard decisions about associating their brands with his rhetoric. It's business. Period. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Whether direct or indirect, it's still motivated by a political force. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if you're right, regardless of the cause, the loss of 49% of his advertisers over a year is clearly leadworthy. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include reduced version like soibangla's above but otherwise appropriate. There's no question this is a part of the attention drawn to him, it would be inappropriate to ignore in the lede, but it doesn't need a massive discourse - only that he has been said to have such views and that he denies it. (brought here from BLP/N notice). --Masem (t) 18:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Passes DUE and NPOV. Soibangla's version efficiently hits the salient points. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely include. I emphatically disagree with any notion that including this detail violates NPOV, BLP, or DUE. However, I prefer Soibangla's way of wording it. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Obvious include. Carlson's fear-mongering on race and immigration is one of the defining themes of his persona and show in recent years, and something which he is now prominent for. Furthermore, a substantial part of the body is devoted to this. Readers deserve to know why Carlson is prominent and controversial in the US media and politics landscape. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include. Soibangla's version looks good. That's from what the article already says; but as a little more food for thought, try "Tucker Carlson: Fox host under fire again over resurfaced racist comments" and "Guess who said it: Tucker Carlson or a far-right shooter". -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include It's succinct and well-sourced. Covers the context and extent of this behavior, which has been widely covered in mainstream press. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include The arguments against including appeal to OR about how the allegations of racism are unfair. Maybe they are unfair. Maybe only the most over-sensitive leftist would consider as racist calling Iraqis apes or saying Hispanic immigrants make America dirtier. But this (our views on the allegations) is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is reliable sources. Allegations of racism against Carlson are constantly mentioned in RS, so they are highly notable and belong in the article and the lede. GergisBaki (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not include this in the lead:

• --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• This violates several policies, among NPOV, BLP, and DUE and is in no way appropriate for the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include: Actually I was in favour of including what Soibangla proposed but then I realized that it belongs to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" article and not this. I have said above that Tucker Carlson controversies are WP:RECENT in the lead because they don't stay notable for a long period of time.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written:. I agree with SharabSalam that the article should not conflate a discussion of Carlson's shows with himself. Thus discussion of loss of sponsors is undue. As for the first part of soibangla proposed is also about the show(s) not the person. If there is criticism of Carlson himself in the article then that should be considered for the lead. I know the article does have criticism but if it's about shows vs the person it should be moved to the correct article. Springee (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include. Carlson has been a political commentator for around 30 years, and during that time he's put forth opinions on lots of different things - in some cases, changing his mind about things he's said previously. I don't think his stance on immigration deserves special singling out in the introduction. Yes, it's led to charges of racism, but these days everyone gets called racist, especially prominent right-wingers. It has also led to boycotts and loss of advertisers, but there's no evidence that these have impacted him, his show or Fox News in any way. As for Soibangla's suggested change, it seems quite a bit worse, since it changes "racism" to "white nationalist agenda" - a much more incendiary charge, and one that I think is found in fewer sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I am very surprised to hear that "these days everyone gets called racist", even if this is just hurried shorthand for "these days everyone who opines on US TV about social or political issues gets called racist". (Does Stephen Colbert, for example, get called racist?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course I didn't literally mean everyone, but interestingly enough, Stephen Colbert did get charges of racism thrown at him, including an entire "Cancel Colbert" campaign, back in 2014. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: but these days everyone gets called racist. Statements like this may cause you future difficulties. I suggest that you strike it out. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Carlson got a primetime show on Fox in 2017 and has since then attracted notoriety for his commentary on race and immigration. Besides founding the Daily Caller and getting grilled by Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire, what has Carlson done that's been important and subject to considerable RS coverage prior to becoming a primetime Fox News host who incessantly fearmongers on the subject of race and immigration? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're giving away your biases there, and I hope you're not letting them affect your editorial judgment. But to answer your question: he's also written a bestselling book, and he's gotten coverage in the past over all sorts of statements he's made, including, recently, praising Elizabeth Warren. And even his comments on immigration, which indeed have gotten recent media attention, don't have to be presented in the context of racism allegations, which is itself a form of POV-pushing. Not that I think they need to be discussed at all in the intro. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Do not include - I don’t watch Carlson - haven’t been watching any pundits because I’ve grown weary of the ridiculous political back and forth. I’m of the mind that the relentless accusations coming from one group of competitors to denigrate another for political advantage is not only mind-numbing, they are desensitizing people to real issues, and that is sad. Issues as important as racism, or whatever nationalism is being defined as today, should not be used to improve ratings or gain political advantage, and WP should in no way contribute to it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how your personal distaste for what is happening negates the reality that it is happening. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Do not include I don't want to echo what others said, but I'll just say ditto to Atsme. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm going to kick this off and say that I think there is enough material about comments etc that have been seen as racist to include something in the lead. However, this shouldn't be criticism of his shows since there are primary articles to cover that material. Instead it should be the more general statement various comments (positions?) expressed by TC have been criticized as racist (or what ever instead of racist). Material about sponsor boycotts relate to the show and thus shouldn't be included here. Additionally they, unlike the general criticism, are a minor part of the body of the article. I would suggest rather than the "yes/no" discussion above, that people might find some common ground as to what should be included. Springee (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I second Springee’s proposal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DS notice

