Talk:Tucker Carlson

Why are Tucker Carlson's views on Russian invasion of Ukraine censored here?

A full paragraph has been removed, unclear why. The paragraph in question. Ping @Slatersteven
MahaNakhon (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

First of that is not censorship, we already mentioned his support of Putin and Russia. The issue (as I said) was I was unsure that what you were adding was well writen, aI am unsure we need a whole section on this. Thus I felt there was no point in trying to rewrite something I was not even sure should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply @Slatersteven. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the defining events of 2022. Furthermore, Carlson is outspoken about it and his views have generated considerable media attention. That should be reason enough for a separate section. Tucker's views on 2020 election aftermath, a less prominent event in the global scheme of things has its own headline. Other less prominent events as well.

By using the same logic that similar information has been mentioned elsewhere in this article, we could remove a lot of other paragraphs with their own headlines.

As for the paragraph not being good enough, may I ask what specifically was not good? Not seeking any argument here, but I am genuinely curious.
MahaNakhon (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What drew my attention was [[1]] which did not in fact add claritry. I have said many times, we do not need everything Carlson (I found it also found it odd you refer to him as Tucker in your edits, not Carlson) has said, and if anything we need to trim such content to a few choice examples. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Referring to people by their first name is common in my country of residence. My mistake. Assuming that the text is coherent and well written, could we make a separate paragraph? With a separate headline, the text becomes easier much to find and comprehend compared to "it is probably mentioned somewhere in the article". I think a separate headline is warranted, my arguments were presented above. Let me know what you think.MahaNakhon (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I am unsure we need this much detail, on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo

The second paragraph of the introduction has a typo. I in the opening describing him as a supporter of Trump, ism, the word "as" should be "was." Maletype (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Just like I have a typo.

The sentence states that Carlson "as" willing to criticize Trump instead of "was" willing. Maletype (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"as willing" is correct because the statement is summarizing politico's position at that point in time.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Trans comments cited to marginal sources

Dlthewave, first, per BRD you should have started a talk page here before restoring disputed content. Second, you have said the sourcing for the claims was sufficient because it was Yahoo News. Please review the original stories that Yahoo is replubishing. One is sourced to Insider which is a yellow source and in this case is really about responses to the Grammy Awards show rather than Carlson himself. The single quote without full context is not a summary of Carlson's views which is what this section should contain. The other cited source is The Advocate. Not an impartial source and not one we should give much weight to. Even HuffPo is questionable for this sort of content and cherry picking quotes is not OK. Please justify why you restored this poorly sourced content. Springee (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the current summary, Carlson has spoken strongly against trans rights, calling transgender people "a challenge to the perpetuation of the species", is simply incorrect - he said that a rise in transgender identification, if it keeps increasing, is a challenge. It's like the difference between "smoking is bad for society" and "smokers are bad for society". The HuffPo article doesn't back up this incorrect summary either, except in its headline, which can be safely ignored. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I see your point. Is this an improvement? –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I think the misquoting is much worse that you saw. Please see my comments below. Springee (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I support including these quotes as they illustrate Carlson's views toward transgender people. If there's anything that can be done to put them in context or describe his views more accurately, let's make those changes instead of wholesale removal.

This particular use of Insider seems appropriate: They're simply reporting Carlson's views and comments. If there's something about this article that would make it unreliable or unsuitable, I'm open to reevaluating.

