Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

excess detail in lead

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, this edit is putting excessive detail in the lead[[1]]. The lead is a summary of the article and should have high level statements. Supporting details such as specific examples which support the statements of the lead are for the body of the article. This content was reverted by two editors so it really needs consensus before being added to the lead. Springee (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, the edit above has now been opposed by 3 editors, myself, Volteer1 and Spy-cicle. Please use the talk page to make a case for this content in the lead. Springee (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of adding this sentence is that it illustrates the point about his statements being sexist and racist. It is just one sentence, not undue weight. More users support including the material than excluding it. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the lead, we don't need to illustrate the point. Point illustration happens in the body of the article. Additionally, after 3 editors reverted your change you need to understand that there isn't consensus for that edit. You might make a case here and change minds but you should not restore the content before then. 03:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, Springee and Volteer1, I want to suggest to you, from WP:BRB: Bold, revert, bold again, which says "try a different edit" to find a consensus, and "It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other editor objected to your change." Llll5032 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

This is pretty incredible: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/16/tucker-carlsons-tinfoil-hat-theory-blaming-fbi-jan-6/

Yes, but again we can't have every loony thing he says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The edits that I have made are not radical ones. There is no evidence that he spoke up against legal immigration. He has, though, been an active opponent of illegal immigration. Also, the other changes were just realignment of the information.

Yes they are, its why they have been reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Positions/opinions bloat

Do we really need 20+ sections detailing what Carlson has said about specific issues? In the articles of historical political commentators (e.g. William F. Buckley Jr., there aren't lots of sections about specific issues. What will a person in 10, 20, 50 years need to know? Not specific issues, only the most important ones. And even these can be amalgamated into larger paragraphs/sections about someone's political views. The categorization of issues into sections itself smells of WP:RECENTISM, and plagues articles about modern politicians and commentators (especially Americans) across English Wikipedia. There are other websites better suited to this, like ontheissues.org and Ballotpedia. Wikinights (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Do ontheissues.org and Ballotpedia list the opinions of prominent commentators who have not run for office? Llll5032 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking mainly of politicians when I mentioned those sites. Neither has an article about Carlson's political views (as I checked with a quick search). That still doesn't justify political position bloat/cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not, either, a collection of any information that other sites have not compiled. Wikinights (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

JzG/Guy had a nice way to look at this. How long is the article vs that off someone who was really significant like Robert Hooke. Think of it as a second Hooke's Law. Certainly this has way too much play by play. This is especially true when it can be nicely summed up as Carlson says things that churn up media talking headsvwho then comment on Carlson's comments rather than important topics. Very few instances rise to the level of any 10 year test and most are quickly forgotten. Springee (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is deciding what to include and exclude. How can we tell what are the important views?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree and some hindsight helps. After a month or a year or 10 years, we can summarize parts of the article that get too detailed, as WP:10YT suggests. Llll5032 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

New WaPo profile

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tucker-carlson/2021/07/13/398fa720-dd9f-11eb-a501-0e69b5d012e5_story.html

No real new information, but underscores the thread of white nationalism and white grievance that defines him.

There is no hint of white nationalism or grievance to be seen.sbelknap (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

4.6 Immigration and race is a dumpster fire

It is nothing short of a hit piece. It appears that someone didn't like his views and decided to write a bunch of bad stuff. "has been described by various writers as demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants" by which writers? What is their evidence? This is not supposed to be an article based on Wikipedian's opinions, or on "writers'" opinions. We put the facts on what he has said, not what university professors say about him. Josh Theta (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Like the whole entire first paragraph is just opinions from professors and progressive organizations. Shouldn't we cut it out? It would be a shame to not be neutral by only showing people that don't like him. Josh Theta (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

by which writers? I see seven citations after the sentence. soibangla (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is character assassination, pure and simple. There is no linkage to actual statements or acts by Carlson. This violates WP:BLP. Removed. sbelknap (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• When the cited articles quote thing's the subject has said, that's kindof the connection there to things he said. GMG^talk 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be a shame to not be neutral by only showing people that don't like him. I encourage you to provide content showing people who praise him. soibangla (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We could include people praising him when quoted by a secondary WP:RS.

