Wikipedia

Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 4

< Talk:Tucker Carlson
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Springee in topic Peter D'Abrosca mention
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

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

Latest comment: 5 years ago94 comments30 people in discussion
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Participants disagree as to whether the text should be included: some argue that it is reliably sourced, while others argue that this represents WP:UNDUE and is inappropriate in a WP:BLP. Given that opinion is evenly divided, it is clear that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

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 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. 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)

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)
  • Include - This is now a defining trait of the topic. The quantity and quality of sources covering this behavior have steadily increased over the past few years. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Include The lead summarizes the body, and there's a substantial section devoted to this issue. IMHO: controversies belong in the lead when they've had a substantial impact on a person's career or public image or legacy. Carlson's lengthy string of race-related controversies and his loss of advertisers fits that bill. Nblund talk 22:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not include this in the lead:

  • --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include: There is an article about the show. If we add this shouldn't we add those claims in Stephen Colbert's article or Bill Maher's article or any number of other people who have a national audience and small handful of people throw the word at them. --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)
There may be some truth to this. There are indications that the term racist is undergoing a redefinition. This article seems to suggest that the term racist is becoming more "capacious". Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 29 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)
The only part of Markbassett's above post I disagree with is "Cheers". I feel its use should be reserved for a moment before imbibing a beverage. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
there’s just not that much of the article on this In fact, it's extensively discussed in the article, which is why it should be succinctly mentioned in the lead. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
No, "racism" is only mentioned twice and one of those is about him denouncing it. The section "Immigration and Racism" seems more about being against massive unregulated immigration -- and that called racist; or his defending the nuclear family - and that denounced as white supremacist; or comments circa 2007 about Iraq being not worth invading from a MMfA group he has been feuding with; etcetera. So ... not anything of his declaring himself racist or him directly supporting racism. And it's just some critics in a few points in his life, of no widespread press usage and no enduring impact so ... again, do not include this in the lead. Just not supported. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include the whole "immigration and race" section and South Africa sub-section are massively bloated (26,000 bytes!) and unduly cover every possible immigration-related controversy statement. Honestly, a piece in CNN Business, Business Insider, Vox and GQ is not overwhelmingly broad coverage – SPLC's Heidi Beirich calls it white nationalism in the left-wing partisan Salon, but I can't find them stating that on their own webpage. The progressive watchdog Media Matters for America, that has launched a "War on Fox News", is mentioned in almost all of these sources, so probably criticism on Carlson is also part of their campaigning. For these reasons, I would be hesitant to park this kind of criticism in the lead section of this BLP given the hyperpartisan nature of it. --Pudeo (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The section also cites criticism from Bill Kristol. The coverage of this in mainstream sources is really quite broad. Among others: Columbia Journalism Review, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the The Hill have all covered Carlson's multiple race-related controversies as more than just a single isolated event. The The National Review, The Washington Times and the Washington Examiner have also covered various allegations of racism in editorials or news. There's obviously a partisan element to the criticism, but Wikipedia discusses partisan controversies if they're notable. Nblund talk 19:31, 9 September 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)
Not in the lead. See the inputs above .... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:39, 8 September 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 [[8]]. 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 [[9]] 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)
El_C: After extensive discussion over 12+ days, by my count there are 12 votes for inclusion and 9 votes for exclusion. I submit there is consensus for inclusion and recommend 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 be added to the lead and this topic closed accordingly. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
If we go for pure vote (and remember this isn't a vote) then I usually see it this way: 1/3 favor is consensus against, 2/3 favor is consensus for. In between is no consensus. We are in that middle ground and we are dealing with a BLP so we should err on the side of excluding if the content is contested. Springee (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus is not "the result of a vote". From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I really am not sure why you're pinging me here. I don't intend to be the one who closes this RfC. You may wish to eventually list it on WP:ANRFC, however. El_C 17:57, 4 September 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)
See WP:FRINGE for why the opinions of The Daily Stormer are best ignored on articles such as this one. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
FRINGE: a "fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views"..."that must not be given undue weight in an article." The Daily Stormer is not providing a theory, they are providing an endorsement of a man who has 3.1 million viewers and a website with 19 million monthly visitors. Moreover, I do not propose citing Stormer in the article, but rather include it in Talk to garner support for including 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 in the lead, especially since the topic is extensively discussed in the body and the lead should note it. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they're providing a theory: that Tucker Carlson agrees with them, that he's their ally, that he hates Jews, etc. All of these may be true, but The Daily Stormer is not a good source to back up these claims. After all, they could just be wrong about all of this, just as (you would presumably agree) they're wrong about many other things. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, I am not proposing the Stormer be used as a ref in the article. I am presenting additional evidence in Talk, to supplement already overwhelming evidence, to justify inclusion of 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 in the lead, especially since the topic is extensively discussed in the body and, per policy, the lead should note it. soibangla (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

