Talk:Tucker Carlson

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 28 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HBS 9 (article contribs).

Carlson is not a journalist

Journalist is a broad imprecise term which can cover individuals who conduct reporting (which Carlson does not do), as well as people who offer punditry (which Carlson does do). Carlson is a pundit (or commentator) and should be described as such. We should opt for the precise term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I generally give a wide berth for designations like this, but Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. Certainly not of the investigative variety. From the days of Crossfire, and even his writings, he’s always been a pundit (or commentator). At most, he was an editor of a publication. I agree that PRECISE applies here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

He was a straight news reporter for at least the first half of the 1990s, as far as I can tell, and maybe the whole decade; and he co-founded The Daily Caller. "Commentator" doesn't really encapsulate either of those two things. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is largely seen as a venue for partisan punditry, in addition to being highly inaccurate. I’m afraid I don’t see your point. But if he was in fact a credible reporter for various reliable sources, I’m actually willing to concede. What reputable organizations did he work for as a reporter without being an opinion columnist? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)|

The Daily Caller may not be a "good" source but that doesn't mean it isn't a new site with reporters engaged in journalism. I agree that what TC is currently doing is not journalism. However, did TC do journalism in the past? The article says he did. How long does one have to be in something related to the news but not actual reporting before the descriptor "journalist" is no longer warranted? I don't personally have strong feelings either way but since the descriptor has been in the article since at least end of 2019 I'm inclined to say leave it in. It certainly would need consensus for removal. Perhaps a compromise solution can be found in the lead from early 2019. The second sentence says he started as a journalist in the 1990s.[[1]] That keeps the "current" descriptors first but lets the reader know he came out of journalism in the next line. Springee (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson did engage in proper journalistic work earlier in his career, see the 1999 "Hall of Lame" Story he did on Marquis Who's Who in Forbes Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Carlson's lawyers argued this week that he is not held to Journalistic principles of truth in reporting. He did not study Journalism. He does not ascribe to Journalistic principles. Just because he has written things, that does not make him a Journalist. Wiki lists his occupation as commentator, and he should be listed as that an author, but never a Journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samorgan44 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying he is currently not praciticing journalism vs he never was. Springee (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson is as much a journalist as Cuomo and Lemon are, which is to say that he isn't. The latter two are also guilty of using their shows primarily as platforms to share their opinions. Watch any given episode of Cuomo Prime Time or CNN Tonight. Their goal is to share their perspectives with the masses. Even their interviews aren't conducted with any semblance of objectivity. I'm not saying Carlson is a journalist (he isn't), but I abhor this double standard where political commentators with the correct opinions are deemed journalists. MetaTracker (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead doesn't summarize the article

I just added a tag indicating the lead needs to be rewritten. This doesn't concern any specific claims/language, but simply that the lead should be a summary of the article. This lead, however, summarizes only a small part of the article (the "career" section). I've not been active editing this page, so I would presume someone else may be better able to draft a better addition than I could. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What's an example of a fact that should be in the lead but isn't? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a "Political views" section that takes up about half the page, with 6 level one subheadings and 8 level two subheadings, and none of it is in the lead. It's not a matter of specific facts necessarily, but I would expect that section to account for at least one decent sized paragraph. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I've attempted to clarify his political positions to the lead, please make any changes you wish. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Falsely

[2] "Falsely can imply deliberate intent to lie as opposed to honest disagreement"

It can, but it doesn't. Do not draw wrong conclusions and then pretend they are relevant. I drew the FTN's attention to your recent edits preserving WP:FRINGE statements here and on Jordan Peterson. Let's see what comes of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You inserted "falsely", you're quoting Springee who removed it, you're not explaining why you inserted it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the statement is false. It is also fringe and has to be deleted if not balance by a mainstream position. Which I just did. You people cannot have Wikipedia spread your denialist propaganda for you without giving the scientific position too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The term "erroneously" is preferable since it does not imply intent whereas "falsely" can; e.g. a "false testimony" is not an "erroneous testimony". Alcaios (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Therefore we should not use it, since we do not know if he does it out of ignorance or dishonesty. But the question is moot since the whole sentence has been deleted anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This may explain a lot...

Well, this seems to explain the observed facts.

The top writer for Fox News host Tucker Carlson has for years been using a pseudonym to post bigoted remarks on an online forum that is a hotbed for racist, sexist, and other offensive content, CNN Business learned this week.
Just this week, the writer, Blake Neff, responded to a thread started by another user in 2018 with the subject line, "Would u let a JET BLACK congo n****er do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off?" Neff wrote, "I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no." (The subject line was not censored on the forum.) On June 5, Neff wrote, "Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down." On June 24, Neff commented, "Honestly given how tired black people always claim to be, maybe the real crisis is their lack of sleep." On June 26, Neff wrote that the only people who care about changing the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins are "white libs and their university-'educated' pets."

— https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

That's... concerning. Guy (help!) 23:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! El_C 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. Not at all surprising. Have to wait a bit for a response before adding. But, clearly sounds like it is DUE. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's probably DUE for the Tucker Carlson Show article though given the nature of the claims it would be best if it were independently corroborated. Unless TC had any knowledge of this it's probably not DUE for the TC BLP. Also, this is based on CNN's claims and presented evidence. It probably bad that CNN seems to put so much effort into talking about Fox commentators but that's another story. It may be a BLP issue for the writer in question. Springee (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the Tucker Carlson Show article, but I think it should be mentioned here as well. Volunteer Marek 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, the edit just before yours also added it to the History section.[[3]] It probably shouldn't be in the article twice. The history section seems more appropriate to me since it's not really a criticism of the show. Springee (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I consolidated everything into History. JimKaatFan (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I anticipate there are going to be more people looking to remove the Blake Neff news from the article. Here's a couple of points that I believe make this info more than relevant:

• Tucker Carlson's biggest notability comes from his nightly show. Everything else is secondary to that.
• In a recent article in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, Neff said, "Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me."
• Carlson said he spends hours working on scripts, but referred to Neff by name, saying he was a "wonderful writer" and acknowledging his assistance. And Carlson credited Neff in the acknowledgments of his book, "Ship of Fools," for providing research. In the acknowledgments, Carlson said that Neff and two others who helped with the book "work on and greatly improve our nightly show on Fox."
• Neff never responded to CNN's request for comment, but before the news even broke, Tucker's show fired Neff asked Neff really nicely if he would please resign, which he did.

His connection to Carlson is indisputable. JimKaatFan (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is material about the show, not Carlson. Springee (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This material is inextricably linked to Carlson due to the reasons mentioned above. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the show is literally the largest section in this article! How can one possibly argue that the biggest news to ever come out about his show isn't relevant to him personally, when the show is his primary source of notability? It doesn't stand up to basic logic. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Was Carlson aware of those messages? If not, there's no reason he should be linked to the "secret account" of his employee. Alcaios (talk)

Whether he was aware or not has not been reported, but that's a minor detail - the fact that the show has lost advertisers over racist content, and now the head writer, who is apparently close to Carlson, has been essentially fired over racist comments on a racist message board makes it hugely relevant. It's not about his employee's "secret account", and why does it matter that it was secret? Not secret anymore, in any case. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your argument in SYNTH. Don't restore material without consensus. Springee (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no SYNTH whatsoever - I'm repeating what every reliable source is already reporting. Read the cited sources, because you clearly did not do so before you went trigger-happy edit-warring. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether he was aware or not is relevant since we're discussion an inclusion in Carlson's biography. He cannot be held accountable for the actions of other people contributing to his show, unless he was aware or involved with the controversial account. I'm not against a mention in the article, but this certainly does not belong to the lede. Alcaios (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, I don't think anyone has suggested putting it in the lead in this article. JimKaatFan did add it to the lead of the TC Tonight page though it's not clear there is consensus to have it in the lead since three editors removed it from the lead at that article. Here I would argue it's not due at all since this is a BLP about Carlson not his show. There is no evidence Carlson had any idea this was happening (we would need RSs to say as much). Springee (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee some contributors tried to put in the lede, which is totally unacceptable. Alcaios (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Include. Fits within a broader theme of Tucker Carlson's rhetoric in recent years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Carlson has a biography here because of his career as a political commentator. Almost all of this article is about that (although I think the political views sections is way too long). The Neff material is certainly relevant, but I'm not seeing many high quality sources reporting about it, which tells me that this is WP:UNDUE for this BLP. Obviously that could change if major news organizations begin reporting on it. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm warming up to this a bit. It's starting to get more mainstream and sidestream coverage: The Hill, USA Today, The Week, The Daily Beast, HuffPo, The Guardian, and Forbes. A couple more and I'm in. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC), 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also MSN, Yahoo, the Daily News, Deadline, Variety, Hollywood Reporter... JimKaatFan (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MrX, there is not consensus for inclusion. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: O3000, VM, JimKaatFan, Snooganssnoogans, MrX
• Not Against: Alcaios
• Oppose: Springee
• Undeclared: JzG, El_C