Llll5032 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect much of the negative content about Carlson in the current article is effectively primary sourced. That is a reporter from [news network] saying "Carlson invoked X when saying Y". Springee (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's almost all WP:SECONDARY by Wikipedia's definition ("an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event"). But secondary "positive" appraisals in a WP:RS ("influential", "important voice", "quick-witted") can also be good to include. Llll5032 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see JT's concerns. The section isn't so much a summary as it is a collection of quotes and interpretations often taken from sources that are critical or hostile to Carlson. When given full context it is possible that some of these statements are either less inflammatory than as presented or a reasonable view on a subject presented with a health dose of hyperbolic rhetoric. It's certainly not clear that all of the included content is really DUE (ie passes things like the 10 year test) vs is just a list of "outrage of the week" moments. Consider the offensive comments made as part of the Bubble Love Sponge show. Should those comments made 15 years (or so) ago be taken as true to his feelings on a topic or just that he was engaging in insensitive humor? How much of his rhetoric is is true feeling vs just trying to be a contrarian (successful or otherwise) and pointing out flaws in the thinking of the other side. Much of the included content might be good material for a biographical author to draw conclusions from but many not actually be good content on which to establish his own personal views. Unfortunately when so much raw content is added in a way that comes across as non-stop criticism vs thoughtful analysis it can easily come across as a hit piece. A big part part of the problem is Carlson's comments, for what ever reason, get a lot of "next day" replies by the usual list of RSs who's talking heads say why Carlson was wrong. Unlike say a president who died a century ago, we don't have a lot of dispassionate sources creating summary biographies for us to draw upon. I do think there are things we can do to make the article better within WP's sourcing/NPOV rules. The first would be to use a summary style when covering topics. We should avoid "sound bite" quotes and instead try to summarize what was said and try to avoid using word that suggest doubt. If sources say Carlson was wrong we let the sources say so, we only need to impartially offer what Carlson said and the replies of others. This incidentally applies for car more than just this article. Springee (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We should summarize where we can, and especially follow WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE, as well as WP:10YT, WP:RELIABILITY, WP:NPOV and WP:FACTCHECK. They remind us to go by the secondary RSs, be fair and factual, and per WP:BLPSTYLE, avoid "both understatement and overstatement". Llll5032 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The immigration section is blatantly in violation of WP:BLP. Yet, it stands. Various opinions are provided without linkage to facts or context. I favor deleting this section. sbelknap (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." BLP does not require "linkage to facts or context" for this, although I think the immigration section includes it. Llll5032 (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

sbelknap, previously you incorrectly asserted There is no linkage to actual statements or acts by Carlson as a premise to assert This violates WP:BLP. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that my assertion was and is correct. sbelknap (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You believe. soibangla (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's like saying "I believe that my assertion that there are two suns in the sky was and is correct". And such assertions from that person are not uncommon (e.g., he asserts on his talk page that it's an "indisputable fact" that "the Russian collusion hoax is a hoax", in justifying his edit warring on the Rachel Maddow article). -- Jibal (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We can’t have it both ways. If we listed every piece of evidence for “has been described by various writers as demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants“ - would that pass the WP:10YT? If we don’t include the evidence then we violate WP:BLP? starship.paint (exalt) 02:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The objections here are from ideologues intent on defending the subject, who have no familiarity with or no concern for Wikipedia policy. P.S. I don't need lectures on civility from the very sort of person I'm talking about (who above indicates not even knowing what primary and secondary sources are and below indicates not knowing what impartiality is); I've had run-ins with this one before, including lies about me and attempts to get me banned based on bogus sockpuppet charges rejected by Checkuser and honest editors. I will ignore their personal comments about me from here on as they are just so much noise that has nothing to do with the purpose of this page. (OTOH, it's relevant to note that the objections here about violations of [[WP::BLP]] and such are completely bogus.) -- Jibal (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, you are talking about how Wikipedia is meant to work. That includes wp:CIVIL. When you suggest editors are working from ideological and don't care about Wikipedia policy (note IMPARTIAL is policy) you are not fostering civil discussions/disagreement. Please focus on the arguments, not the motives of the editors (or what you feel the motives are). Springee (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"has been described as a nationalist"