As for The Advocate, it's a perfectly reliable source for LGBT related news. As a reminder, weight is based on reliability not impartiality, so I'm not sure why it would carry less weight than any other. Again, is there anything about this particular article that's inaccurate or unreliable? –dlthewave ☎ 22:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly inaccurate or unreliable in these sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave, did you actually verify this content before restoring it? All three sources are seriously misrepresented here. Basically you have just restored and now defended some BLP violation and some seriously misleading quoting of a BLP subject. The HuffPo quote is presented totally out of context and cut off in a way that is clearly false to what Carlson said. The version of the quote you restored was, Carlson said and increase in transgender identification is "a challenge to the perpetuation of the species". What you left out, and HuffPo didn't emphasize in their headlines but did include in their article body was this was Carlson summarizing the POV of a guest. The guest made some statements that included statistical claims. Carlson responded, "It’s a challenge to the perpetuation of the species is what you’re saying" (emphasis mine). To the discredit of HuffPo their headline suggests this is Carlson's personal view and that is how it was added to the wiki article. Note this is one of the reasons why the HuffPo is often a poor source. At least the article included some of the context which was completely left out when the quote was added/restored here. The Advocate isn't a strong source and shows it by taking comments Carlson made and theorizing they mean something bynd their plan language statement. The text you added treats that conjecture as fact. It seams reasonable to say The Advocate supports the claim that Carlson doesn't support gender affirming care for minors. However it is at best misleading if not an outright lie to take a statement that it isn't surprising that a hospital performing this care may receive threats to actually mean Carlson is advocating for those who might make such threats ie supports bombing of hospitals. That moves into the area of slander. Since you restored that quote perhaps you can try to explain how this, "while signaling support for them receiving bomb threats" is a reasonable claim in the source. Even the The Advocate isn't taking it that far or that specifically. They are showing themselves to be a low quality source by suggesting a claim that such an outcome is likely to the the same as advocating for an outcome. That is seriously logically flawed and the sort of logical jump we shouldn't ever accept for a "reliable" source. Finally, the quote presented in the Insider is not accurately summarized in the Wiki entry. Comments along the lines of "what would those who stormed the beaches at Normandy think" are typically commentary about how lousy some modern thing is. They are not literal statements that the speaker thinks those who stormed the beaches did it to protect XYZ reason. Thus it is not reasonable to take the sarcastic quote from the source, ""Yeah they stormed Omaha Beach for that: Trans ideology plus Satanism, popular entertainment," said Carlson." and interpret it to mean Carlson "professed a belief that "trans ideology plus satanism" is the true reason why the United States Military stormed Omaha Beach in World War 2". At best these are low quality sources presenting content in ways that can be misleading. Even worse, the way these sources were summarized when added to Wikipedia are not true to the source articles. It's not clear how much quality content can actually be extracted from these sources but the content that was restored is misleading at best and possibly a slanderous BLP at worse.

Springee (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked over the three issues Springee presents here and I agree the HuffPost source is misleading and should be removed.

As for the article saying while signaling support for them receiving bomb threats, I think it should be reworded to more closely follow the source which reports Tucker said "that hospital employees were criminals who shouldn’t be surprised they 'are receiving threatening phone calls." It could also be mentioned that he said they're "playing the victim".

The last issue about storming Omaha is misleading and can probably be removed as well.

Here's what I'd propose replacing the text with.

Carlson has a history of speaking out strongly against trans rights. He has claimed that hospitals providing gender-affirming healthcare are criminals and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls.

––FormalDude (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I think the degree to which The Advocate distorted Carlson's claims to suggest he is supporting bomb threats is unacceptable in anything we would claim is a RS. We certainly would jump all over that sort of distortion if it came from Fox News. On this alone we should exclude the use of that source as unreliable. Beyond that, his claim is that providing gender affirming care to minors is the issue. Anything that implies he is saying this about adults is a distortion of the comments quoted from Carlson. I don't think what looks like a screed from the Independent is a good source for much of anything. However, if we take for granted what it says as accurate then we still shouldn't say trans "rights" as it's not clear that, for example, gender affirming care for minors is a "right". Saying that he spoke out against trans issues or trans positions is more accurate. Finally, I think the way that suggestion says " and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls" is an issue. That suggests that he is saying threats are the correct thing to do. No where does Carlson suggest or advocate making threating phone calls. He does say such threats are, in essence, an expected outcome of the action but that is not the same thing as advocating. If someone says, "if you walk down that crime ridden alley at night you should expect to get mugged" that doesn't mean they think it is right or proper that you would get mugged.

Zooming out, I think the bigger picture here is Carlson has been vocal about what he feels are the excesses of the trans movement and he has made it clear that he thinks things like taking kids to drag shows is a form of sexualizing children or exposing them to sexualized content while they are under age. He thinks that gender affirming care should be illegal for minors. Both of those statements summarize positions he has taken on trans issues and I would support including both. Importantly both summarize without resorting to hyperbole, especially hyperbole that contains false characterizations as some of the sources have been shown to do. Springee (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I just looked at the PinkNews article. While they emphasize the "playing the victim" quote they don't provide the full passage from which it was taken. We have already seen that the HuffPo presented a short quote out of context in a way that altered it's meaning. I don't think we should assume PinkNews wouldn't do the same. Many sources can rightly say that Carlson uses an inflammatory rhetorical style. However, when sources use the same sort of style to characterize Carlson's positions we shouldn't treat them as reliable for what Carlson said or meant. Springee (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

How does The Advocate distort Carlson's claims to suggest he is supporting bomb threats? The disputed text did that, not the source. Hence my suggestion to adjust the text to more closely follow the source.