- MrX 🖋 22:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The problem is this is an article about Carlson the person. This is something a writer for his show did. The coverage makes it due for the show but not Carlson himself. That logical gap hasn't been addressed. Do any of the articles say Carlson did anything wrong or even knew about this? Of not it's not due here. Springee (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, CaptainBillyCatPants and MetaTracker also removed the content from the article. Springee (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the mention. Like I said before, there is absolutely no reason to mention his writer's firing from the show in the lead of his biography. It has nothing to do with *his* life or biography. If you want to include that information in the section of his page devoted to the show, then do so. But if you go down that route, make sure the wording is neutral. Carlson's orbit is dominated by figures who make inflammatory comments just for the sake of being edgy, so describing the comments as racist or sexist makes no sense. Even Roseanne Barr's controversial comments aren't explicitly described as racist in the lead of her bio. I'd say it's fine to say the comments were described as such, but given how subjective those descriptors are, it is imperative that Wikipedia's neutrality be maintained. MetaTracker (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against a short passim mention in the relevant section of the article (e.g. "the show's head writer resigned after controversial statements from a secret account"), but I'm not totally convinced that such an addition is relevant to Carlson's biography. I'm just going to repeat the same argument: was Carlson aware or not of his employee's secret account? We're discussion an inclusion in Carlson's biography, and he cannot be held accountable for the actions of other people contributing to his show, unless he was aware or involved with the controversial account. Alcaios (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Now substantial coverage by right, left, and neutral sources. At this point, difficult to argue UNDUE. How can we ignore this? The current text is NPOV. O3000 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Its easy to argue Undue. Your argument suggests weight for inclusion somewhere but where? The involved subject is the Tucker Carlson Tonight show. That is where this content belongs (and had been added). Springee (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is DUE in Blake Neff's biography, but probably not in Carlson's. This whole argument is about mentioning controversial statements that have not been made by Carlson. We don't even know if Carlson was aware of those statements. Alcaios (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That was nice of you to ping two editors who would agree with you Springee. I have demonstrated that this has receive diverse and fairly extensive coverage. You can claim that has nothing to do with Carlson, but the source, and most of the editors in this discussion disagree with that. Whether Carlson knew his writer was posting racist comments is of no relevance to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Also, I am not supporting putting this material in the lead. - MrX 🖋 23:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against including it in Carlson's article, but it should be framed neutrally. Claims of racism and the like should not be framed as objective fact, especially given the nature of Internet trolling. His comments have been described using that language, which is why it's important to frame those characterizations using neutral language. As for Carlson the person, I have no interest in squabbling about his worldview on a talk page, but needless to say, I think it's important to have Wikipedia editors who are sympathetic to his paleoconservative views working on his page. Especially when the initial page editors (the ones who started this thread) are so clearly in the anti-Carlson camp. Have a good day. MetaTracker (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You can claim that has nothing to do with Carlson, but the sources, ... disagree. The only connection made so far by RS, from left-wing[4] to conservative[5] ones are Neff was Carlson's top writer and Neff's (uncorroborated) assertion that Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me. Alcaios (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Springee here. This is about a writer on Carlson's talk show meaning it is not inherently to do with Carlson's views unless Carlson was directly involved in the incident. It seems more appropriate on the talk show article than on this article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The disputed content has been added to the section /Political views/. Statements made by Carlson's head writer are not Carlson's political views but his head writer's. Find a better section if you irresistibly want to include this content. Alcaios (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources tie Neff's forums remarks to the views express on Carlson's show. Whether those view are Carlson's or not is for someone else to determine. If there's a better place to put the material, that's fine too. - MrX 🖋 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure we know Carlson's actual political views, or even if he has any. Let's just document what WP:RS say. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson a propagandist (in the neutral sense of the term: "someone whose job is propagate a point of view"). That said, that doesn't mean we should treat the private messages of his head writer as Carlson's own "political views". Alcaios (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The current text is neutral, isn't in the lead, and doesn't do such. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I know. My previous concerns about a mention in the lede and in the wrong section have been addressed. Alcaios (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to update my stance here. I still think this material is UNDUE for the Carlson BLP but I will note the section on his current show is rather extensive (in violation of wp:SUMMARY). Given how much TC Tonight material is in the article this content is no more UNDUE than much of the rest of that material. Since there is a primary article on TC Tonight, the whole section should be reduced to a summary with a pointer to the child article. If that is done then this material should go. In short, the who TC Tonight section needs to be fixed by cutting most of the material rather than just removing this specific material. Springee (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, if it were in isolation, maybe, but we alkso have recent reporting that Andrew Anglin and David Duke are big fans. That doesn't happen because of a writer, it happens because of what goes out on air, and that requires, at a very minimum, that Carlson is sufficiently cool with white supremacist rhetoric that he doesn't challenge it in script meetings. This is in addition to the withdrawal of several advertisers over racist content, so he is well aware that there are concerns. Guy (help!) 07:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have to say rather undue for his main bio, I could see something in the show article. The issue I have with it in this article, even with the show taking a large portion of the space here, is that overall it is not that surprising or significant for the show itself. The info in this article about the show is supposed to summarize how it relates to Carlson, which this does not. I also don't buy the argument so and so is a fan of a show so that speaks to the life of the host. Guilt by associate is not a thing on Wikipedia and certainly not for contentious BLP information. PackMecEng (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Its WP:UNDUE , put it on the relevant page which is the TC show article page. It belongs there and not here, trying to correlate a publicity mess to a person is why we have BLP guidelines in the first place. Remind yourself from time to time, before you add to an article, "What does the page gain by putting that particular content in the article?" All that could be argued for the case of this particular addition involving TC's writer is that there would be guilt by association, thats it, which is wrong for all intents and purposes for an Encyclopedia. 100% agree with PackMecEng & Springee. -Eruditess (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Now for something completely different - no, wait, it's the same

So now, at least one editor who wishes to protect Tucker Carlson's reputation would like to see the edits that I added to Tucker Carlson Tonight be censored, or white-washed, or whatever term you prefer. I'm pinging the users in the previous discussion in order to ask that they weigh in there. It seems obvious to me that if this material is WP:DUE for the Tucker Carlson article, then even more detail is warranted at the article where the head writer was actually employed. But apparently that's not good enough for MetaTracker, who declared that the consensus reached here was, and I quote, "absolutely misguided".
In any case, pinging Guy, El_C, O3000, Volunteer Marek , Alcaios, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, please be aware of a similar discussion happening at Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Update – apparently, MetaTracker has had a change of heart after our vigorous discussion on that page, so it appears the rehashing of this issue on a different article is now moot. Thanks everyone. JimKaatFan (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson on face masks and social distancing: "no basis in science"

The editor MrErnie removed text[6] about Carlson's false claims that face masks and social distancing have no basis in science and were just "health theater". This is obviously DUE (he's literally pushing misinformation about an ongoing pandemic that has killed 138,000+ in the US) and covered by several RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I started a Fringe theory noticeboard discussion[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. If there is a controversy around obviously and provably false statements that a prominent public person has made over and over, Wikipedia notes that the statements are false, particularly if the citations and reliable sources say so. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is a falsehood.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor Snooganssnoogans routinely adds such NPOV and misconstrued text to many right wing / conservative BLPs. If you actually bother to read the sourcing, Carlson is specifically talking about wearing masks and social distancing in school, about which the source is a bit misleading. The source goes on to say that Carlson does in fact support wearing masks, as evidenced by his earlier comments. This is just another attempt to add negative / non NPOV compliant material.

This is exactly why this type of editing is so dangerous. You can't cherry pick things from a source but leave the other half out. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie is correct. The edit to the Wiki article and what Carlson actually said are not true to one another. That doens't mean Carlson's point was good but we should never put such obvious distortions of a BLP's actual statements into an article. Springee (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• We need to be careful with sources here. Both sources cite a specific quote:

Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science. It’s kind of a bizarre health theater. Students will be kept six feet apart, everyone will have to wear a mask, class sizes will be limited

The Hill and BI are distorting the specific claim into something TC didn't say. As such they should be treated as commentary/opinion, not as reporting fact. Carlson didn't say "masks are not effective (or similar)". What Carlson actually said was that the measures the schools are implementing aren't based in science. That claim may still be wrong but it's grossly false for the Wikipedia article to claim, in wiki voice that Carlson said "X is not effective [implied for a general case]" when he actually said something more like "X, Y and Z haven't been shown to be effective in this specific case". The is above and beyond that we should never use "falsely" with respect to a claim being made unless we know the intent of the person making the claim was to mislead. Ultimately the sources do not support the statement in Wikipedia and as a BLP we need to make sure such "falsely claimed" material is robust for inclusion I am removing the material. Springee (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That is because schools do not have as different set of physical laws to the rest of the planet, or the human race.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Where I live students are not required to wear masks in schools (and yes, they returned to classes almost 2 months ago, where there has not been much evidence of a rapid re-spread even with no mask restriction). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Was that before the spread had been controlled, or whilst 100's were still dying every day?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's happening right now, today. Students are in school without masks. I live in Germany by the way. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So no then, not 100's of deaths a day.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To bring this back around, the problem seems to be in the sources themselves. I'd be happy to reconsider if there were better, clearer coverage of the comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, based only on the actual quote provided by the cited articles and not the rest of what Carlson said to provide context I think Carlson's statement is wrong. However, if the sources are misconstruing what Carlson said we should throw out those sources. The material on COVID-19 is all RECENT. It would be better if we just waited a while before adding these sort of "sound bites" which aren't really a summary of his reporting on positions on the subject. Springee (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have they have misquoted him?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the quote provided by them and quoted by me above is not literally what Carlson said. The problem is how they used the quote. Suppose I say "there is no evidence that A, B and C together are effective at preventing X in this specific environment". Now if someone says, "Springee said there is no evidence A is effective [no context of the specific environment]" then they are selectively quoting what I said by stripping out the words that bound/limit my statement. Both of the articles have attention grabbing claims that "Carlson said masks don't work". It is clear that isn't what his actual statement says. At that point we have to assume the article is no longer impartial in their presentation of facts and thus shouldn't be used to make a negative claim about a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence they did this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, just read the article. The very first sentence of the BI article is, "Fox News host Tucker Carlson has claimed, contrary to multiple scientific studies, that there is no scientific evidence to support wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus." That is the complete paragraph. Carlson did not make that claim in the quoted text and it's misleading to claim otherwise. BI's summary is not true to what Carlson said. Springee (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't get to decide that we disagree with a source and then delete sourced content. Imagine if we let the Scientologist do that. If you don't like what the sources we have now say, find better sources. In particular, look at the entry for Business Insider at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we show the source is wrong we certainly can dismiss it. WP:RSP is yellow for BI. This is a great example of why it should be. They have created a strawman out of what Carlson actually said. That doesn't mean Carlson is right but we shouldn't accept such distortions of the person's actual claims, especially when used to state Carlson lied in a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hill's article is from their editorial content and wouldn't normally be suitable for inclusion. Business Insider is no stellar source. The ONUS is on the editors seeking inclusion to find the better sourcing. Anyways, as editors we have a duty to point out issues with the sourcing. That they misrepresent Carlson's statement as applying to ALL corona restrictions (despite the same sourcing saying he supports widespread mask usage) is their problem that shouldn't be replicated here. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So point out one thing he did not say they claim he did, show they are in error, not just you think they are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See my comment above about the first sentence from the BI article. Carlson did not say, "...there is no scientific evidence to support wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus." (or at least not in the provided quote) Springee (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, they we alter it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am glad that you concede, at least, that your idiosyncratic personal reading of Carlson's statements is not reflected in any secondary sources. For the record, The Hill is green on WP:RS/P and this is not labeled as opinion (they have a separate category for that; this is in their health / well-being section); as such, your personal gut feeling that it's wrong and your WP:IDONTLIKEIT take on it as a source isn't sufficient reason to disregard it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, with all due respect, the material should not have been restored to the article. There is an active discussion about the problems with the sourcing and no consensus has been reached for inclusion. This is a contentious claim about a BLP subject and thus the material should be left out until consensus for inclusion exists. The sources are problematic for a contentious claim. BI starts by creating a clear strawman of Carlson's claims. Misleading the reader disqualifies that article as reliable. Per RSP BI is yellow and needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Since it isn't a RS it can't be used to establish WEIGHT for inclusion of this material. The Hill is from their opinion/commentary section and again misrepresents what Carlson said. So again we can't treat that as a RS and it can't be used to establish weight for inclusion. Now at best you have the Newsweek article. Per RSP this is a yellow source [[8]]. Again we have the issue that Newsweek is claiming a flip flop position by comparing Carlson's statements regarding the use of masks under two different cases. So again this isn't quality reporting and the source is iffy. This is a contentious BLP claim made by low quality sources that include false claims/strawmen as part of their article. It should be removed. Springee (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then edit it to remove the claims that you believe shouldn't be there and, if possible, replace the sources with higher quality sources. Or delete the paragraph with an edit summary along the lines of "unreliable sources, under discussion on talk page." That would be a valid reason for removal. What you wrote in your edit summary was essentially that through WP:OR you disagree with the two sources and think it's OK to delete sourced material on that basis. No. That's not OK. Again I ask, and I would very much appreciate an answer, what if we allowed the Scientologists to do some WP:OR, conclude that they disagree with the some sources and delete sourced material on that basis? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, per WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards". As editors we are allowed to discuss why specific source articles are wrong or should not be used. Lets us your Scientology example. For argument sake, the NY Times and several other generally reliable sources claim Scientology was started by John Doe after a drug binge weekend on Mars. Would we accept that claim or would we as a group decide that a weekend bender on Mars is inconsistent with the fact that people haven't been to Mars? The rest of the NYT article might be 100% spot on but how would we treat the article if it had a clear error like that? I would hope that we would throw it out. What we wouldn't be allowed to do is include it but then add our own commentary that we don't think a trip to Mars is possible at this time. If the Scientologists made a logical claim why a particular source was wrong we should listen and if they are right fix the problem. We should never include claims from a source that fall flat under even minor review of the evidence presented by the source. Springee (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You deleted material in an article. Nobody ever said you couldn't use OR in a talk page discussion. We all do that. You are perfectly free to explain why you disagree with a source and with that argument seek consensus on an article talk page for removal. what you can't do is just decide that you disagree with a source and then delete sourced content. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