This phrase was added to the lead one year ago, with three references dating to 2018 and 2019. Since then, Carlson's rhetoric has sharpened, such that he is now being described as a white nationalist, or even a "white supremacist."[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Comments? soibangla (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The term "white supremacist", like the term "conspiracy theory", seems to have become a catch-all phrase in some media outlets for just about anything they disagree with. (They join earlier terms like "racist" and "fascist", which once had real meaning but no longer do.) That said, I don't see evidence that anyone other than ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt (not a reliable source, of course) is directly calling Carlson a white supremacist or white nationalist. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

some media outlets Reliable media outlets, or perhaps social media bloviators who get conflated with "the media?" Why is ADL not a reliable source? Because some call them and SPLC "the real racists" to deflect and project so as to gaslight? soibangla (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Who are "some"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The ADL is I think by definition not a reliable source because they're a political advocacy group - and, since 2014, a rather openly partisan one once they made a Democratic political operative their head. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Does being a political advocacy group make a source unreliable, or does a demonstrable history of falsehoods and lies? soibangla (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Either one, I suppose. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet ADL and SPLC are green on WP:RSP. Bias ≠ lying. But we digress. soibangla (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources call Carlson a white nationalist. The first source for example says he has used white nationalist rhetoric, but then so have Bill and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. In fact all three pursued racist policies such as mass incarceration. The information the sources talk about is already in the article. BTW the ADL is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. TFD (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have checked that page - I didn't think the ADL would be classified as reliable. Still the page states that "there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed." And labelling of individuals is exactly the case here. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine, we can add The ADL, SPLC and others have described... As it stands now, the current language makes no attributions. No sweat. soibangla (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's examine the first source, AP:

The Anti-Defamation League has called for Fox News to fire prime-time opinion host Tucker Carlson because he defended a white-supremacist theory that says whites are being “replaced” by people of color...The white-nationalist “great replacement theory,” otherwise known as “white genocide,” says people of color are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

So yes, it doesn't explicitly say "Tucker Carlson is a white nationalist," but it does say he has been described as such, just not as explicitly like the previous sentence. Our current language says he has been described as a nationalist. And this is not the BLP for Bill, HRC or Joe. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That's your conclusion, which cannot be accepted per no synthesis. My point was we don't automatically describe people as white supremacists just because they have supported white supremacist theories, legislation or policies. Neither does the ADL for that matter. TFD (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But we describe him as a nationalist because he has supported nationalist theories. Do I have that right? I'd venture a guess that countless BLPs describe people as things because they've supported those things, and reliable sources have reported it. Right? soibangla (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Atlantic article[8] described him as a nationalist. I think we can follow the sources. If the RS are describing his commentary or his actions but not him, then we can do the same (per WP:BLPSTYLE). Llll5032 (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But again, that article is from 2019, but Carlson's rhetoric has sharpened since then, very notably in recent months, which the more recent sources I provided reflect. soibangla (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should reflect the descriptions that your recent sources use, "avoiding both understatement and overstatement", and "summarize how actions and achievements are characterized" by RS per WP:BLPSTYLE. Llll5032 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support of one theory does not necessarily make one a white supremacist. You would need a reliable secondary source that explicitly made that conclusion. Support of one of Bernie Sanders' policies for example does not make one a socialist, otherwise Joe Biden is a socialist. (Only partisan Republicans would make that conclusion.) The Atlantic article btw is about "National Conservatism," a right-wing group that Carlson helped organize. it would be more useful to describe Carlson's involvement in the group rather than use it to label him a nationalist. American nationalism is btw such an obscure term that it needs explanation. the article describes it as civic nationalism, which excludes National Conservatism. TFD (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We call him a white nationalist or white supremacist if enough RS do, and no RS challenge it (challenges it means they say it's not true, not that they do not use the term). So do any RS challenge the term?Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