After extensive discussion over 10+ days, by my count there are 12 votes for inclusion and 8 votes for exclusion. I submit there is consensus for inclusion and recommend 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 be added to the lead and this topic closed accordingly. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think 12:8 is sufficient to claim consensus for inclusion. Also, the boycott material is about the show, not Carlson. Perhaps we should let an uninvolved editor decide. Springee (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Needs also to be noted that Malerooster attempted his hardest to sabotage this RfC by brazenly canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
1) Letting an uninvolved editor decide is like throwing out the current arguments and relying on a random pick. 2) Attempts to brazenly influence discussions do not always invalidate them. 3) Determining consensus is not purely voting.From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I want to note that the one who wrote the poll didn't actually make it as a RfC. Another editor came later and added the RfC tag. I believe the intention of the editor who wrote the poll was not to tag it as a RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

After extensive discussion over 17+ days, by my count there are 14 votes for inclusion and 11 votes for exclusion. I submit there is consensus for inclusion and recommend 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 be added to the lead and this topic closed accordingly. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's fairer to say there's no consensus either way. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
At 12 against and 13 for plus 1 only if said “accusations” it looks 50/50 for this wording — and is no consensus on including anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2019 (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.

Climate change guests

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I recently removed a statement (diff) that was sourced to this Business Insider article. The article does not address Carlson's show except in a tagline for a photo, which reads, "Tucker Carlson often hosts guests who downplay climate science on his show." The article is about a study funded by a "Democratic political strategy group", and does not connect it to Carlson. Given the non-consensus on the reliability of Business Insider (see WP:RSP) and the fact that the statement is a photo tagline rather than part of the article, I do not think we should include this statement without better sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Business Insider is a perfectly good source. While his name appears as a photo tagline, he is thus highlighted as an example of the climate change denialism found at Fox News. The connection is obvious, but editors are welcome to add more sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Denialism? In-text attribution, please. Atsme Talk 📧 20:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Adding - the group they cited brings up the following Page Not Found message: "It seems that Thanos has erased this page from existance. Hopefully, the Avengers will fix the situation soon." 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC) It's fixed now.
BullRangifer, Business Insider is not a reliable source according to WP:RSP, and it is reporting a partisan study that is not connected to Carlson in the article. Do you have a copy of the study to see if it makes a statement about Carlson's guests? I don't think it would appropriate to include contentious information from the Business Insider article if it is only found in a photo tagline and has no other support, especially on a BLP. If the statement is supported by the study, then I think it could be included but with attribution since it would be a biased source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going to address one thing and let others decide about the rest. You need to look at WP:RSP again, because what you're saying about Business Insider is not true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Business Insider is citing Global Strategy Group - In 2018 GSG created the Navigator Project, which produces monthly research targeted at helping progressive campaigns.[5] . Wallyfromdilbert is correct in that it's a partisan study (and not a neutral scientifically based one.) Atsme Talk 📧 21:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a copy of the full survey anywhere? Normally these types of studies do not have their full results released, and I can only find a summary memo (from the Business Insider article and the Daily Beast article cited by Business Insider). The memo does not mention Carlson at all. Do any other sources comment on his selection of guests on climate change? Sources seem to primarily focus on Carlson's own views on the topic. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The source is fine for the claim that "Carlson frequently hosts guests who downplay the scientific consensus on climate change." It is an uncontested fact reported by a reliable source, that appears to have nothing to do with the Navigator study. Unless there are other sources that say "Tucker Carlson hardly ever hosts guests who downplay climate science", the claim can be made in Wikipedia's voice per WP:WIKIVOICE, bullet 3. - MrX 🖋 23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
How is Business Insider a reliable source? WP:RSP says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