Arriving here via RfPP. Rather than protect the article on the current version (exclude), participants are instructed that, per the DS (which I just applied to the article), the BLP-vulnerable, non-longstanding text material contested above is prohibited from inclusion until the RfC is closed with consensus to include. Please don't put the carte before the horse. Thank you. El_C 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note, someone has removed the relevant text whose summary in the lead is being discussed in the RFC from the body. By my reading it is longstanding text in the body, and is clearly well-cited enough to avoid WP:BLP concerns in the body - does that fall under the WP:DS? It's a strange edit because the RFC is clearly leaning slightly to include in the lead, which means that (even if the RFC fails to find a firm consensus that it's leadworthy) it seems exceptionally unlikely that there could be consensus to remove comparable longstanding text from the body. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please ping me if you want to discuss an edit of mine. No, the material was not in the lead for a long period of time. Long standing material in the body doesn't mean the material is leadworthy nor does it mean a particular version of the lead is long standing. As of August 8th the material was not in the lead [[52]]. In some form it appears to have been added on Aug 9th and been controversial ever since. Springee (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You removed the material that the disputed section of the lead summerizes (eg. everything about the boycott) from the body, not the lead. That's my point. Doing so seems extremely premature - if there's significant dispute over whether something should be removed from the lead, does it make sense to leap to removing the corresponding text from the body? Especially given that it had been uncontroversial in the body for a while? By my reading, the relevant things you removed have been there since March 24th for the boycott, when most of the sources you removed were published; and April for the discussion of Anglin. That requires a bit more discussion to remove than just WP:BOLDly stripping them out from the body during a clearly-contested RFC over whether they belong in the lead, surely? (Alternatively, given that you seem confused, can I take this to mean your removal from the body was a mistake on your part?) --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, because the RfC was related to the lead I was thinking of the change to the lead, not the body. In that case the RfC isn't about the body, it's about the lead. The material I removed doesn't change the validity/invalidity of the discussion above. Unless it can be shown that Carlson is courting or seeking out approval from Anglin the association this association becomes a BLP issue. I think you are trying to tie questions about body content to what DUE for the lead in an inappropriate way. Springee (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that it is a given that if something is WP:DUE for the lead, then it is obviously appropriate for inclusion in the body; so removing the material that a disputed section of the lead summarizes from the body, when that material has been in the article for months with relatively little controversy, and when discussions are leaning towards inclusion in the lead, is a bit WP:BOLD. I notice you only mention Anglin and not the boycotts (which you also removed, and which has much higher-quality sourcing); does that mean you would have no objection to restoring the text on the boycotts? His show is his main claim to fame, and most of those sources discuss him personally at length rather than just the show, so I think it's pretty straightforward that it warrants mention in the body at a bare minimum - the boycotts are a major event in his bio and career, significantly more important than aspects that we devote entire sections of text to. (For example, we devote an entire section to discussing his bowties, and the section discusses far more details about his show; given that due weight is partially relative to the rest of the article, and given the boycotts' significant impact, I don't see how discussing the boycotts of his show and the accusations that precipitated them in the body could possibly be considered undue compared to that.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit [[53]] does not apply to the boycotts. However, I removed the boycotts in a separate edit (your mentioning of different edits is getting confusing). I removed the boycott information because it was about TC's television shows, not TC. It appears that it was a cut and paste from a different article since it refers to "the show" without a name. Springee (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see the source of your confusion. It looks like the paragraph was originally in the section on his show and was, at some point, moved to the section on immigration and race, without being updated to reflect that. I've restored it to the correct section, though it could be placed in either with a slight wording tweak. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That does make more sense in that location. Given there is a primary topic on the show I suggest the section on the show should be reduced to effectively cover the lead material of Tucker_Carlson_Tonight per WP:SUMMARY. However, I'm not overly interested in pushing that change. Springee (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Best to formalize the discussion about this passage, either in another RfC, or by trying to figure out the consensus at BLPN. In other words, I prefer to see the discussion formally closed. Because the material is longstanding, the question should be is there consensus to remove (that means that a no consensus result would see the passage retained by default). But it can (and probably should) be removed in the meantime, just because it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP concerns. But I don't know enough about the subject or this particular dispute, so I welcome further input. It's certainly possible that I am being too cautious — but again, I prefer that over the possibility of recklessness. Thank you. El_C 18:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If the passage is removed then a no-consensus result would see that it stays removed because WP:BLP says "If [deleted material] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." WP:NOCONSENSUS pretty well agrees. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. Not if the passage represents longstanding text. Then consensus for removal must be obtained.El_C 22:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wp:NOCON says that is the normal case but "...for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Springee (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. El_C 23:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence Tucker Carlson has ever denounced these characterizations from The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi site:

• “Tucker Carlson is literally our greatest ally"
• Carlson is “a master of weaponized rhetoric” who had grown the spine to “go toe-to-toe” with “pathologically lying Jews and dress them down in some striped pajamas live on air.”
• “Tucker Carlson Is A One-Man Holocaust.”
• “Our Ally Tucker Carlson” Called Out “A White-Hating Jew.”
• “Tucker Carlson is basically ‘Daily Stormer: The Show.’ Other than the language used, he is covering all of our talking points.”

These are not characterizations by his detractors. They are characterizations by his allies. To completely ignore this in the lead would be an absolute whitewash. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why would TC have to reply to them? Has Obama ever replied to the claim that he is the best ally the gun industry ever had? He caused the sale of AR-15s to go through the roof. Many have made the claim that Obama helped gun sales. So should Obama have to deny it to make it undue to imply Obama wanted to help gun mfrs? No, Obama shouldn't have to even acknowledge those people and TC shouldn't have to acknowledge a neo-Nazi site. Springee (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You addressed only half of my comment. The other half is that these characterizations are not by "just a bunch of fringe leftists who call everyone nazis," they are characterizations by actual nazis who say Carlson is one of them. The former would obviously carry little weight, but the latter carries great weight. The other half of your comment is so specious that I choose not to respond to it, which should not be construed as an inability to demolish it. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson is going to denounce The Daily Stormer? Why would he do that? Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You wouldn't deny when nazis loudly and repeatedly say you're one of them, as others are also commenting on your incendiary rhetoric and you're losing 49% of your advertisers as a result? soibangla (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If I was Tucker Carlson I wouldn't denounce The Daily Stormer for any of the above quotes. You say "These are not characterizations by his detractors. They are characterizations by his allies." Do you have a source supportive of the assertion that The Daily Stormer is an ally of Tucker Carlson? Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

“Tucker Carlson is literally our greatest ally" and much more. Tucker Carlson, the Daily Stormer’s favorite. soibangla (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We only know that The Daily Stormer makes that claim. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, without weighing in on the argument as a whole; a non-RS can be RS for their own stated claim. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so we know it's not "just a bunch of fringe leftists who call everyone nazis," which can be immediately dismissed, but rather actual nazis, which cannot, and it buttresses the commentary of many others, and it's reflected in the exodus of 49% his advertisers who have made cold, hard business decisions. "Money talks." soibangla (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the statements of Nazis can be easily dismissed - they are, by definition, fringe. Also, the main thing "money" seems to be saying here is that there are a lot of corporations that don't want to get targeted by activists. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Who do nazis support? Here's a bunch of nazis saying who they'll support. Hrm, we're ignoring that for no reason? Ah, guess we'll never know... PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)