None of the rs provided call him a white nationalist or white supremacist. Incidentally, we don't necessarily use every single description that appears in some reliable source somewhere, we only do so if it meets weight. In any case, this is working backwards. We are supposed to summarize what rs say, not decide what we want to say and look for sources. TFD (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This looks to be part of the unfortunate trend of Wiki articles to try to put scarlet letters in the lead of articles when ever possible. Springee (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee, please try to assume good faith and refrain from accusing editors of adding "scarlet letters". This looks more like an effort to update the article to reflect the current body of coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a wide spread problem on Wikipedia and has been discussed a number of times. It's not editors acting in bad faith, it's just bad editing. Springee (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ADL, a reliable source, is cited by AP saying Carlson's invocation of Great Replacement, which we define as "a white nationalist conspiracy theory," as a "white supremacist trope." VDARE, which we write is "associated with white supremacy, white nationalism, Neo-Nazism" hailed Carlson's invocation as "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired."[9]. Nick Fuentes, who we write is a white nationalist and who said days ago he would deliver "the most racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying speech" at CPAC, hailed Carlson's invocation by saying, "This week Tucker redpilled 4 million people and there is nothing liberals can do about it...Demographic replacement, ADL, Israel, it’s all there."[10] So we don't merely rely on what sources call people in their voice, or what critics say, but also on what those sources report on what like-minded people say in their voices, which is essentially "he's one of us." Perhaps you should consider that I did not work backwards and "decide what we want to say and look for sources," but rather maybe I pay closer attention to these matters than others do and/or others succumb to cognitive dissonance because they do not want to accept certain things that contradict their beliefs. I have a very strong sense the latter has been present in this article for quite some time. soibangla (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It can't imply it or infer it, it must say it. It must say "tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" or some such. Anything else breaches wp:or and wp:synthais.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, our current language does not cite sources calling him a nationalist. Rather it cites sources to support he "has been described as a nationalist." Such language is common in BLPs. And Carlson's rhetoric has caused people to now describe him as a white nationalist, most notably people whom Wikipedia characterizes as white nationalists. The current language of nationalist has stood for a year, but now that the word white has qualified that characterization, some suddenly want to make an exception. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, We can't assign a WP:LABEL to him that so far the RS have not. But making the article reflect more clearly what RS are saying about his commentary and its historic significance is WP:DUE. Llll5032 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have not proposed specific language as yet, but it would not be a label, rather a characterization of his rhetoric based on who has criticized or praised it. soibangla (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, I would strongly suggest striking this comment: others succumb to cognitive dissonance because they do not want to accept certain things that contradict their beliefs. I have a very strong sense the latter has been present in this article for quite some time. It violates FOC as you are ascribing motives (and personal attacks) to those who oppose your proposed changes. Springee (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the main complaints about Fox News hosts and MAGA extremists is that they use weasel words, unattributed attributions and jumps in logic. A good way to discredit them is not to adopt those propaganda techniques yourself. TFD (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

response on your Talk soibangla (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• The ADL remarks have been covered widely: Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, Haaretz to name a few. The level of coverage among reliable sources is what matters; the reliability of the ADL itself is irrelevant here (although it is a reliable source in its own right). We also have several opinion/commentary sources that explicitly use "white supremacist": MSNBC, HuffPost, WGBH which demonstrate the prominence of this viewpoint when taken together. This certainly merits a mention in the lead, but it might be more appropriate to phrase it as "has promoted white supremacist theories" or similar to more closely match the sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave, this thorough and up-to-date RS article could be a good source of wording. Llll5032 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The views of the ADL don't belong in the lead, I don't think: he's had a 30-year-long career, hosts the #1 cable news program in the US, and has had thousands of articles written about him, so the fact that one organization at one point responded negatively to something he said hardly counts as life-defining. The same goes for all the hit pieces cited above, like the WGBH opinion piece that hilariously states that "the belief that real Americans, defined by Carlson as people who were born here, have the right not to have to compete for political power with newcomers" is "racism in its purest form". (Whether or not it's desirable for the U.S. to restrict immigration, I'm sure everyone here can think of some purer forms of racism than that.) Lots of opinions have been expressed about Carlson, and many of them belong in this article, but these particular views are hardly important (or, I would say, coherent) enough to be mentioned in the intro. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the opinion commentaries should not be used for this, but I think citing the ADL as part of a summary in the top section is defensible, because its call for his firing was about an argument he has made for several years. Overall the top is better for larger themes than most specific events, though. Per MOS:LEADBIO, "When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm." Llll5032 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination views