"No consensus" means neutral, IOW no change to the existing RS status. If they deprecate the source, then the status will be worse. You should start subscribing to BI. It's very centrist in its coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Deprecated sources are unreliable. Reliable sources are marked as reliable. No consensus means no consensus on whether reliable or unreliable. The Business Insider article under discussion here is an article that is repeating information from the Daily Beast about a partisan study that does not mention Carlson, and the content about Carlson is a photo tagline rather than the article content written by its author, which seems less reliable than even relying on a headline for content sourcing. Given the contentious nature of the statement, I don't see how the sourcing is reliable enough for a BLP, especially not without attribution. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources are perfectly fine for this addition. I see no consensus for its removal. Consensus is way on the inclusion side. ContentEditman (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate. I think Wally is correct in that this is poorly sourced. Using a caption blurb for such a significant claim is problematic. If the claim has any WEIGHT then it should be easy to find other sources that back it. Given Carlson's profile it should be easy to find a source that says his guests are not aligned with climate change consensus. If other sources can't be located then WEIGHT suggests removal. So from a pure wikilawyer POV I think Wally is correct. However, I also strongly suspect the claim is true based on the way Wikipedia defines climate change consensus. These might be sufficient [[10]], [[11]]. This was not an exhaustive search. Springee (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • There seems to be a clear consensus here that the Business Insider article is a reliable source for the information and that it can be included in the article. I still think attribution would be more appropriate, but given Springee's explanation, I'll drop the issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    – wallyfromdilbert just a FYI. The adfontesmedia Media Bias Chart is the best chart available. They are totally non-partisan. It rates both reliability and bias. To see the rating for a particular source, go to the bottom of the chart and find the source (small letters). Then click on it and a new page/slide opens which shows its placement. Click on Business Insider and other sources such as Fox News, Daily Caller, Washington Post, Washington Times, Breitbart, New York Times, BBC, etc. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    BullRangifer, I always appreciate additional information, but I would be more interested if you could post discussions that took place among Wikipedia editors. The source you provide does not seem reliable as it appears to be written and maintained solely by one person, Vanessa Otero, a patent attorney from Colorado [12]. It has a limited methodology and also contradicts some of the conclusions reached on Wikipedia, such presenting the Daily Mail as more reliable than many other sources (while Wikipedia considers it a deprecated source). Business Insider itself has already been discussed on Wikipedia, and no consensus has found it to be reliable (the most recent discussion provides this article as an example). If you want to argue for the general reliability of Business Insider, then you should start a new discussion on WP:RSN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Wally, I don't agree that there is a clear consensus that this BI source is reliable for the claim being made. Also, if that is the only source then per Undue I would say remove it. After all if there only source for such a claim is a caption that isn't supported or referenced in the actual text of the article it's hard to claim it is DUE. I think the burden is on those who want to keep the claim to find better references. I also think that should be straightforward and offered some possible (but not great references). Even if we are certain this claim is true, this is a BLP and we should not included poorly sourced negative information. Springee (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Wallyfromdilbert was the one that removed it first. Yet even that editor can see there is clear consensus on it being included. ContentEditman (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
No, several editors objected. Wally objected and it isn't clear if they are satisfied or if they have decided consensus doesn't support their position. I object based on UNDUE and poor sourcing (thought I think the underlying claim is likely true). Atsme also objected. That is far from clear consensus. Also, even if there is a clear consensus by numbers we can't violate WP:RS nor WP:DUE. Springee (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
That he frequently hosts climate change deniers is relevant and reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
A strong argument has been made that, as is, it isn't sourced reliably. Certainly if our only source is a single picture caption that isn't supported by the rest of the article then we have a DUE issue. I might take this to RSN as a question of policy. Again, I think the information is true so we shouldn't have issues finding other sources that support the claim. Springee (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I do still think the material is problematic and should be removed or attributed based on the current non-reliable sourcing, but I'll go with a local consensus if there is one. Business Insider is not a generally reliable source per WP:RSP, and so the responses simply stating "sources are fine" or "content is reliably sourced" are not useful when they do not address the actual issues with using a photo caption from a source that has not been found to be reliable. I also think there are issues of DUE, since it is in a section about Carlson's views but it is unclear how relevant it is to Carlson's own views (e.g., what level of control Carlson has over booking guests, which is usually an editorial decision?). This information is not even on the Tucker Carlson Tonight article. If the information is relevant and reliably sourced, then why can no one present any other sources to support it? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Supporting Russia in Ukraine conflict