For everything else, you seem to be reaching. The Advocate doesn't say his claim is about minors, he says it hurts children. We can add that to the proposal. Gender affirming care for minors is a right. Rights are any legal, social, or ethical principles. There's nothing wrong with "and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls" because that's exactly what the source says, the implications you suggest are your own.

New proposal:

Carlson has a history of speaking out strongly against trans rights. He has claimed that hospitals providing gender-affirming healthcare are criminals who harm children and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls.

––FormalDude (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct about The Advocate. They didn't specifically say bomb threats, they only said "engage in threatening behavior". Again, suggesting that Carlson is encouraging threatening behavior is really stretching what Carlson is quoted to have said. That sort of distortion is not something RSs do. The Advocate article does make it clear this is about minors, not adults. The opening sentence says hospitals that provide car to trans children. The hospitals mentioned are various children's hospitals. Minors are children are mentioned throughout the whole article. Even the quoted Walsh tweet says minors. That this is about minors is clear. We should not call gender affirming care for minors a right. Some want it to be a right, others don't agree. This is certainly not legally settled as Oklahoma, right or wrong, is showing. Here is how I would make the proposed text acceptable (without citing the Advocate as that article fails RS):

Carlson has a history of speaking out strongly against what he views as the excesses of the trans movement. He has said that hospitals providing gender-affirming healthcare to minors are criminals who harm children.

This version makes it clear that the access to the care in question is in dispute and that he feels that care provided to children is a crime (implied, should legally be a crime). I removed the threats part as it becomes a difficult to handle passage. Saying that he isn't surprised they receive threats isn't a shocking statement. He isn't saying they should receive threats. The only reason why we are talking about this statement is because a source incorrectly tries to claim saying something is an expected outcome is the same as advocating for it. That isn't OK in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I support FormalDude's suggested version. This adequately summarizes his views without leaving anything out; there's no need to omit details because of wordsmithing challenges. Springee, may I ask which source supports "what he views as the excesses of the trans movement"? –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Advocate does not fail RS, and you left out the rest of that quote which finishes engage in threatening behavior with a wink and a nod. That is common secondary analysis stating that Tucker's claim is indirectly influencing his audience, it's no distortion, and not a reason to disqualify the source especially when it's not being included or used to verify any text in the proposal. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Advocate is taking a reasonable thing that Carlson said and falsely claiming it is incitement. That is not something any reliable source does. As such that article at the least, and if this is a pattern, then the whole source, is not reliable. I did leave out "engage in threatening behavior" since the way it was presented was ambiguous. As presented it can imply Carlson was going to call them or encourage others to call them. That is not true to the Carlson quotes from the article. Again, huge difference between saying and outcome is likely and saying you support that outcome. That last part doesn't summarize his position on the subject. If you want to say this is a common rhetorical style of his (he used a similar statement in the Rittenhouse case) that would be fine. However, it's false to, as The Advocate has done, suggest it was incitement. Springee (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, they are not saying Tucker supports the outcome, or even implying it. a wink and a nod means indirect communication. They're saying he indirectly influenced viewers–that is not incitement and not false. I think I've exhausted the point. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The nod and wink part means they saying this is intentional. That is Heck of a claim and not one a reliable source would make. Springee (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave, did you actually read The Advocate? Claiming it was referring to affirming care for adults (ie not making it clear this was about minors) is grossly misleading and not true to the source. I don't recall which source I used for that summary language but I'm certainly OK with changing it to something else. I will note that you restored claims which clearly fail WP:V. So long as you are challenging where phrases came from, why not challenge, "has a history of speaking out strongly against trans rights". Since you say you are OK with FormalDude's version please be consistent with your concerns. Springee (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can certainly add "to children" or "to minors". –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is an improvement but still has issues. First, The Independent - Voices sure looks like an Op-Ed/opinion article vs factual reporting. Note that when you go to The Indepedent's home page "Voices" appears in a tab with Editorials and Letters. That already makes it an issue for factual claims about a BLP (though I think the general claim is true). The other issue with that is include "Trans-rights" as what are wants vs rights is not established in law etc thus we shouldn't state that in Wiki-voice. The other issue is the inclusion of "and added that they should expect to receive threatening phone calls". Again, what he actually said is they shouldn't be surprised that people do that given the issue at hand. To present it in any way that suggests he is advocating or endorsing the behavior is absolutely not acceptable. So in the end we still have problematic sourcing and a contentious claim that is poorly supported. Springee (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, most of this[2] is fine but trans-rights does not appear in The Independent so we shouldn't use it. Regardless of the less than objective nature of that article (it clearly mixes a lot of OpEd/author opinion with some statements of fact), it is talking about trans issues and kids. The statement "Trans-rights" fails WP:V. Springee (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Independent says LGBTQ rights activists are all frequent targets of Carlson’s vitriol and goes on to list multiple instances of his attacks on trans rights, I think we're fine. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Activists are not rights and the the transgender rights movement, which is where you linked trans rights, wants these things to be rights. It doesn't say they are rights. Also, it needs to be clear that gender affirming care refers to minors, otherwise it can be read as gender affirming care to adults can hurt minors. Springee (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"it needs to be clear that gender affirming care refers to minors" Then why don't you fix it? –dlthewave ☎ 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Text messages in Dominion's lawsuit brief