@Soibangla and Korny O'Near:, I think this content should probably be discussed [11]. Looking at the NPR and AP sources, I don't see that either mention Carlson (simply keyword search so perhaps I missed it). If neither source mentions Carlson why are they included in the paragraph? It does appear that the content Korny O'Near reverted was SYTHN since neither source mentioned Carlson. That said, is this content even DUE? Again, we have a lot of "Carlson said X that Y says isn't true" examples. The article really needs a through culling of such examples. In this case it appears that The Independent is the only source that has discussed this in context of Carlson. That would suggest the whole thing is UNDUE or we need to find additional sources that discuss Carlson's statements. Springee (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes we should be wary of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK when a source does not mention him by name. Llll5032 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, I disagree this is SYNTH because he's not mentioned in the sources. We commonly say "this guy said something contrary to what experts say." I see you removed it, but I think it should be included at least in briefer form because he emphatically said (see video in source) it was a "lie" though there are experts who had been saying otherwise for days/weeks. Then he says viewers shouldn't take medical advice from people on television — such as, you know...him. He's effectively saying "the experts are lying, trust only me." That's quite some gaslighting. soibangla (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, don't we already state his accusations of "lying" at the start of the paragraph? "In 2021, Carlson ran segments that misrepresented the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and asserted that U.S. officials were "lying" about them." I have now added a ref to this monologue as one of the examples. Llll5032 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In any event, I disagree with the premise it's SYNTH. soibangla (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It is SYNTH because it stitches together sources that had nothing to do with Carlson with another source to suggest an evaluation of Carlson's statements which was never made. The two sources that don't mention Carlson would likely agree but they never commented on thus synth. Springee (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, since the other articles are not replying to what Carlson said we should not imply they are. If this were covered by a large number of sources it would be easier to reliably report what sources say about this incident. However, with just one source it's questionable if the content should be included at all. Regardless, the SYNTH concern is valid. Springee (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

NSA spying

Is it worth adding this? https://deadline.com/2021/06/tucker-carlson-nsa-spy-claim-jen-psaki-fox-news-1234783858/ AMDG09 (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would we?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a whole section of alleged spying from the NSA, not sure if you meant to add in a section or add in this particular source? Eruditess (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think AMDG09 is just talking about the source. I added it to the article. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Tucker Carlson's 24-year-old adult son Buckley Carlson was recently hired by U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Indiana) as his communications director. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And this is mentionable why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest given Carlson's occupation? Is that notable enough to include? ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If several RS reported it, it could merit inclusion, for the same reasons the article includes information on his other relatives. Are there reasons to exclude it? WP:BLPNAME could guide us. Llll5032 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

Please check on party affiliation and their dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.255.79.200 (talk) 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kleinpecan (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ivermectin

Just FYI, Llll5032: It was more than just a Carlson guest and the CNN source said it was Carlson

soibangla (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, thanks for the June 29 clip. CNN said TC "mentioned" the drug, so you could use that word if you think it is better. Llll5032 (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Maddow just successfully defended a defamation lawsuit because she argued her statements were humor and exaggeration not fact.[12] While you may take clowns seriously, they fail rs. (Some people actually find them scary.) TFD (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I knew it. I knew someone would focus on Maddow, but she has nothing to do with this. I found that video in a Yahoo article by googling tucker ivermectin. I couldn't care less what Maddow says, I don't watch MSNBC. I simply refer to the Tucker segment in the clip to show here on Talk that the CNN source was correct to attribute to Carlson rather than to his guest. I do not propose using the clip in the article.soibangla (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