My removal was proper per WP:BLP and WP:NOCON. The contentious material is disputed. There isn't consensus for inclusion based on policy issues so the material should be kept out of the article until consensus exists. In both cases the removed material contained "falsely" which is a disputed term due to the fact that it can imply intent per it's definition. Additionally, the sources used are both weak for a contentious claim about a BLP. BI is yellow and The Hill "Changing America" is an editorial section per Washington Post. That means neither source is substantial enough to establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Additionally if a source is shown to be wrong or misrepresent the facts at hand editors can discount it. So on all these grounds I rightly removed the material. To be honest, as one person said, this is a medical claim so we can't actually trust either The Hill or BI to reliably be able to refute Carlson's claims (even if I think Carlson is probably wrong). If either source specifically interviewed an expert and the expert said here is why Carlson is wrong that would mean more. This is the sort of weak sourcing we shouldn't be using in a BLP article. Springee (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, consensus is required for inclusion, not removal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I just rewrote the paragraph somewhat, here. I think a big part of the problem is that Carlson wasn't clear what exactly lacked a basis in science. Does he think wearing masks only makes sense for adults? Or is that they would have to wear masks all day? Or is his issue more with the mandated six-foot separation? (As far as I know, there is indeed no scientific basis for a length of six feet specifically.) Until he clarifies this, I think it's better to just indicate what he said, and what others have said in response, instead of trying to create a narrative around the whole thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That is much better. I'm still uncomfortable with the sources for the reasons above but that at least is an impartial presentation of the information in those sources. Springee (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Korny's version is much better. I wasn't able to find any sources better than those already brought here, which I think makes Politifact the best source so far. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the sources don't support the text inserted into the article, we should omit them. Carlson is on the record as saying that masks work, as the sources point out. TFD (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump is on record as being a member of the Democratic party and Joe Biden is on record as supporting and voting for the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. That doesn't mean that those are their current positions. From one of the sources:

"Tucker Carlson has claimed that measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus such as masks 'have no basis in science,' despite having previously stated that 'everyone knows' they work."

Do you have a source that says anything other than that Carlson held one position on masks in the past and now has hulds opposite position? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the sources provide their reference quote. The reference quote doesn't support the conclusion the sources are trying to reach, ie that Carlson has changed his general POV on the effectiveness of masks. I think seatbelts are a darn good idea and we should where them while driving a car. I think it's pointless to buckle up when moving the car from one side of the drive way to the other. The second statement doesn't negate the validity of the first. Carlson's later statement had a lot of qualifiers that weren't included in the earlier statements. The problem with these sources, and the reason why these sources should remain yellow, is they are presenting a set of facts and reaching a questionable conclusion. Springee (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy how can you post that quote without saying Carlson was specifically referencing schools? There is no evidence that Carlson has changed his view that overall usage of masks is not necessary. Do you have any data that says COVID is spreading rapidly amongst schoolchildren who aren't wearing masks? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that you have repeated this interpretation numerous times and the sources currently presented clearly disagree (including The Hill, which has a consensus as a generally high-quality source), could you present the WP:SECONDARY sources you feel accurately state that Carlson was specifically referencing schools? I spent a while searching and could not find any secondary sources backing up your reading, which means we have to go with the interpretation of his comments in the sources we have, rather than the personal WP:OR you've performed on Carlson's comments in an effort to second-guess them. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

How about this one: a Politifact fact check on another statement Carlson made in the same monologue, which is that the coronavirus "poses virtually zero threat" to students and most teachers, because of their age ranges. (I don't think this sort of secondary interpretation is necessary, but I suppose it doesn't hurt.) By the way, I take back what I said before, that Carlson wasn't clear in his monologue about why he didn't believe in mandatory masks and social distancing in schools: I should have read to the end, where he does make it clear that it's because the disease really only poses a mortal risk to older people. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, generally reliable does not mean reliable in every case. If The Hill suggests Carlson said something that Carlson's specific quote doesn't support we don't treat the source as reliable. Furthermore, a question regarding if the "Changing America" subsection meets the same standards as the rest of "The Hill" has been raised. The WP says the "Changing America" is an "editorial channel" The Hill launched last fall.[[9]] So this story is currently based on two sources that are questionable in terms of reliability. This isn't a question of if Carlson's opinion is correct. We have school aged children in my extended family who will be dealing with these restrictions this fall. I hate the restrictions for them but I support the school's implementation. I see the school as between a rock and a hard place. That doesn't mean we throw away proper editing guidelines/policies relating to neutrality, impartiality, BLP and sourcing just because we dislike the message. Springee (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the video of the statements

For those questioning what precisely was said, here is the video of the statements: [10]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Better than a 22-second excerpt, here is the original Tucker Carlson piece, both video and text. He is claiming that it's safer for kids to go to school (without the usual precautions, e.g. masks, distancing, etc., pointing to Germany and Denmark as examples) than for them to be kept home. It aired on July 7 and was posted to the website on July 8. As Korny linked above, Politifact fact checked it as "mostly false". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it UNDUE to mention?

I have to ask why we are mentioning this in the first place? Carlson is a TV pundit... and TV pundits say stupid things ALL THE TIME. It is routine for them to do so. So what makes this particular statement significant enough to highlight? This was hardly the first time that something Carlson said became the “outrage of the day”... nor will it be the last. Saying things that cause brief outrage is his JOB.

Remember that this ISN’T an article about Covid, or the effectiveness of masks, or keeping school children safe. It is a BIOGRAPHICAL article about Tucker Carlson. The focus should be on his life and career. When deciding whether to mention something he said, we need to assess the particular statement in terms of whether it had much (or any) impact on Tucker Carlson’s life or career (and we need to discuss what that impact was).

For an extreme example - If he said something that caused cancellation of his show, THAT would certainly qualify as being significant to his career. We can (and should) highlight the statement and discuss it’s effect. Cause and effect are important in biographical writing.

So... in this case, what was the effect on Carleson’s life or career? If it had no effect, I see no reason to mention it (and if we don’t mention it, we don’t need to worry about how to describe it). Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

there are 1,413 reason why this is due, just today. We need to call out corona virus misinformation whenever and wherever it happens.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:RGW. Wikipedia is not a pundit fact checker, it's an encyclopedia. We're not trying to do PolitiFact's job, we're trying to do Britannica's. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes and in this case I would invoke wp:iar, we are not talking here about peoples feelings, we are talking about people dying due to this kind of misinformation. This is not Nessie or ghosts, this actually means something.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's called "righting great wrongs", not "righting minor wrongs", because nobody gets worked up over the minor wrongs. Sleep soundly, Slater: nobody is going to die based on whether or not we include this Tucker Carlson quote in his Wikipedia biography. Levivich  ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how many of you have invoked IAR over some triviality that in truth affects no one? Now we are the forefront of fighting misinformation that IS costing lives. Maybe not Carlson himself, but all of them, all those who have tried to down play this or played with the truth. MAybe no one will die if we do not point out what Carlson said was false, maybe. Or maybe one person who come here see we say its false and take note, maybe. If we have any real significance this is it, our ability to save lives through pointing out misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what people mean when they say "Wikipedia is a lifesaver!" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And just to expand on this a bit: your suggestion is that there is a person out there, who: (1) otherwise would wear a mask, but (2) who stops wearing a mask because Tucker Carlson told them to, but before they did that (3) would fact-check Tucker Carlson's claim about masks (4) by checking Wikipedia (5) and specifically Tucker Carlson's biography and not a COVID article and then (6) would ignore what Tucker Carlson said and continue to wear a mask because Tucker Carlson's Wikipedia biography said that Carlson was wrong, (7) thereby saving their life. That sounds a touch improbable to me. Call me crazy, but I don't think we're saving people's lives by writing Tucker Carlson's Wikipedia biography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No I do not misunderstand, in normal circumstances (I.E. not during a global pandemic) I would not say it. And no what I am saying "A person who does not know or has listened to some BS might change their mind if they see called out as BS". Can you say with 100% certainty I am wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--Malerooster (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's UNDUE. That we are having trouble finding more than a few sources is the proof that it's undue. Clearly, this little tidbit is being overshadowed by the other recent scandal with the racist writer. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE The sources are lower quality given this is an attempt to state something contentious about a BLP subject. BI is a yellow source and this is hardly a business topic. The Hill Changing America specifically described as an editorial section of The Hill. So both sources are poor in terms of WEIGHT and reliability. We can see the reliability issue in how the sources present what Carlson actually said (regardless of the validity of Carlson's actual point). Several editors have disputed the material which, for a BLP means it should be out until there is a consensus for inclusion. Finally, the point about being a TV pundit is good. Carlson is a prominent pundit. Many sources will mention his comments and try/successfully pick them apart. In this case the article should be a summary, not a play by play at this level of detail. Springee (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It should definitely be added to the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article. Since, as Slatersteven says, Tucker's bullshit endangers lives, that is the place where those lives could be saved because those who fight COVID misinformation need Tucker to be on their misinformation poison cabinet list together with all the other bullshitters.

