This is an archive of past discussions about Tim Pool. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Pool's extremist comments on right-wing mass shootings
Springee has deleted the edits re-introducing Tim Pool's comments on the Colorado LGBT club mass shooting calling the victims groomers, which were widely reported in reliable sources and by noteworthy commentators, and they have single-handedly decided that the BBC's article about the disinformation being spread by Tim Pool on the Texas shooting doesn't belong. Both these events, however, constitute one of the few times Pool's commentary broke the bubble of technology news media and made it to the highest-ranking news outlets. Unflattering or not, they belong on this entry as much as everything else about him. Can the wider editor community weigh in? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the edits I don't think Springee is as much objecting to the coverage per-say they just don't like the language used/meets the very strict requirements of BLP, @Springee: can you suggest summaries of the coverage which you feel are appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
That user hasn't edited this entry in months. I'm fairly certain that ot's against Wikipedia's rules to canvass specific editors to discuss edit controversies in a Talk Page just because they're likely to agree with you. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You, Springee, and I were the only editors to participate in the last discussion on this topic. Per WP:APPNOTE, it is perfectly acceptable to notify Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Springee did not canvass anyone to this discussion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The article you cite says very little about Pool. The content related to Pool himself is at the very bottom and it isn't clear what specifically Pool was saying or referencing. I removed three claims/two sections of text which referenced that single BBC article. One was the "...as been described by the BBC". My issue here is these sort of offhand descriptions are rarely a good source for an encyclopedic claim in large part because they aren't supported by the text that follows. They are meant to set the stage for an otherwise unfamiliar reader. They don't support their claim which is something we would want when dealing with a BLP. The other part was the new, two sentence paragraph that says Pool's claims were baseless (the BBC doesn't say that). It also isn't clear what Pool was saying was a "psyop". Was it the information about the shooter in general or the linkage to Pool etc? Vague statements below the fold aren't good sources for contentious claims about a BLP subject. It's also not OK to take those vague claims and try to strengthen them in a way that isn't clearly supported by the original source. As a final, independent point, listing a bunch of times when some writer decided they didn't like what someone said on social media really isn't a good way to construct a BLP. Springee (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: "His podcast has been described by the BBC as covering "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories"."
The statement is presented as an opinion expressed by the BBC. (In fact, it should say BBC writers since the source is a signed article. If it is an opinion, then weight must be established. This is usually done by showing that the comments by the BBC writers have been widely cited.
However, this appears not to be a statement of opinion, but one of fact *whether it is true or not.) In that case, intext attribution should not be used. For example one would not say Obama was born in the U.S., according to BBC reporters, we would just say he was born in the U.S. and provide inline citations. Intext citation would add doubt to something that is a fact.
The comment in the BBC article is not particularly helpful. Yes, he covers "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories," but so does the SPLC and to a lesser extent, most news media when they become newsworthy. I learned about birtherism for example on CNN, because they "covered it."
I do not think it is useful to throw in one sentence zingers drawn from passing references in news media. It's better to get comprehensive sources about the topic and summarize them. If they don't exist, leave them out or delete the article.
An article based on the original research of editors is worse than not having an article at all.
I think you misunderstand, Pool isn't "covering" them as a journalist he holds or is sympathetic to these views and is promoting them. The NYT describes his podcast as "an extreme right-wing podcast" and says that it has "been criticized as a vector for conspiracy theories"[1]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalizing this page with personal opinion bias that VERY clearly violates the Wikipedia neutrality policy. To claim that Tim Pool is a far right activist as a statement of fact is blatantly in violation. Regardless of your personal feeling about Tim Pool, stating his political views based on media outlet opinion pieces go against the very heart of wikipedia. DanMan3395 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The second source: "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65539698" makes no claim about Tim pool's political affiliation at all. It is an article that shows that a criminal followed him on social media.
BOTH of these articles rely on social media which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The content in dispute is a CLEAR violation of the Wikipedia policy on neutrality in subject matter. Lastly, the content in question is NOT a statement of fact, but rather a ridiculously biased opinion of SOME editors.
DanMan3395, the BBC source clearlys says "Mr Pool's podcasts, which cover right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories." There is nothing violating neutrality just because you don't agree with high quality, reputable sources. – notwally (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That quote is not cited, nor is the focus of the article even about the subject matter. This most certainly DOES violate the Wikipedia neutrality policy as you are merely expressing your personal bias with substantially low quality sources. The rules on this are especially strict when it comes to biographical pages about people. Please stop putting opinion on this page. Move that note to the section about his podcast's content and cite the view as the opinion of the BBC writer that published your source. DanMan3395 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
That article is already cited, and there are numerous other sources to support the use of "right wing", which has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page. The BBC is about as high quality a news source as one can get and is not "substantially low quality" as you claim. Your POV is not given more weight than major, respected newspapers. You are wrong about the policies and the sources, and you need to stop your editing warring. In the past week, you have been reverted by at least four other editors including me (EvergreenFir, Newimpartial, Ponyo) for your WP:Tendentious editing. – notwally (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