Dominion Voting Systems has a $1.6 defamation suit against Fox News, in which they just filed a 176 page brief in support of their motion for summary judgement (which requires a prima facie showing of actual malice), and it has about a dozen text messages from Carlson which clearly indicate he and his Fox colleagues didn't believe any of the claims of election fraud, which is not what he was telling his audience at the time. Here are some which we might want to include, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html

• On Nov. 7, as the presidential election was being called for Biden, Carlson expressed to a producer his dismay at how the network was presenting the news: “Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience? We’re playing with fire, for real … an alternative like newsmax could be devastating to us.”
• On Nov. 12, Carlson took another turn. Talking about Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich’s tweet fact-checking the lies Trump and certain Fox News hosts were spewing about Dominion, he texted Sean Hannity: “Please get her fired. Seriously…. What the fuck? I’m actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Carlson then informed Hannity that he “just went crazy on” an executive over Heinrich’s accurate reporting. The next morning, Heinrich deleted her tweet.
• On Nov. 13, Carlson wrote that he wanted Trump to concede the election and that “there wasn’t enough fraud to change the outcome.”

I'm inclined to include those three as representative, but curious what others think. Sandizer (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think some mention should be in the article but something to the effect that Carlson disagreed with internal Fox News members who disagreed with his takes on the subject. We do need to remember that Dominion is releasing this information leading into a settlement or trial. This is similar to how the legal team going after the Ford Pinto case released the "Pinto memo". It legally doesn't prove much of anything but it did then and this does now help to poison the well of potential voters. Looking at each of the examples from Slate, the first is an opinion and doesn't say anything about Dominion. Without knowing what specific things Carlson was concerned about this could mean a wide range of things from completely benign to damning. I wouldn't trust Slate to be impartial in their interpretation given their track record.[3] The second makes it clear the news are and Carlson disagreed. That doesn't mean Carlson believed he was wrong. The third doesn't prove Dominion's claim either. As an example, Alan Dershowitz felt the Pennsylvania case should have been reviewed as he felt it had merit. He doesn't think it would have changed the overall result of the election since flipping Penn wasn't enough to change the outcome. Carlson feeling the overall outcome was correct isn't inherently inconsistent with a view that the issues aren't worth discussing. My point to all this is Dominion and the sympathetic press are working to poison the well. Of all this, I think the part that is worth inclusion is the part that Carlson and the news team disagreed. I will also say there very well may be more facts that come to light in the future so we shouldn't take any of this as final. Springee (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2023 (talk)