Latest comment: 4 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Given that there is already a section about Carlson's views on Russia, it is relevant to note that he claimed to support Russia in its war against Ukraine, only to later claim that it was all a joke. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

As @Objective3000: noted, this is a very recent quote so RECENTISM applies. Also, since the article it self says he said he was joking and that seems consistent with other behavior why would we only include the part where he said he supports Russia without the next part? Finally, if we have other sources that support this then perhaps this reflects something Carlson really thinks and is something notable about him. With just this single quote DUE is a problem. Springee (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, this content is problematic due to RECENT as well as DUE. It isn't clear at all this is something notable vs just something that someone has commented on recently. This is a BLP so we should avoid adding flash in the pan sort of "subject said X" when it's not clear that this is something that will be significant in the future vs just something that some commentator somewhere got mad about. Springee (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This got quite a lot of attention in mainstream press. In the context Snoogs cites, a brief mention seems DUE. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
But it's also flash in the pan. Perhaps a better way to handle this is integrate it into the previous paragraph. There isn't really any reason to include the quote but these two articles could be used as additional citations for the paragraph above. It certainly is UNDUE to double the length of the section to effectively say the same thing as the previous paragraph. Springee (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Russia section is a short but clear example of some of the problems with the way things get added to Wiki articles. Rather than integrating this new information as a supporting evidence for a paragraph or topic subject (ie: "Carlson's positions on Russia are seen as that of an apologists". [supporting sentences to follow]). Instead we get, "Carlson said "[headline quote]". [Commentator] said X about quote." It's poor editing. This as a stand alone incident is nothing given all the outrage that so many commentators dish out and receive these days. If it still matters in 6 months then maybe the incident should be discussed as an individual thing. Otherwise it's just supporting evidence that Carlson has a soft on Russian stance. Springee (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, and there's more (which was removed):

On November 25, 2019, Carlson stated on his live program, "why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious. Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I root for Russia, which I am." The remark sparked immediate consternation on Twitter, including from conservative commentator David Frum, who predicted Carlson would later claim the comment was a joke. At the close of the program, Carlson stated, "Before we go, earlier in the show I noted, I was rooting for Russia in the contest between Russia and Ukraine. Of course I’m joking, I’m only rooting for America." One week later, Carlson stated on his program, "And I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," but he did not later characterize the comment as a joke.