Also, we should strip down this article to the barest necessities with the same justification Springee uses: it's a BLP, and if we call it contentious using some flimsy reason, it becomes contentious and has to be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find WP:RS and WP:NPOV so limiting. If it gets significant coverage by RSs perhaps adding to the Misinformation page will be DUE. It isn't with the current sourcing. Springee (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

DUE - With the massive amount of reliable sources reporting it, it's completely appropriate to include it. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What massive amount? We have two sources, one is an editorial section, the other is BI which is a marginal source. Springee (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Take a look. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you proved the point. The only sources that are talking about it are a few marginal sources. Springee (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, google search results are personalized, so when I click on that link I don't necessarily see the same results that you see. It's better to post the sources. If it's really a massive amount of reliable sources, it should be easy to do one of those [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] refbombs. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider, Newsweek, Daily Beast, MSNBC, Washington Post, ABC Fact Check, The Hill, Newser, Salon, and there's more but man if that's not enough I don't know what standard you're looking to meet. It is should be included for all the reasons already discussed above. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Levivich's comment about pundits and responses to pundits is strong. There are plenty of things that Carlson says that others are going to respond to and there is no reason to include every one (please review WP:RECENT). Anyway, let's review the sources. Remember to make this DUE in this article we really need robust sourcing, not click baitish outrage articles. The MSNBC link is to a commentary show, it's version of Carlson's program but on MSNBC. The Daily Beast is biased opinionated source. Well look, they went after Carlson but not to explore his claim but rather just to stoke the right vs left outrage. Note that the DB article is a short blurb and doesn't try to investigate if Carlson is really changing his tune or if Carlson is actually saying the school case is different than the general case. Again, not a good source. The Washington Post article makes it clear you didn't bother to do your homework. It wasn't about Carlson's mask claims, it was about the writer who resigned. THe ABC.net.au story again wasn't about Carlson's mask claim in question. It did say he was wrong for saying kids aren't at risk but that doesn't help with weight for the material in question. Salon again is a heavy opinion/commentary site and only obliquely addresses the specific content here. Not a good link to establish weight. Who is Newser and are they useful for establishing weight? All they are doing is citing Newsweek which is a source that has already been addressed.

So after all that you just a few outrage blurbs about the thing Carlson said this week. And in a few weeks we will wash, rinse and repeat. That Carlson says things that are controversial or cause the minor talking heads to spin, that should be part of this BLP. The details of each example? No. Especially when the sourcing is weak as it is in this case. Springee (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, The Washington Post doesn't mention this. BI, Newsweek, DB, Newser, Salon, and MSNBC are all substandard sources for this. MSNBC is a brief mention, as is ABC AU. The Hill is RS, but this is from The Hill's new Changing America channel, and I'm not sure how much that counts for DUE (or really how unbiased it is given it's stated purpose). But thanks for posting the sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll just dump some sources [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. Would you like more?Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See my concern with the low quality of those sources above as well as Levivich's concern about this whole topic being overly detailed for a high level BLP. Springee (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So what is wrong with News week and the Washington Times sources excatly?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with: they're both yellow at RSP, and we're discussing a controversial statement in a BLP. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ohh so now its too much information.

The Washington Times? Come on. Newsweek, Salon, The Daily Beast, are all substandard, especially for a controversial statement about a BLP. MSNBC, too, plus it's a brief mention at the end of an article about something else. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've removed the material as we have a clear no consensus situation. The Korny O'Near version of the material at least was more impartial in its presentation but there is clearly no consensus for inclusion at this time. Springee (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is the right move. Please establish consensus here before reinserting. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think its time for an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you create one please allow editors to review the question before it goes live. There are several issues mixed together here. Springee (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is simple, do we mention this, what else is there?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Part of the debate has been related to the use of the word "false". Other parts of the debate relate to sources that misrepresent Carlson's actual statements. Anyway, if we decide for inclusion that doesn't mean we agree on the specific text. Alternatively if we reject a specific text does that mean no inclusion of just not as suggested. Springee (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The main objection seems to be its undue, and ant option must be based on policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been several interleaved issues. For instance it should be clear that "include" doesn't support a particular text, only general inclusion. Thus "include" generally does not mean we have consensus for using the word "falsely". With a consensus to include we next need to have a consensus text (note that we have several versions that have been in the article. Springee (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is I have not seen any alternative text.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(delisted) RFC on face masks

A. Is it undue to mention Carlson's recent comments about face masks.

B. If we should include, Should we say "In July 2020, Carlson criticized public health efforts to halt the spread of the coronavirus. Carlson falsely claimed "Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science" leading to claims he had said there is no scientific evidence (and contradicting earlier support) for the use of masks and social distancing. "

C. If we should include, Should we say "In July 2020, Carlson was criticised for saying "Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science" leading to claims he had said there is no scientific evidence (and contradicting earlier support) for the use of masks and social distancing."

D. If we should include, Should we leave out "leading to claims he had said there is no scientific evidence (and contradicting earlier support) for the use of masks and social distancing.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• DUE. Should say: regarding school re-openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, he falsely claimed that wearing masks and social distancing "have no basis of any kind in science. It's like a kind of bizarre health theater." Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• yes, and I like Sofllavender's proposed wording, which preserves the "bizarre health theater" phrasing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: more later but this is exactly the sort of overly complex and overly prescriptive RfC that I wanted to avoid. Slatersteven should have proposed the question before starting the RfC so we could at least have agreement there. Now we have a new mess and the important discussion points above are lost here. This should be closed as malformed so a new, agreed RfC can be opened. Springee (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Then make a suggestion, do not make me try and second guess what you think you are objecing to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to but I'm on my phone right now. Give me 24hr. Springee (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• DUE. I support Softlavender's proposed wording (our text needs to make very clear that it's "false" that there is no scientific basis for face masks and social distancing). Aside from the sufficient RS coverage of his remarks, another factor that shows how it's DUE is that he's prime-time host on the most popular news network who commands a considerable following and who has the president's ear, and he's spreading misinformation about an on-going and surging pandemic that has claimed 138K+ lives. This is rhetoric with real-time lethal implications during an unprecedented and unique crisis. That Carlson happened to be a primetime host on the most popular news network during this crisis and that he happened to push misinformation about the crisis clearly has long-term encyclopedic value. What did this figure do during the short window when he was at the peak of his influence (2016–?)? Well, among other things, he pushed misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• UNDUE to mention this. Carlson has stated that people should wear masks and has been promoting awareness about the virus since the very beginning. His comments above are specifically referencing schoolchildren, which the sources distort. Additionally, there have been no sources presented in this RFC supporting any suggesting wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you say it is due if we included the full context, that he said people should wear masks and that this was specifically referring to school kids if that is what is supported by the RSs? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? the sources are all in the tread above but OK, lets have them again.

Sources [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The first of those says Mr. Carlson, who earlier this year on his program said that “of course” masks work at combating the contagious respiratory disease, criticized schools planning to make them mandatory when classes resume.. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It also quotes him as saying “Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science. It’s kind of a bizarre health theater. Students will be kept six feet apart, everyone will have to wear a mask, class sizes will be limited, in some schools there will be scheduled bathroom breaks, et cetera, et cetera,”", which is the material we are discussing. No one has so far suggested alternative wording to the above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That thread may be archived before the RFC concludes. If consensus is reached to include this material I would support Softlavender's wording, specifying that this was in the context of schools reopening. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. First it asks whether it's "undue" to mention Mr Carlson's recent comments, then it asks "If yes" i.e. if it is undue then should we mention them such-and-such a way, which would only be possible if the answer to the first question was "no". Anyway the quoting would have to be not just due but compatible with WP:RS and WP:V and WP:BLP, so the RfC question is not neutral enough. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Opps, sorry that was a mistake on my part. Note these are not exclusive options, people can suggest alternatives (and have).Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• DUE - per Softlavender. His wording seems pretty much straight to the point. Idealigic (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  Idealigic, but with the full context of the schools reopening and that earlier on he said people should wear masks? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

E. Alternative wording "regarding school re-openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, he claimed that wearing masks and social distancing "have no basis of any kind in science. It's like a kind of bizarre health theater." having earlier stated that “of course” masks work at combating the contagious respiratory disease".Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bad RFC, delisted - snap RfCs like this, by one side in an ongoing dispute without discussion or consensus about the question, are always a bad idea. I have removed the RfC tag from this one. It asks "is this undue?" then asks three "if included..." questions while never asking "should this be included" which is the core issue. It assumes if it's due then it should be included but doesn't address other concerns (like RS). Before an RfC is launched, the question should be proposed for open comment. The RfC question should be neutral and brief. And a threshold issue is "should the content be included", not how should the content be included. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So then do you agree we should ask if inclusion is undue?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No I think the question should be along the lines of "should [proposed content] be added", and the [proposed content] part should be discussed beforehand. (For example, above, proposals B, C and D above don't cite any sources, which is one reason none of them are valid options.) I don't want to speak for anyone else but how I'd !vote would depend on what content and what sources for that content are being proposed. IMO the best RFC questions are worded in such a way that if the RFC is successful, an editor could make a specific edit and everyone would agree that edit had consensus per the RFC. As phrased this RfC wouldn't have that result. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And if we take out option A and then list (again) the sources that would be OK?Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't for example include any option for "don't include", and I'm not sure where you're getting the three options B C and D from. They don't seem addressed at the issues in dispute. For example, none of the options includes context or summarized Carlson's position. I would suggest that you just propose one option for the RFC--whatever language you think is best--and leave it to others to propose any further possible formulations of language. See which formulations have the most support, and then just launch "the finalists" for a full blown RFC. Obviously one option should be "do not include". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best if we do not include until there is a consensus on what to include. This is of course assuming there is a consensus for that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying we should just ask should we include this, or should there be specific text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this, with no consensus for including. To be honest I'm not sure a full-blown RFC is necessary. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That is why we need the RFC, its a pretty even split, with accusations that arguments re not policy based. We need fresh eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So true, otherwise you can just end up going in circles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• If the question is really about DUE/UNDUE weight, we need to include an option for omitting the entire thing... ie not mentioning Carlson’s comments on masks and opening schools AT ALL. This would be my option. As I outlined in one of the above discussions, a biographical article should not mention things that have no impact on the life or career of subject of the biography. It is a question of relevance. If the fact that that X once said “Y” has no consequence to X... then is it relevant? Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  That is a good way of looking at things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested new RFC

Should we include ""regarding school re-openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, he claimed that wearing masks and social distancing "have no basis of any kind in science. It's like a kind of bizarre health theater." having earlier stated that “of course” masks work at combating the contagious respiratory disease"?