After you erased my edits to eliminate the "stock price" and Carlson's vulgarity, I Googled the terms. The first of 2.2 million hits were CNN, Politico, Business Insider, Slate, Salon, Vanity Fair, New York Times, Business Intelligencer, New York Magazine. The next was The Atlantic, but only the first sentences were visible to non-subscribers. All of those first nine mentioned the stock price comment and included the vulgarity although one used f*ck to prevent its faint-hearted readers from swooning. As you've done many hundreds of times before, you failed to notice me that you were removing my well-sourced edit. I don't have time to fight with you but a few years ago when you were stalking, Wikihounding and canvassing, etc., me, I looked at the time at your last half dozen lists of 500 recent edits, 3,000 in all, and found that you were consistently spending 18-21% of your editing participation on noticeboards, with Jim Jordan tenacity and combativeness. I wondered how many seasoned or new editors might have been driven away by that sort of behavior? So I'm reverting your most recent inappropriate erasures of my well-sourced and notable Carlson edits. Feel free to message me if you disagree. Activist (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly long article. We should be summarizing, not including every juicy quote. That said, I've edited the entry to include the negative impact on share price. Please keep in mind that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a persuasive narrative. Also, FOC, not editors. Springee (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I could have included many other quotes from the cited article, as well as those from so many of the other sources I've listed, as you're well aware. Your minimalist and uninformative substitution of just the faintest hint of what was going on there is grotesquely inadequate, as you're well aware. I've reverted your most recent scrubbing. Get some consensus before your determined whitewashing. Activist (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus version of this text and accusations of white washing are uncivil. You also referred Malerooster's edit. As I've said the article is overly long and we should summarize, not include news type "sound bites". Please review WP:QUOTEFARM. In particular, "Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing". Springee (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Activist, the quotes have more value in illustrating exactly what was said than some sanitized, milquetoast summary about "disagreement". –dlthewave ☎ 14:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

How is your opinion consistent with wp:Quotefarm? Springee (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I've published a compromise version that keeps most of the quotes yet also merges this paragraph with the single sentence paragraph above. I've also made it clear that this information was released by the Dominion legal team. Hopefully this can keep all happy. Springee (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This basically breaks it down into a series of smaller quotes, which is OK I guess. Just out of curiosity, what made you decide to trim "What the fuck? I'm actually shocked"? –dlthewave ☎ 17:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The whole article is already too long and editors typically don't remove or consolidate old content when adding new material. If the article is going to be this long it really needs to avoid unneeded text/details etc (see how my phrasing was further improved/reduced here [4]). While the profanity and shock statement had shock value it didn't add any substance to the facts at hand. We are supposed to write with IMPARTIAL tone, it would almost be best if our subjects didn't speak the same language thus we would have to summarize vs fill articles with exact quotes. The profane quotes may get an emotional response out of readers (likely why many sources included them) but they don't convey facts. Springee (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

When someone says something shocking, we don't edit it down to make it less shocking. That would be whitewashing which I know is not your intent.

"...editors typically don't remove or consolidate old content when adding new material" No they don't. Why would they? –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable they wouldn't as most editors don't curate articles like that. When you see something new in the press it seems like a good idea to add it. Cutting things is harder since it requires zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. You run the risk of arguments over what is/isn't undue etc. However, when we run into WP:LENGTH issues then we really need to decide what to do. The current article is about 13,000 words [5] WP:SIZERULE suggests we should consider taking action at 8,000 words we are approaching the 15000 limit where they suggest division is all be a requirement. Is all of this content really due? If not, then what parts of this article could be condensed, consolidated or even just removed? Springee (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That guidance isn't widely followed. If you feel strongly that this article is too long, the solution would be for you to split it into separate smaller aritcles (if other editors agree, that is) rather than pressuring others to limit their additions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I get that. I don't think restoring the quote and removing the summary was an improvement. It should be reversed. Springee (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The summary didn't accurately the sources; I don't see anything that supports "Carlson said it hurt the credibility of Fox talk shows". We would have to compose a more accurate summary rather than simply reverting to a version that fails verification. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Then prose a summary that you find acceptable. I disagree that it fails WP:V. Springee (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"Far right" in opening sentence