At what point do we trim down much of this COVID material. This article isn't so much a biography as a running list of things Carlson has said that other people complained about. If that is the objective fine but it seems to fail the idea that we are meant to summarize the subject. As a tongue in cheek rule I would suggest that we have a 1:1 text exchange rate for this article. If you want to add something new you have to remove an equal amount of text. Springee (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the material is consequential and satisfies WP:PROPORTION because of the number of sources involved ("treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"), but I agree that we could reduce some of the quotes per WP:OVERQUOTING. Llll5032 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I shortened the section a little. I agree that this section and some others in the article could be summarized more per WP:10YT. Llll5032 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Cutting the quotes does help but even with that too many sections of this biography are play by play lists vs any sort of summary. Perhaps when this becomes a past tense vs current tense pandemic it will be easier to clean things up. Springee (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: as a minor thing unrelated to the point of your message, that YouTube video appears to be violating MSNBC's copyright, so it's probably best to remove it from your comment as per WP:LINKVIO (it and related guidelines don't actually mention talk pages explicitly, but I assume it would apply here also?). FWIW I think the sentence in the article about ivermectin is fine to include and that it's correct to attribute it to Carlson. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Tucker Carlson has been a Republican since the year 2000. The page states that he was a Democrat from 2006-2020. Correct information is Republican from 2000 - present day. Wiki brain 2001 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Republican 2000- present Wiki brain 2001 (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post (quoting the DC Board of Elections and Ethics) and Business Insider (quoting Carlson himself) support the current text. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? –dlthewave ☎ 04:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Does it support the current text, though? I don't want to give the party thing because it's actually misleading. I never vote so that's the truth. ... I'm registered with a party that I sincerely despise because I think it's really a force for bad in this country and it's the Democratic party. But I'm registered because I live in the district, it's a one-party state and the one election I always vote in is the mayor's race. I don't think being registered for a party you don't support (in fact that you sincerely despise) and never vote for, due to some local mayoral politics, means we should put it in the infobox. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I restored his current party registration, which is relevant regardless of questions about his past registration. Llll5032 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha

I added a sentence describing Carlson's commentary about the Kenosha shootings. Last year, some editors raised concerns about WP:RECENTISM[13][14], but the ongoing mentions by RS this year [15][16][17] indicate it should be included per WP:PROPORTION ("proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"). Llll5032 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fascism

Agree with the characterization of Carlson as a fascist or don't, the fact that he has increasingly been described by mainstream outlets as allying himself with or displaying sympathy for fascism ought to be mentioned in the article. Right now, the words "fascist" or "fascism" are not found anywhere in the article. Sources: New York Magazine Vanity Fair FAIR The Atlantic The Washington Post Charlie Sykes -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Last episode of his show that I watched, there was information about social media censorship, open borders and vaccine mandates. Are going to give a soapbox to his competitors who want to call him a fascist? He often has Candice Owen on his show; is she also a fascist? Wiki particles should not become compendiums for the character assassination-of-the-month club.Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SECONDARY, articles can only repeat assessments that reliable secondary sources make: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Llll5032 (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

How would you summarize these pieces? They don't seem to have much commonality in what they're saying, other than they all mention both Carlson and fascism. (Also, not all of these are reliable and/or mainstream sources.) Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source that makes the statement that he has been increasing described as close to fascism, not just your personal observations. Democrats have been calling Republicans fascists for a long time. TFD (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

He is also openly supporting the white nationalist Great Replacement Theory. The amount of denialism on here of his support for white nationalism & conspiracy, given the long list of secondary & direct sources is astounding. "Democrats have been calling Republicans fascists for a long time." is a fallacious argument in multiple ways & no way disproves that Carlson is a white nationalist. JanderVK (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We are trying to follow WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which say any analysis in the article must be expressed by reliable secondary sources. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." What changes are you suggesting? Llll5032 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should be able to do better than magazines and newspapers to describe a political commentators theories. Find a source from an academic of political science or Political history, and frankly Fascism has nothing to do with 'white nationalism'. Wikiwall32 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course we prefer to use academic sources when they're available. However, most coverage of current events is found in magazines and newspapers which are perfectly fine to use here. –dlthewave ☎ 14:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanity Fair says "For years, Tucker Carlson has used his Fox News program to flirt with fascist and white nationalist talking points." FAIR says "The Daily Beast’s report that Fox News host Tucker Carlson would speak at “MCC Feszt, a far-right conference in Budapest that is backed by Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbán,” may just be one item on the host’s long list of potentially racist and fascist-friendly acts." The other sources in the list don't say this sort of thing, so might need couple more mainstream sources to add something, and would need to word it carefully. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is a really questionable source for such a BLP related claim. Given the BLP implications here we really need solid sourcing, not op-eds or low quality commentary. Sadly, the media has found that these "so and so said something shocking!" articles are cheap and easy to produce thus we are flooded with them. Springee (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify: I don't think our article should say anything like "Carlson is a fascist" or "Carlson flirts with fascism". But if there are multiple noteworthy or reliable sources saying that sort of thing, it would become due to say something like "Carlson has been widely criticised for flirting with fascism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Springee, we've had multiple RfCs about Vanity Fair and it's considered generally reliable. If you don't think this article meets their normally high-quality reporting standard, I would suggest opening a discussion as RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 13:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally but also noted for having a strong bias. If this was VF saying Carlson was skiing in Tahoe, sure. When VF engages in commentary to make red flag claims about a BLP subject, that is when we should be very careful. Springee (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