Note no sources as this is just a suggested text for the RFC, source can be added when it is launched.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I can imagine people will not like this style of RfC, as it can be perceived as finding sources to say what we want instead of saying what the sources say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That is literally one of the objections above, we did not include any sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And the solution is to not include sources? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What? I did not say I would not include sources, just not now for the sake of...fine.

Should we include ""regarding school re-openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, he claimed that wearing masks and social distancing "have no basis of any kind in science. It's like a kind of bizarre health theater." having earlier stated that “of course” masks work at combating the contagious respiratory disease"?

Is that better?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That (specific language, with cites) is better IMO; it meets my "if successful, someone can make an edit" standard. (But I'd give it some time before launching the RFC to let others comment.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again... before we have an RFC question about wording, we need a question about relevance. Is this entire incident relevant enough to mention in the first place? I don’t think it is. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And when I suggest that I get "but we need to know what will be said". So I ask again, is this just going to ask if this is Undue?Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to that is... If it is deemed to be undue, then NOTHING will be said. We will simply omit (ie not discuss) the entire incident. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest either or. One option would be we assume inclusion and, in good faith, work to come up with a compromise text to propose for inclusion. I think the version by Korny O'Near was a pretty good attempt.[[25]] BTW, while normally I think the reference to Carlson's opinion article would be UNDUE, in this case it is DUE since it is the source of the controversy (such as it is). This would give us a reference text that isn't likely to cause a number of edit fights if the material is deemed due. The "or" option is simply ask if this material is due at all and then close with either exclude or include per future talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Violations of WP:BLP

Editors are asked to review WP:BLP and reflect. Multiple assertions about Tucker Carlson and white supremacy are unsupported by the cited sources and have been removed. Sbelknap (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I remove the unsourced biographical details, or those sourced to primary sources other than ones publicised by Carlson. Also removed the names of non-public figures. I have not accused anyone of white supremacy. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's the content in dispute:

According to CNN, Business Insider, Vox, and GQ, Carlson's show has promoted and echoed white supremacist discourse.

Sources

GQ wrote "Tucker Carlson may not be a white nationalist in real life, but he certainly plays one on TV." The other sources make very similar assertions. Vox wrote "Carlson has faced accusations of catering to white nationalism on his show before, particularly on the issue of immigration — and white nationalists like Richard Spencer are among his biggest fans." - MrX 🖋 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

None of these three cited sources support the assertion that Tucker Carlson promotes white supremacism. This appears to be an instance of the Association Fallacy. Carlson regularly condemns attacking others for their immutable characteristics, particularly race. He has done that for many years. This accusation that Carlson promotes white supremacism is outrageous. It is libelous. It is one of the most unfair and inaccurate things I've seen on wikipedia. Clearly, this is in violation of WP:BLP and does not belong in this article. Sbelknap (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Its valid point, we do need sources calling him a white supremacist.

• I'm a bit mixed on this one. I'm not impressed with these sources (they don't do their parent organizations any credit) but if we have Carlson on record responding to the accusations then I think we should include it with Carlson's reply. The specific text of course is up in the air. Many of the sources that claim "white supremacist discourse" are doing so in an op-ed'ism fashion. CNN certainly isn't calling Carlson a WS. CNN does note some alignment between the views of Carlson and WS but makes a connection via a very weak, "But Fox is often perceived to be giving voice to those views." So CNN isn't stating in their own voice but instead is citing an known other who is making the claim. The BI article seems to only say that Carlson raised a concern about land grabs from white South Africans. While BI can reliably cite that Carlson said certain things about the subject, are they reliable to link Carlson to WS because of this issue? Is that a guilt by association linkage? Are GQ and Vox the sort of robust sources we should use for this kind of contentious association on a BLP page? Needless to say, I'm not impressed with the sourcing here. It strikes me as the sort of accusation, like "racism" that's easy to make and sticks uncomfortably to the target even if the basic for the claim is questionable. But if enough reasonable quality sources say this then I think we should include it because it is telling that sources have made the accusation. However, we should also include Carlson's reaction to the association. If nothing else, if Carlson has felt the need to respond to the accusations that, in my book, says the accusation was significant to the BLP subject and thus both should probably be included. Springee (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• For many years predating these accusations, and continuing to the present, Carlson has condemned attacks on a person's immutable characteristics (race, sex, ethnicity, etc.). That is what makes these assertions particularly outrageous, as Carlson's considered stance on such issues is precisely the opposite of what is being asserted. [26] is an example. Sbelknap (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• You're linking to Carlson himself saying he isn't a bigot. I do think there's something bigoted about frequently saying immigrants make the US "dirtier", and that Iraq is populated by "semi-literate primitive monkeys". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you read Springee's comment stating, "we should also include Carlson's reaction to the association"? The second quote is from the "Bubba the Love Sponge" show, which is satirical. Sbelknap (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

At best, calling this "satire" implies he is ridiculing himself for being the kind of bigot who would say that in the first place. At worst it's not really satire, and instead it's a way of avoiding responsibility by claiming it's just a joke. Neither of these are even a tiny bit compelling or relevant to this issue. Grayfell (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans asserts that I'm "linking to Carlson himself saying he isn't a bigot." That mischaracterizes what Carlson says in the linked video/transcript. Instead, Carlson condemns attacks on a person's immutable characteristics, such as race. Carlson has consistently made this point for many years. Carlson is critical of racism and sexism. His show hosts a diverse range of guests. That is certainly relevant to the issue under discussion. Sbelknap (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite Grayfell's disapproval, there is this thing called humor that humans sometimes exhibit, and there are some settings where humour is misplaced and sometimes attempts at humor fall flat. About one-third of the population entirely lacks a sense of humor and humor styles do vary among people. One does not generally engage in broad humor at a funeral nor orate in funereal tones at a tavern. It is disingenous to take a comment on a humor show and present it out of context. More info for the curious: Yam KC, Barnes CM, Leavitt K, Wei W, Lau J, Uhlmann EL (October 2019). "Why so serious? A laboratory and field investigation of the link between morality and humor". J Pers Soc Psychol. 117 (4): 758–772. doi:10.1037/pspi0000171. PMID 30614728. Sbelknap (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have struck a nerve. Being snotty about someone else's supposed lack of a sense of humor is... ironic, but not particularly appropriate. You didn't say it was "humour", you said it was "satirical". That word means something specific, and "just joking" isn't a get out of jail free card.

These jokes weren't in private conversations among friends, they were broadcast appearances. If his jokes fell flat, which happens, he could take responsibility and say it wasn't funny and he made a mistake. Instead, he doubles down on the "it was just a joke" defense and has pointedly refused to apologize. In other words, he's taking his jokes very seriously, just like you seem to be. Further, why is this supposed to be a joke? Who is the target of these jokes? The targets are Iraqi people/Afghan people/women/Black people/underage women/etc. Even as jokes, it's still racism and bigotry. It's absurd to appear on a shock jock show and then feign indignation that people are shocked. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, words spoken in the context of an appearance on a shock jock's show are not to be given the same weight as in other contexts. It seems fair to mention the Bubba the Love Sponge statements, as long as this is done in context. Sbelknap (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sbelknap, you sure about that? What about the time he denied that white supremacism is a problem? When his statements about diversity are eerily like those of the New Zealand mosque murderer?

How are your examples not instances of the Association fallacy? Sbelknap (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy (help!) 22:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I have been policing BLP since before it was even a policy. This article is fully compliant. The problem is that Tucker Carlson has done a remarkably good job of looking like a white nationalist. So good that Andrew Anglin described his show as "Storm Front TV". So much so that David Duke has made appreciative comments. And as it turns out, his main writer was a white supremacist. Now, you might think that is the entire explanation, but the reality-based media is having a really hard time swallowing the idea that Carlson was just reading what was put in front of him wihtout ever noticing that it was racist. And that's what we are seeing in the sources added to this article. Guy (help!) 21:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

How do you answer the objection that these examples you give are instances of the Association fallacy? Sbelknap (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I don't, because it's irrelevant: if it is the association fallacy then it's reliable sources that are committing it, we take no judgment, we merely reflect what reliable sources say. You do keep engaging in this tendency to apply your own judgment based on watching the show rather than following the sources. Guy (help!) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got to say I have issues with this but I think policy in this case says we need to include. However, I think we should be very careful with how. Many of these white nationalism association claims are based on rather poor reasoning. However, it would be a violation of OR to say as much in the actual article. That said, I think we can detail them out a bit. Are there sources that counterbalance some of these claims? This is one of the things I find difficult with many wiki topics. A says something inflammatory about B and that is published in a RS. Reading the RS makes it clear the underlying argument is weak but we don't have a second RS saying A's argument is crap so we end up treating A is the only DUE POV. I think that is the case here but it's also policy. I do think the accusations have come from enough quarters to say we don't ignore it. I'm not sure we need to detail or quote from every case. What about a few sentences summarizing the issue and then include the supporting links? Springee (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The bar for WP:BLP is set high and none of the cited sources top the bar. In my view, to include such accusations in a BLP requires some actual examples plus an analysis from a RS that these examples constitute white nationalism or white supremacy or racism. Instead, these sources give vague allegations with no examples. I see your point about OR, but it seems to me that we ought not blithely cite vague claims from a source, where that source does not provide a specific example of what is alleged to be racism or whatever. Sbelknap (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've invited comments and suggestions on the BLP noticeboard. Sbelknap (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Engaged editors are invited to review the discussion so far on the BLP noticeboard and to then comment there and/or here. Sbelknap (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