He also stated,

Earlier in the show, Mr Carlson criticised journalists such as NBC’s Chuck Todd for denouncing the Russian president and rejected the conclusion of US intelligence services and the Mueller report that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. “Could any of these people actually tell you why Vladimir Putin is so bad? Why is he so bad?” he asked. “What makes Vladimir Putin worse than a whole long list of American allies?” Mr Carlson added: “The irony, of course, is that Putin, for all his faults, does not hate America as much as many of these people [US journalists] do. They really dislike our country.”

Definitely DUE soibangla (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Again, please review WP:RECENT. Also, please review WP:CIT for how to format citations in articles. Springee (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem I'm having is that he's said so many goofy things in his career. All that makes this different is that it's recent. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Wiki articles aren't supposed to be about what happened today but written for the WP:10 year test. Springee (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Except these "goofy" things on this specific matter have now reached a critical mass soibangla (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Correct. The lead does not say "Carlson is a tv personality and goofball." SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on what evidence do you think this specific set of quotes (the general matter is already in the article) will be DUE in ten years? Springee (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
A meaningless question. A straw man.
Articles change a lot over 10 years. This one will be no exception, I'm sure. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it's very relevant. The question at hand is if this addition is DUE. If the content isn't likely to withstand the test of time then it shouldn't be added to the article. Again, as a single comment or citation in the previous paragraph I would agree with. As a doubling of the length of the Russia section, no. It's way to early to tell if this is anything more than they very common indignation cycle. Springee (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that we need the specific secondary sources to determine whether the additional information is due and should be included. The sources should show that Carlson has made these types of statements multiple times and that the statements are important to understanding Carlson from a long-term biographical perspective. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In my mind, this is less about his feelings about Putin/Russia, and more about his general tendency to use gross exaggeration as a tool to denigrate some groups, or distract, or just to pump up ratings. I doubt he thinks journalists hate America more than Putin. I seem to remember him claiming that every Democrat believes than any woman should be able to decide to abort a healthy fetus up to the moment of birth, which he knows is absurd. However, this is just my opinion, which doesn’t count. So, RS allows us to list a bunch of outrageous statements while missing the real point that he makes statements he likely doesn’t believe for several possible other reasons. That’s where RECENTISM steps in. When we see such, we should wait and see if it has legs, or at least is a longer term pattern in one subject area. The latter may be true in this case – except for the fact he later said the worst of it was a joke. O3000 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

add Politifact.com item relating to Trump–Ukraine scandal ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

X1\ (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump in relation (example quote from RS above);

One of the ways Republicans and allies of President Donald Trump sought to undermine the Nov. 15 public testimony of former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, in the impeachment inquiry was to claim she gave "dishonest" testimony under oath in the past. Fox News host Tucker Carlson carried the torch on his Nov. 7 show, when he highlighted portions of testimony Yovanovitch gave to Congress behind closed doors.

X1\ (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from wallyfromdilbert, Mr Ernie, etc ? X1\ (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad Politifact article in general - irrelevant mention of Trump. I’m removing it. Please don’t reinstate until you find consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Was already removed. I don’t see the link to Carlson as necessary. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the "See also" addition, I do not see the relevance of the above cited article, as the "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" does not mention the issue raised in the Politifact article. It would be more relevant to include a link to the "Trump–Ukraine scandal" page, but I think a better approach would be to just include information in the main body of the article, especially if the "See also" section is being used as to criticize or disparage the article subject without having to include reliable sources per WP:V.
In addition, the information from the Politifact article does not seem due (per WP:DUE) for Carlson's biography. An encyclopedia article is not a repository of every false statement by a person. The Politifact article would have more relevance for inclusion if it discussed more than a single episode of his show. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Wallyfromdilbert for your thoughtful response. I will consider added content with additional (easily found) refs. X1\ (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. It's an improper use of the See Also section to effectively spam every topic that could be remotely tied to the various "Sins of Trump" articles which are flooding Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

add Fox News defamation of Karen McDougal lawsuit ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Karen McDougal alleges that Tucker Carlson falsely accused her of extortion when he said that she "approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money." (regarding Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations) per https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/fox-news-mcdougal.html X1\ (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter D'Abrosca mention