MCC Feszt was in Esztergom. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In order to call Tucker Carlson a fascist, we would need an expert source that said so that had wide acceptance. See WP:REDFLAG or WP:NEWSORG. Imagine you were writing a textbook on modern ideology. Would you use an article in Vanity Fair for analysis or expert opinion? And being racist or extreme right does not necessarily equate to fascism. America has a long history of racism, beginning with genocide aginst aboriginal people and the enslavement of Africans. It's not something they imported out of mid-20th century Italy. TFD (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

But we're not writing a textbook, are we? –dlthewave ☎ 15:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We are writing a BLP so we need to err on the side of not adding contentious claims about the subject. Springee (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia which has reliability as one of its objectives. And that means that we should have a high degree of confidence that the sources we use are accurate for the types of claims they make, just as if we were writing a textbook. I would not expect to see alternative facts in Wikipedia articles compared with those in standard textbooks. In fact standard textbooks and other academic writing are considered the best sources for articles, per policy and guidelines.

Following WW2, some American social scientists tried to link the Tucker Carlsons of their time to Italian fascism or to mental illness or both. That perspective changed in the 1950s, when historians and sociologists began connecting them with U.S. history instead, in particular populism. Today social scientists no longer call them fascists. See for example Sara Diamond's Roads to Dominion: Right-wing Movements and Political Power ... or Chip Berlet's Eyes Right: Too Close for Comfort.

Let's not be like Tucker Carlson and mistrust the experts.

TFD (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

There is a huge lie in the description. He is not a critic of immigration he is a critic of ILLEGAL immigration, huge difference.

^ I second this. Same as above. Tucker criticized ILLEGAL immigration. That is a totally different concept and to leave this article as it is without that distinction renders it dubious.

Furthermore, leading the article with the words "paleoconservative" before introducing Tucker as an "American television news program host" leaves it incompatible with similar articles such as the one about Rachel Maddow. It seems that Tucker is treated with a subjective disdain not present in other articles.

2601:284:4100:2DB0:E824:5B23:AB15:337A (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's *mostly* "illegal" immigration which Tucker speaks out against. But he's also speaking out against the illicit use of illegal immigration towards the aim of "replacement" of the current USA middle and working class citizens. His thesis, currently, appears to be that the Biden Administration has swung the door wide open, totally ignoring the immigration laws, with an illicit aim in mind ("replacement"). I think the confusion comes because if the Executive refuses to enforce immigration laws, the laws are still on the books, so transgressors of them are indeed acting illegally. However, if the Executive will not enforce the laws, then there is no finding of illegality against the transgressors. Thus, the immigrants who just walk into the USA against the law, are indeed acting illegally; but have not been founds to have broken any laws. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Article currently notes with several sources that he has criticized both legal and illegal immigration. Feel free to discuss potentially changing the wording here on the talk page but that would be outside the scope of a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion, coming at it from a different angle: Insofar as Carlson's commentary is racist and nationalist, his words negatively depict and affect immigrants, i.e. real people who have immigrated. This is regardless of what he might say/believe about his concept of immigration. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Party Registration

Multiple Reliable Sources have written that Tucker Carlson is a registered Democrat. His political party seems like it should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.105.199.90 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources in the Tucker Carlson#Political parties section suggest that he has been a registered Republican since 2020. If you have access to different sources, please share them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the names of Carlson's four children. They are (from oldest to youngest): Lillie, Buckley, Hopie, and Dorothy. Buckley is the only son, and the other three are daughters. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Page length

Why does this person have such a lengthy Wiki page? He is remarkably unremarkable

I would agree, but can you suggest anything we need to cut out?Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The page is long because Tucker Carlson has been the subject of a great deal of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia editors are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - summarizing what the sources say for the benefit of our readers. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Then should the Wikipedia editors do the same for his contemporary talking heads? His page is far longer than that of anyone else in his field, even Walter Cronkite gets less.