21 July Edit Doxing story

KidAd, is this really DUE for inclusion here? [[27]]. It does have at least minimal coverage since you have a Forbes and WP link but so much of this content seems to be not a summary of the subtopic but a place to dump a series of unrelated stories. As a way to think of this, if we were to write a lead paragraph for this section (something every section should have) what would we say? Do we have RSs that point to this incident as something significant to the summary of this show? The fact that these are stories released today means they should almost certainly be excluded per Wp:RECENT. I think this material should be removed but I would like the input of other users first. Springee (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to trimming the material or moving it to another area (if applicable). I do think it is relevant Carlson's biography, however. I'm surprised the page doesn't have a "controversies" section or subsection. If it did, material like this, information about Carlson's head writer, and material about advertiser withdrawals could all be found in the same place. KidAd (💬💬) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the main page for the show does have them. I personally think this section is too long given there is a main article on the subject. As such the content on this page should be a summary of the content from the main page. Depending on the length of the material here it is due to mention the shown has courted controversy related X,Y and Z. However, this level of detail is probably too much since it's more about the show than Carlson himself. It might be DUE on the show's page but per RECENT I would support including things like this for a least 6 months. The controversy section becomes as bloated as the McGee's closet and just as unstable. Springee (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. I wanted to trim down the quote (or omit it entirely) while still including pertinent information. I will pare down the language and find a better home for it. KidAd (💬💬) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this doxxxing accusation; especially considering several RS have noted the diversionary coincidence of the episode the day the sexual harassment lawsuit was filed against him.[28][29][30] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, looks like speculation to me. Wait and see if it actually happens. I am skeptical: doxxing is more the far right's thing than that of mainstream journalism. Guy (help!) 21:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I really doubt it would happen now. For argument sake assume it was true, what are the odds the NYT would do it now? It would validate Carlson's claims. Anyway, I see it as undue in context of the full biography.

@Springee: the lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News people (most notably Ed Henry) should not have been removed[31] under WP:BLPCRIME as it is a civil lawsuit and Carlson is definitely a public figure. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It accuses him of sexual misconduct. I think that should fall into the "not until proven guilty" bucket. Springee (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Areu is not credible. https://spectator.us/fox-news-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-cathy-areu-jennifer-eckhart/ NPalgan2 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

She may very well not be (I have no idea) but that is completely irrelevant to whether we should mention the existence of this lawsuit or not. Volunteer Marek 08:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to us to evaluate whether the accusations are true or not and BLPCRIME does not apply to a public figure. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" - Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

However, it is for us to say that we don't put such accusations into the article until there is some measure of evidence to support them. The material the spectator brings up is certainly troubling. Again, BLPCRIME. The material was challenged and at this point consensus is arguably against inclusion, certainly not for which is the standard in this case. Springee (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What concensus? BLPCRIME doesn't apply here! Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. BLPCRIME doesn't apply, Carlson is a public figure, the information is well-sourced. I see no reason to not include it in the article. JimKaatFan (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is already being discussed at the BLP Noticeboards, I threw it out for them review also.[32] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, please quote directly which part of WP:BLPCRIME is relevant here. Volunteer Marek 08:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, between this discussion and the discussion here [[33]] a consensus for inclusion hasn't been established. Per policy NOCON the material needs to stay out until a consensus is established. Springee (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is basically you and Mr.Ernie objecting on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds, which isn’t a legitimate reason for removal. You claimed that somehow your edits were justified by WP:BLPCRIME but when asked repeatedly to explain how exactly that policy was relevant, you have failed to respond. You can’t go running around screaming “no consensus” when you refuse to answer even basic points raised on talk. That looks like you’re just trying to stymie the discussion and stall the inclusion of what is obviously notable and encyclopedic content. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you need to look at the BLPN discussion. NPalgan2 appears to also be skeptical of inclusion. That's three editors vs yourself, JimKaatFan and Morbidthoughts. That's on this talk page alone. A few more editors on both sides of the discussion on BLPN. So where is the consensus. So please list list all the editor for/against be fore restoring again. Springee (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean morbidthoughts, JimKaatFan, Volunteer Marek, JzG, and DimaDick. Further determining consensus is based on the underlying policies argued, and the assertion of BLPCRIME on a public figure is ridiculous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO believes there is no BLP violation, but his opinion on inclusion is unclear. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be sure to ping ALL editors from the BLPN discussion. Pinging just one is a violation of WP:VOTESTACKING. Springee (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not votestacking since the ping was to clarify the specific position. You go ping anyone you think is unclear also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

VS Masem, NPalgan2, Mr Ernie and myself. So by weight of numbers we are at no-consensus. I think Masem's argument here [[34]] is pretty clear. We are dealing with allegations, not proven facts. We should err on the side of protecting the BLP subjects rather than repeating minor news stories. It isn't at all clear this would pass the TENYEARTEST. If the story develops into something bigger we can always add things later. Remember, we have NOTIMELIMIT and waiting would help avoid issues of RECENT. Springee (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, we are dealing with allegations, but these are notable allegations. One famous person filed a lawsuit against another famous person regarding sexual harassment. It's notable and covered by many many reliable sources. And yes Masem has made an actual policy based argument here (he's wrong but at least he's made it - Masem basically has a very strict interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS in general, an approach which while respectable, has not found support among rest of the community). That's ONE person actually making an argument. You and Mr Ernie have just been screaming "no consensus!" WITHOUT providing any policy rationale. I guess now you're gonna jump on Mason's argument because you failed to make one of your own. That's still a minority though. Stop pretending there's no consensus - you do not have veto power here. Or arguments. Volunteer Marek 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I support his approach. Too much gets accepted it in Wikipedia just because it is "political" or likely to be possibly considered notable in the future instead of encyclopedic. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my agreement with Emir, Springee, Masem, and others. Wait and see how this turns out. Maybe it will end up belonging, but not yet. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're also on your third revert by the way, Springee. I don't believe coverage of being sued by one of a frequent guest for sexual harassment is a repeating minor news story with sources ranging from Vanity Fair to the Washington Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've requested page protection to stop the edit warring. There is no consensus for this material and you can't just keep adding it. Please have a glance at WP:ONUS before restoring. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

At the very least if this goes in the article we need a sentence like "Amber Athey wrote in The Spectator that she had found "many basic inaccuracies" in Athey's story. A lawyer for Areu told Athey that Areu had misremembered some aspects." https://spectator.us/fox-news-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-cathy-areu-jennifer-eckhart/ NPalgan2 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

So, that's kind of her entire lawsuit falling apart. Got the dates wrong, what she claims he said isn't represented by the facts, and got the number of appearances wrong after she claims she was limited? There is no way this belongs in the article, as the fact check runs 3 times longer than the allegations. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC - Sexual harassment lawsuit and doxing accusation

The Cathy Areu sexual harassment lawsuit and NY Times doxing allegation are intermingled in that they happened to be on the same day.[35] Should mention of either be included in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The following text were removed by editors from the article due to BLP concerns:

A: In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

B: After returning from a short hiatus in July 2020, Carlson alleged that New York Times was planning on publishing a story that included the address of his residence. In the same segment, Carlson displayed images of two freelance New York Times journalists, saying “How would Murray Carpenter and his photographer, Tristan Spinski, feel if we told you where they live, if we put pictures of their homes on the air? “We could do that. We know who they are.” The Times denied the allegation and conservative Twitter accounts posted the address and personal information of the reporter.

References

Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Sexual harassment lawsuit and doxing accusation)

• As nominator, yes for both A & B. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to both. First of all none of this material is encyclopedic. Second, lumping Carlson in with the others accused of misconduct is SYNTH as it implies they all did the same thing. B is classic NOTNEWS - there is nothing relevant to Carlson's biography about that information. If editors would like BLPs to just be blurbs of when the subject was in the news then they'll need to go have some policies changed first. I would be open to revisiting these topics if RS continue to give coverage and weight to them, and if they have any impact other than a short blip on a headline here or there. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean it's "not encyclopedic"??? How? It's a notable event involving notable people with widespread coverage in reliable sources. You're just pulling stuff out of your thin air at this point. Volunteer Marek 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both - these are heavily covered in a variety of reliable sources, and there's nothing in the text that violates BLP. It's standard policy to dedicate a sentence or two to incidents like these in the bios of countless articles of living people, as long as there's no BLP violations. This is no different. The arguments against basically boil down to IDONTLIKEIT. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, No - per policy WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:10YT. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  NYTimes 07-22-20: Fox News, in a statement, said that it had retained an outside law firm to investigate Ms. Areu’s claims and determined them to be “false, patently frivolous and utterly devoid of any merit.” Fox News issued the statement on behalf of the network as well as Mr. Carlson, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Kurtz, who were also named as defendants in the suit. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both The doxing story is a non-event. It had minor coverage like so many other things Carlson says. It might be relevant as a supporting claim that Carlson has been combative with other news agencies (or similar) but putting it in as a stand alone item is clearly UNDUE. Consider the TENYEARTEST and RECENT. I think the above discussion had reached a general consensus that this wasn't due so I'm not sure why it is being conflated into this RfC. The lawsuit is the second part. Here we need to consider several factors. First, this is a BLP. As such we need to err on the side of caution/do no harm when including anything that is an allegation of misconduct. A counter argument is "the filing of the suit is fact, not allegation". That is true but that just means someone has put their negative claims into the legal record. It doesn't mean the claims have been substantiated. In fact, per the discussion and source below, the plaintiff's attorney admits the allegation has a number of factual errors. The problem with inclusion, going back to the "do no harm" intent of the BLP policy, is the factually questionable nature of the details of the allegations gets lost in the noise. At this point we would need a wp:CRYSTAL ball to see if this lawsuit amounts to anything. Second, the coverage currently is RECENT. We haven't see if this has any sticking power. If the allegations don't pan out then we included some serious accusations against a BLP subject that can hurt the subject's reputation. Additionally, if the legal case goes nowhere this content will fail the wp:TENYEARTEST. Conversely, if there is fire under this smoke, well wp:NOTIMELIMIT. We can add the material when the full story and impact to Carlson is clear. We have to remember, that just because we don't add it now doesn't mean it can't be added in the future. So, at this time, oppose both. If things change we can revisit then. Springee (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, No per Springee, Atsme, Mr Ernie. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, No Agree with Springee and JimKaatFan Also agree that this will be revisited with the passage of some time as we gain some perspective. The Cathy Areu story seems to be falling apart. The doxxing thing seems as if it isn't going to happen, for whatever reason. Sbelknap (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, No. There was never any evidence of doxxing it is a claim made without evidence and can be dismissed on the same basis. Reporting on the assault lawsuit is "this suit is happening", and this is part of a wider pattern of siomilar lawsuits, notably oaround Fox. I would exclude the doxxing claim and include the lawsuit. Guy (help!) 21:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, neither An independent outside law firm investigated the sexual harassment claim and stated it was without merit. This website is not supposed to be a cheap tabloid rag filled with every innuendo and unsubstantiated claim.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether you think the suit has merit or not is completely irrelevant. That's up to the court to decide. All that matters is that this is a notable event, involving notable people and it has received widespread coverage in reliable sources. That right there is policy, not just personal opinion or whimsy. Also, you got a *reliable* source about this "independent oitside" law firm? Because all I see is that there was a law firm hired by Fox News itself and only sources claiming it was "independent" are wacko nutzoid extremist websites. Not that it matters for inclusion purposes. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