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have removed this for being WP:UNDUE. I don't see any significant media coverage of criticism for this appearance, and I don't think it is important or relevant enough to include in a biography about Carlson. It also does not add to an understanding of Carlson's views on immigration or race. Additionally, "received criticism" is vague, unattributed, and does not appear to be supported by the sources. Finally, I believe the characterizations of D'Abrosca are a WP:BLP violation, as making disparaging claims about a non-notable person would need very strong sourcing and relevance. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It may not be important enough for the lead, but Carlson hosting a white nationalist is clearly WP:DUE for his biography, and received plenty of media coverage. I'd be glad to add more sources. I'm not sure it doesn't add to an understanding of his immigration views when he is providing a supportive interview of someone who backs ending all immigration--as the sources covered i.t "Received criticism" is neither vague nor unattributed--the Atlantic and Media Matters both explicitly criticize him. As for D'Abrosca, he has literally said immigration is being used to replace white people, endorsed explicit white nationalists such as Nick Fuentes, and has been accused of being a white nationalist by several sources included (and I can add more, like here and here). You've moved the goalposts here--first, you said that your objection was that the sourcing was not reliable enough, so I improved the sourcing. Now, you seem to be saying that it's simply undue. I want to assume good faith, but this increasingly looks like whitewashing. Wikipedia is not in the business of whitewashing racism. GeauxDevils (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Please stop with the bad faith assumptions, especially when you are adding poorly sourced content. Per WP:LABEL, the claims you are making about D'Abrosca would need to be sourced to multiple high quality sources and not partisan sources like The Daily Beast or less reliable sources like The Daily Dot. You can read more about those sources and find guidance on more reliable ones at WP:RSP. The lack of proper sourcing in both your original and your editing versions of the content is both a WP:V issue as well as a WP:DUE issue, which are closely related policies that you should read carefully. If you have appropriate sourcing, you should provide it here and then we could talk about the content to add. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Saying "Peter D'Abrosca is a white nationalist" could be in violation of WP:LABEL, but saying "Peter D'Abrosca has associated with white nationalists and said immigrants are 'replacing white people'" is literally true and not a violation. I'd even be amenable to dropping the Media Matters attribution entirely for the sake of WP:COMPROMISE to avoid labeling issues. But Tucker supportively interviewing someone who explicitly supports ending all immigration for racial reasons is notable, encyclopedic, and important to include in the body. And the Atlantic is a reliable source. GeauxDevils (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Making disparaging claims about non-notable person would require multiple reliable sources. Your "associated with white nationalists" phrase is not supported by the sources either. I also do not see any "explicit criticism" of Carlson for having D'Abrosca on his show in the sources. The one generally reliable source you have cited, an analysis piece in the Atlantic, has a single paragraph about D'Abrosca's appearance:

His programming tells another story. On his December 6 broadcast, one day after our interview, Carlson featured Pete D'Abrosca, a North Carolina congressional candidate campaigning on an end to immigration. D'Abrosca's plan appears rooted in his belief that white Americans are "being replaced by third world peasants who share neither their ethnicity nor their culture." He's been lauded by the white-nationalist website VDare and is strongly supported by the so-called Groyper movement, an offshoot of the alt-right led by Nick Fuentes, a 21-year-old who has, among other things, denied the extent of the Holocaust and argued that the First Amendment was "not written for Muslims." D'Abrosca went on Carlson's show to advertise his proposed 10-year moratorium on immigration. "I think that there's a new Republican Party in town," D'Abrosca said.

If that article is the only reliable source you have, then I am not seeing how the content would be due for inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Wally here. This seems very much like RECENTism and it's not clear why this particular interview is DUE in this article, especially given the way it seems to suggest Carlson endorses white nationalism via establishing a round about connection. Springee (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tucker_Carlson/Archive_4&oldid=968546409"