If you feel that there is something wrong with the Walter Cronkite article, please suggest improvements at Talk:Walter Cronkite. Good luck and thank you for improving Wikipedia! --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Cronkite's page, I'm pointing out that Carlson's page is far too long. e.g. ""Regulations Carlson said in 2004, "I hate all nanny-state regulations, such as seat belt laws and smoking bans."[21]" Why is his opinion on every topic regurgitated here? This is not the case for any of his contemporaries, so I suspect he does it himself. This page reads like a mouthpiece for his views rather than a biog.

I think we could reduce all the "He said" content to "Carlson has made a number of controversial statements on issues such as..." and just list the issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely agree on cutting down the play by play content. Sadly, I think the only way for that to happen is if an editor is simply BOLD and understands that they will cut out some other editor's favorite bit of "Carlson did X" from the article. It would be great to find more summary content though at this point Carlson is basically a RECENT person. We don't have many retrospective or summary works and many of the articles about him seem to be aimed at triggering anger type responses in their readers to generate the same sort of clicks Carlson's own work seeks (other than the sides of the political fence of course). As an example, consider how many sources gleefully noted that Carlson's show isn't news per anti-defamation case against his show. A similar lawsuit against a show on the other side of the political spectrum had a similar outcome (and identical defense) but the media largely ignored it. Either the other show is less significant or simply on the correct side of things. Anyway, I think this is why a neutral, RS summary of Carlson would be hard to find. It doesn't generate clicks. Thus we have to work with what we have. Springee (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think if anybody were to do this those changes would probably be reverted / edit-warred. It is only natural for an article about a person who is under a great deal of public attention to keep on growing. There will come a time when he is no longer in the limelight when editors who have the benefit of hindsight will be able to sort out which of his statements are important. Until then, everybody should feel free to remove gossipy, opiniony unreliable sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Some may have thought a time when he is no longer in the limelight would come soon, but his influence has only grown, now he has the largest audience in cable news. He is very influential. feel free to remove gossipy, opiniony unreliable sources indeed, as always, to the extent they exist here or anywhere else. But for the time being I object to major removals from the article, though didn't someone recently create a "Tucker Carlson statements" or some such article but it was deleted? Maybe we should revisit that idea. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel the same. The article is long because right now this subject is important and relevant to a lot of people. There's no obvious way to cut down the article without removing a great deal of well-sourced information that some editors would consider to be important. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If something has WP:SIGCOV, we as editors cover it with WP:DUEWEIGHT respectively to how pertinent it is to the topic. Sometimes people may breach WP:RECENTISM because the media can be very sensationalist (Usually because it helps ratings). At this moment though he is a controversial figure who is getting a lot of attention. EliteArcher88 (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A possible worthwhile addition

This site- https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/lisa-lombardi-vaughan-obituary?id=20104226 - corroborates the Casetext source already cited, giving Lisa McNear née Lombardi formerly Carlson as "LISA McNEAR LOMBARDI VAUGHAN"; since the Tucker father's remarriage is covered in the article it would seem useful to note her subsequent marriage to artist Michael Vaughan, as per the death notice, partially because it clarifies the "Vaughan" in the other cited source (also, as that latter source states, her complete estrangement from her sons, they being unmentioned in the death notice); at any rate some mention of "Vaughan", that being her legal name at death, seems warranted, if not immensely important. Some of the sources cited here - https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lombardi-59 - possibly also of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.58 (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No it is not "Immensely important" and tells us nothing about the subject of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's the kind of small detail often included in such biographical articles. At any rate I do not care to push the matter, merely raised it for consideration. Not sure why you've adopted this "hardass" tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.58 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's called an objection do not personalize this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I don't expect much from Wikipedia editors anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.58 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You comment on content not editors.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

As written Carlson is described as being a “critic of immigration” without any citation. It would be much more accurate if it said “illegal immigration”, which is immigration or attempts to immigrate illegally; and is nevertheless sometimes seemingly condoned by government officials. There are troves of evidence of his criticism of illegal immigration on his nightly show. Truth is transcendent (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We'll need some of those "troves of evidence" to support your claim - FlightTime (open channel) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)