[36] Just going by what the RS say, which is an independent law firm hired by FoxNews investigated and found no merit to the claims. It is an unsubstantiated claim, and therefore currently nothing more than a smear. If in court it is proven to be factual, then we can revisit this matter of course.--MONGO (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to first, No to second (should these really be bundled?) All that matters here is that one famous, notable, person filed a lawsuit against another famous, notable person and this has received EXTENSIVE coverage in reliable sources (more than a dozen included in the article before it was removed). Anything else is just thinly disguised WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• A: no, as premature: a lawsuit by itself does not indicate significance of the allegation. This comes when media / sources begin to corroborate it. In this case, there are apparently already some doubts: Holes Emerge in Cathy Areu’s Lawsuit Against Fox News Hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, By Rudy Takala, Jul 23rd, 2020, Mediaite. B: no, as too minor: does not appear to have long-term significance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Mediaite is not a reliable source. Regardless, whether there are "holes" in the lawsuit or not is for the court to decide. What matters is whether this lawsuit is notable. Volunteer Marek 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC There is no statement and no timestamp, both of which are required by WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Eh? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Have a look at WP:RFC/BIO. Only a link is given (compare the other RfC entries on that listing): for this particular one, there is no statement, and no timestamp - this is because Legobot (talk · contribs) cannot identify them. At first it was because the {{rfc}} tag was followed by a subheading, and this edit fixed that issue; but whilst there are now both statement and timestamp, the statement that now exists (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is over 3,000 bytes, which is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle. This is one of the reasons why we ask for a brief and neutral statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Can this still be fixed after the fact? I think the least disruptive action would be moving the RFC template right to before the question and timestamp. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it can be fixed at any time - that is what I have been asking you to do. Legobot runs once an hour, and checks for amended RfC statements following which it updates the listings (example). RFCST is clear: the order is heading; {{rfc}} tag; brief and neutral statement; timestamp. If the statement needs to be expanded upon, that goes after the timestamp, but should have its own timestamp as well. See for example Talk:Balcombe Street Gang#rfc_6A33E82. If you put anything before the {{rfc}} tag, it won't be seen by anybody coming to the RfC from the listing or from a FRS notice, because those link to the tag not to the section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like it worked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, no per Springee and the other no !votes above. It's right in the RFC question: "intermingled in that they happened to be on the same day" - they're two stories from one news cycle (less than a week ago), and thus are not WP:DUE, specifically per WP:RECENTISM and the WP:10YT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to both It is not relevant to be included. Idealigic (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes to A, No to B. The lawsuit was filed, that is a fact. The veracity of the accusations will be sorted out by the court, however, he is a public figure involved in a public process that is relevant to his public-facing career. There is no reason to be concerned about BLP. A lot of this discussion feels like gatekeeping for Tucker.HBS 9 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both due to the media attention received. These only require brief mentions of one or two sentences. The proposed text is fine, but might be a little long. The phrasing looks pretty neutral though, so I have no major objections. Worldlywise (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Sexual harassment lawsuit and doxing accusation)

• Comment - A For "Allegation" see WP:CLAIM. "The Times said it "does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson's residence" would be preferable. B At the very least if this goes in the article we need a sentence like "Amber Athey wrote in The Spectator that she had found "many basic inaccuracies" in Athey's story. A lawyer for Areu told Athey that Areu had misremembered some aspects." https://spectator.us/fox-news-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-cathy-areu-jennifer-eckhart/ NPalgan2 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. We should not cherry pick if we do end up including. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be cherrypicking op-eds and they shouldn't be used to assert facts. Also The Spectator at RSN[37] Morbidthoughts (talk)

The involved attorney replied to the questions from The Spectator. So unless we have reason to believe the Spectator is making things up, the bad facts and the plaintiff's counsel's acknowledgement of bad facts is very relevant in this context. Springee (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Then this becomes utilising the Spectator article as a primary source when we should be relying on secondary coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no. That is a really distorted way to dismiss very relevant information about the case. Springee (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no reason to trust anything from The Spectator given its poor standing at RSN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The poor standing is that it's very biased. That doesn't mean their analysis of basic dates nor their quoting of others has been seen as suspect. Springee (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are some other sources that have noted issues with the case against Carlson (but not necessarily the entire lawsuit)[[38]][[39]][[40]]. The Powerline is a very good blog but as a blog it is not a RS for inclusion. However, the analysis leads weight (not WEIGHT) to the idea that this is not going to stick to Carlson and we should take a wait and see approach. Springee (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Areu thing is falling apart: https://www.wibc.com/blogs/hammer-and-nigel/cathy-areus-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-against-tucker-carlson-is-imploding/ Sbelknap (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If it is falling apart that is more for her page than this one I would say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources you cited are questionable. The Hammer and Nigel link reviews the spectator piece and calls Areu, Crazy Cathy. The American Conservative is only accepted as reliable for its opinions per WP:RSP. Why should non-RS contribute to WP:WEIGHT of inclusion? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps but we can use such sources to provide evidence that their isn't substance to the claims against Carlson. This is a bit of a throw stuff at the wall claim. Regardless, we have sources that have discussed the weakness of the claims against Carlson. That supports the idea that this story is not going to have staying power and that we would likely remove it as the case develops. Again, if things change we can always add the information. There is no penalty for adding it later. Springee (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• More detail about the purported coverage that was going to "dox" him and fallout of the segment. [41][42][43] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  There's already a sentence or two about Carlson's house being accosted by activists in the Personal Life section. The sources discuss his sensitivity to being doxed because of that incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is another article describing the many issues with the lawsuit, from a (albeit not rock solid) source that couldn't be said to support Carlson. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 July 2020

change infobox picure to more recent one from 2018

StackJack (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why? This one doesn't have a microphone partially blocking his face. I don't see the need to change it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

his face looks weird on the current picture, its not a good pic imo StackJack (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

or take this one instead: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tucker_Carlson_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg StackJack (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: You were be able to edit the page yourself. Please gain WP:consensus here first. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

i inserted it again as there's no discussion taking place StackJack (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that but please try to use softer language in edit summaries, as they're visible in the history and the particular words you've chosen can be offensive to some. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama for advocating for voting rights at the Lewis eulogy

"Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as 'one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American politics' after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday...."[44] 98.33.89.17 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes? Why is this worth including?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems clearly DUE to refer to a past president as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American politics". That's why we have a "political views" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That section should be a list of the most notable political views, not a collection of every single thing they have ever said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Where someone stands on a former president is pretty much the most basic bio "political views" stuff I can think of. It says a lot of someone's political views that they consider Obama not only sleazy and dishonest, but among the sleaziest and most dishonest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the statement makes him look batshit insane. I'd want a pretty compelling reason for including such obviously delusional and bigoted commentary. Whitesplaining how America's first Black President should memorialise a civil and voting rights icon properly is a really bad look. Guy (help!) 22:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rather than merely batshit insane, it's just straight-up propaganda. Teams of writers and producers sit in conference rooms all day writing this stuff. soibangla (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If I think Bill Clinton is one of the most sleaziest and dishonest politicians in history, say because of the Lewinsky scandal and lying about it under oath, what does that tell you about my position on universal health care? Trade with China? Climate change? Absolutely nothing. If I say Trump is one of the most sleaziest politicians in history, say for the "grab her by the ..." comment, what does that tell you about my position on universal health care? Trade with China? Climate change? Still nothing. So if I say Obama... you get the point. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE. First, if we can't bother to say why Carlson thinks this then why are we mentioning it at all? Did Carlson make this claim in a total Second, like others said, this isn't meant to be a dumping ground of every thing Carlson said. It should summarize his views, not be a laundry list of quotes. Springee (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems UNDUE to me. Asserting that something is "clearly DUE" doesn't persuade me. I'm not sure why anyone cares what the subject thinks about various presidents. When I think of a subject's "political views", I think of their views on political issues like health care, foreign policy, etc., not their opinion about individual politicians. Also, The Hill, when its reporting on something someone said, is a primary source, reporting on a contemporaneous event. The sources for this article should be other biographies of Carlson (which would be secondary sources); there's no need to include a play-by-play of "Carlson said this!" and "Carlson said that!" sourced to contemporaneous news reports (which are primary sources). (For more, see WP:PRIMARYNEWS.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE Even if true, this is more relevant to Obama than to Carlson. This is not particularly notable as Carlson is simply stating what many (most?) conservatives believe to be true. [45] Progressives and conservatives each in their own bubble. Sbelknap (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, if a dog shits on the white house lawn, the turd is more relevant to the dog than to the President. But not that relevant to either. Guy (help!) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If dozens of dogs urinate on the President's leg every day, that is more relevant to the president than to any individual dog. Sbelknap (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Aug 27 edit - inclusion of Rittenhouse material

@Ceoil, Losipov, and PackMecEng: I removed the Rittenhouse material with a comment that it was UNDUE. My argument is this article is not a laundry list of controversial things Carlson has said. His views on BLM as a topic is due for this topic but this particular instance isn't. Note that this is now about half of the BLM content and this has very little to do with Carlson himself. From a procedural POV, Ceoil, once the material was removed, best practice is WP:BRD. Arguably the material had consensus when you restored it by weight of numbers (2:1) but per ONUS you should have addressed my concerns prior to restoring the text. Once PackMechEng removed it a second time the next step should have been starting a discussion. Springee (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed again, this is blatantly undue. You put it well when you said this is not a laundry list of everything they have said on the subject. This does not give a clear insight on Carlson in general. This is also really odd that it is in the Black Lives Matter section as well since the second source does not even mention the group and the first one has one sentence on it. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it is undue for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Carlson's notability is based almost entirely his broadcasted commentary. This may be something that is worth including in the article given the noteworthiness of the murders and Carlson's extraordinary comments (even for him) in which he appears to condone vigilante violence. It seems there's been quite a blowback. The extensive international coverage suggests this material may have to be included per WP:DUEWEIGHT. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] - MrX 🖋 12:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is why we have RECENT. How many times have we seen other inflammatory, or even out of context statements, that get a lot of sniping from the talking heads right after the fact but then fade away as the next news cycle happens? If this ends up with staying power we should have a better idea in a few months. Until then it's UNDUE to add it as yet another controversy section. Also, until the facts become clearer we don't have good context to say Carlson's views of events were way out of line or just not well aligned with people on the other side of the political fence. Springee (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Two minds over this I agree it might (but only might) be undue. But it has received a lot of coverage, and (given the crowd funding effort) is not over yet.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the Rittenhouse case isn't over and it will get more coverage in the future. But this is about Carlson's comments and the talking heads that replied. Again, we are supposed to summarize, not just list each item that upset the media rabble. Springee (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not just the media rabble, the victims relatives might be a bit pissed as well seeing him defend someone who shot and killed their relatives.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

But that falls into the speculative. There may be other families who were deeply hurt by something Carlson said at some point. Springee (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is about defending what has been charged as murder. That is a bit different form just saying something offensive.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You assuming something will get more coverage in the future does not mean we throw WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT out the window. This is a WP:BLP so caution should be exercised. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, mostly undue for now - although a single sentence about the controversy for now seems fine. Does anyone still remember when Carlson caused controversy by criticizing some New York Times reporters by name on air? Or when he was accused of sexual harrasment? Those both happened one month ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree that a sentence or two is due. There's tons of reliable sources that can be used for this. Lots of coverage. Ignoring it and scrubbing it from the article makes no sense. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Due or undue is determined by RS coverage, so we're far beyond that being in question. RS coverage tells us it's due, so a couple of sentences are in order. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Lots of sources have said things about TC. A Google news search for "Tucker Carlson" returned 3.5 million hits. At some point we have to move from mentioned, to "mentioned after time has past". Hence why per RECENT we should take a wait and see attitude. Beyond that, how does this content make the reader of this article better informed. What is the reader supposed to take away from this? I think this is one of the big problems with these sort of "things X said that were shocking" lists. This type of content is supporting evidence. It's an example of something about Carlson but what? If there isn't a topic sentence this supports why is it here? We shouldn't put content in an article just because it resulted in a bunch of noise in the next 24 hrs. We put it in because it will still be significant in 10 years. This doesn't obviously rise to that level so we should take a wait and see attitude. Springee (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valjean: I agree. I've listed 10 sources above. Here are 10 more [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] At this point, we're way PAST WP:DUE. - MrX 🖋 17:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • MrX, please review RECENT. The idea is to prevent "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.". A number of low quality articles (BI, Huffpo, Variety, The Cut etc) making the latest fuss about something TC said is not DUE. We can always add it later if it shows staying power. Springee (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, please review WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN, and please stop telling editors to review essays and explanatory supplements that are not part of policy. - MrX 🖋 19:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with DUE. RECENT is an explanatory supplement to DUE. The one links to the other. Trying to apply the WELLKNOWN part of BLP into this case is a forced fit. Carlson is well known for saying things that result in controversy. However, that is not how this was added to the article. If this were in a section saying "Carlson has a long history of making inflammatory comments" then this could be a supporting example. If this were a section where we had RSs saying Carlson is a believer in "property rights over lives" (I'm inventing that one) then this would be a supporting statement. Given the long list of inflammatory things Carlson says each year, why does this one rise to the top of the list? Has he even lost advertisers because of it? Springee (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Because two people died and one was maimed. And because at least 20 sources took notice. In other words, WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like perhaps you ought to review WP:RECENT, since you cite it a lot but don't seem to understand it. It does not condemn or even discourage the idea of covering breaking news; in fact, it is completely neutral on the topic, merely listing common arguments for and against it. It is far more nuanced than the take you generally seem to present it as - nothing about it is "well, this is recent and controversial, so let's cite WP:RECENT." Furthermore, the examples it gives focus on extreme bias - articles that are "bloated" with recent material. It does not at all support the idea that an entire topic can ever be entirely excluded from an article solely on the basis that it is recent, merely that we have to be cautious with the text and relative weight we devote to topics to avoid the entire article being bloated with such things. To cite it as an argument to exclude a sentence or two devoted to something that has attracted overwhelming coverage is simply misunderstanding it as a policy - do you actually, genuinely believe that Carlson's article is "bloated" with recent material to the point where it threatens to crowd out his history? I am not seeing it. Do you actually believe that this is at risk of becoming an article "overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens"? --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, my use and understanding is just fine. Trying to summarize my arguments as "this is recent and controversial, so let's cite RECENT" is to show that you haven't read my arguments. Springee (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the time has come to add a "Controversial statements" section such that the numerous examples of Carlson's controversial statements that have thus far been excluded as UNDUE individually become DUE in aggregate. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. There are plenty of sources summarizing the fact that he has a history of controversial statements itself as an important topic to understanding his biography, eg. [66][67][68] (from the last one, scroll down and note that it devotes a third of the text to his history of this sort of comment.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Controversy sections. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's something to keep in mind, but it's not a rule, and if the nature of the subject is such that he's constantly embroiled in controversy because of his comments, then the article structure will have to find a way to accommodate that. - MrX 🖋 22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A section relating to his controversial statements and their impacts on Carlson is probably DUE. For instance, some of his previous controversial statements have resulting in a loss of advertisers from his show. Additionally it is certainly due to stay he has repeatedly come under media scrutiny/criticism for statements. A summarized list here could include things like this example. Part of why this was UNDUE as added was it wasn't a single sentence reference as part of a larger topic. Instead it was a stand alone paragraph that was half the BLM entry. To be honest I'm not sure this really can reflect a position on BLM's political positions. It does partially express an opinion about the rioting that has accompanied some of the BLM protests. I think it would be a good idea if such a section were based around RSs talking specifically about how Carlson's controversial statements have impacted Carlson (loss of advertisers, harassment at his home, criticism in the press). That would help provide a frame work to explain why this is part of his BLP. This shouldn't be used as an excuse to dump a list of "controversial things Carlson has said" into the article, rather it is meant to provide better insight into Carlson and how these statements impact him. Springee (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Carlson is on TV every day and says controversial things every day that are seen by informed observers as racist, nativist, irrational, stupid, uninformed, etc. We don't have to list everything he has said but merely explain how he is perceived and provide a few noteworthy examples. We shouldn't try to prove the general perception of him. TFD (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We should try to prove the general perception of him, but this is different to listing everything he has ever said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should not exhaustively list every controversial things he says. We should only list noteworthy examples that have received extensive coverage, like this one. - MrX 🖋 11:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The RS coverage is substantial enough to warrant a mention. Experts see the rhetoric as extremely dangerous. It'll no doubt be covered in academic publications about media, politics and extremism in the Trump era. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If someone says stupid things every day over a decades long career, how do we determine which ones to include? Consider the article on Adolph Hitler. It doesn't mention every speech he made. It just gives summarizes what he talked about. TFD (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)That really hits on one of my concerns here. There is such a long list of things Carlson has said that pissed off at least a few of the media talking/writing heads. How do we separate the truly significant from what become, yesterday's news? I think Masem has a good suggestion in that, with stuff like this, we wait a month or so before adding. If this content still makes sense in a few months, go for it. It's just too early to judge at this point. Springee (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Alternately, Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions for dealing with recentism suggests rewrites after some time, for concision and balance. Llll5032 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
        • From just a few lines later, Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Springee (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
          • And one line afterward: Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Llll5032 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• I just have to ask, how is this material I removed related to his views on BLM? The sources do not seem to make that connection. Is there a better wording or location this material should go to and if so why? Also how does it differ, as TFD notes, from all the other crap he says that also gets coverage? PackMecEng (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously because a the context of the Kenosha unrest, and there are indeed sources that tie it to BLM. It doesn't matter though, because we the content should be included somewhere per WP:DUEWEIGHT because the coverage is both extensive and directly relevant to Carlson's career which is the only reason he has a Wikipedia biography. - MrX 🖋 11:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Synth and ILIKEIT arguments are not quite enough. The material added based on the sources used do not belong in the BLM section and do not show his views or give insight into him either. You also failed to address any of the other concerns listed by me and above. At this point your only argument for this material is yeah well I got some sources that came out recently and that is no where near enough. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Controversy sections#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism suggests such a section, "with subsection titles indicating what these are about." And "Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources." Llll5032 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jgeorge20: There is an ongoing discussion regarding if this material is DUE [[69]]. Please offer your take here. Springee (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As somebody following Carlson since he was friends with Christopher Hitchens, who once had high hopes but now is totally disillusioned, I don't think [[WP:RECENT] or UNDUE applies here, as his stock in trade is now as a controversialist, so do not agree with limiting coverage to a dedicated "criticism" section; effectively sealing off fact checking from anything that does not meet the bar, and thus being deemed not worthy of inclusion...as is happening with the Rittenhouse material here. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really what is happening here. Just routine removal of undue trivia that does not expand the subject. Also there is no criticism section and the section it was in does not make sense for the content. In fact it is more looking like a run of the mill coat rack type situation. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but no. It seems that consensus, reflected by on-wiki voices here, and by the overwhelming weight of international of press coverage, indicates that his recent condoning of murder, which is how he came to promonince on FOX, lets not forget, is not ok, or at least....symptomatic of hs long term race bating approach, which I "feel" makes it now worth a mention, backed up I might add my multiple similar RS, that take a similar overview of his "career" trajectory. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of original research there. But I am glad you decided to come to talk instead of blindly reverting again. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No its not; its reflection of RS consensus. To argue its not, is frankly absurd. Ceoil (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I hope you realise you are supporting whistles towards vigilante lynchings here. Ceoil (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)