"Far right" appears multiple times in the article as well as the lead. I feel that it's prominent enough to appear in the first sentence description per this edit. Are there any policy-based objections to this? –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right" is a contentious label. The lead currently says Carlson has helped to promote far-right ideas. That seems consistent with sourcing. Claiming that Carlson himself is far-right would basically mean you need to have sources consistently define him as such. I don't think we have that in this case. Since his promotion of far-right ideas is already part of the lead this seems like a needless attempt to shoehorn a contentious label into the opening sentence of a BLP article. Remember, it's not policy based objection to the actions. You need policy based support. Springee (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We actually do not have any body or lead content that describes Carlson as far-right. Both the body and lead mention that he gives mainstream coverage to far-right views. I don't think those things are synonymous. For someone as well-covered as Carlson, I think it's fair to expect sources that explicitly say "far-right" and body content that summarizes them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and section headings

I added a section heading to content that will be developed as more evidence of Carlson's pushing of election fraud lies is revealed:

Decision to knowingly push "election fraud" falsehoods

That accurately describes the content, which is backed by myriad RS, although I am not wed to that exact wording. A shorter way to say the same thing would be welcomed.

It was replaced with this heading by Springee:

Dominion Voting System lawsuit

This is the edit summary:

"Impartial section heading"

I'm open to any real improvement to a heading, but this "impartial" idea happens to violate NPOV by neutralizing and disguising the actual content, and a heading or article title should accurately describe the content, which does not have to be "impartial". This just looks like disguising the actual content. How about we discuss this and find a more accurate heading? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee's right though just removing the heading might have been better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, Springee's reasoning is not right. That content does need its own heading, so your suggestion is even worse by completely eliminating mention of an uncomfortable fact. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would leave the heading as it is now. The section is about the lawsuit. --Malerooster (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

How about not disguising content headings under the guise of neutrality please? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! This ruse is a misguided appeal to NPOV that shows a gross misunderstanding of NPOV. Editors, not content or sources, must be neutral. Our content is not neutral, nor are article titles or article headings. We are to accurately describe the content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

FD, I don't think restoring the previous heading conformed with BRD or CON. The section heading is new thus has no inherent consensus. Two editors support the heading you restored, three do not. Please either self revert or simply remove the heading (the previous stable case) until we have a new consensus. Springee (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Malerooster, you must not have read the section. It's about the evidence of Carlson's deliberate decision to continue to push what he knew were falsehoods about the election. This article is about Carlson, and that section is not focused on the lawsuit, but on Carlson. We have sections about the lawsuit in the Fox News article and the Dominion Voting Systems article. Here we focus on Carlson, not the lawsuit. His actions were independent of the lawsuit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with a different heading. However, I think any heading that makes an accusation, "‎Decision to knowingly push "election fraud" falsehoods" fails IMPARTIAL. At minimum it has not been proven and all the evidence has come from the plaintiff's side of a defamation case. I can see FD's concern and I share it. When I changed the heading I was trying to think of something IMPARTIAL so I simply named the case. As this is a BLP we cannot include unproven accusations as a section header. However, I'm open to alternatives to this header so long as they don't imply this is proven or "obviously" guilt. Do keep in mind there is a difference between what "Fox hosts" said and what Carlson said. Springee (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker has continuously pushed an election fraud narrative that this section reveals he doesn't even believe in. The title should be reflective of that. Maybe "Private mocking of election fraud claims"? ––FormalDude (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that what is messages actually say? We need to be very careful to stick to facts vs accusations. If we can't agree on a title I suggest we remove it until we have an agreement. Springee (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mocking" is the lightest way to put it. "Disbelief" would probably be more accurate. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I am open to other possible headings, but invoking "impartial" is misguided. Accuracy is paramount, but we can still avoid sensationalized headings. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle? Neutering the POV of sources violates NPOV. This is not about mere evidence or guilt. This is about his own words and actions, not accusations by others. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you all think of Revelation of private text messages since the paragraph is about the messages revealed regarding the 2020 election. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Eh. Impartial is a concocted rationale here, but I have a fondness for concision in section titles as well. If we look at the other conspiracists involved in pushing the big lie and see how their articles are, Rudy Giuliani#Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits, Sidney_Powell#Defamation_lawsuits_against_Powell, they're pretty brief. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"Contradictory positions on election results" ? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the public statement(s) were that Carlson made, which he privately disagreed with? It's not clear from the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker and all Fox News people, from top to bottom, did not believe there was major election fraud. They believed Biden won the election and Trump lost. They discussed these things privately, and they ridiculed Trump, Giuliani, Lindell, Sydney Powell, et al.

Fox News immediately began to lose viewers to Newsmax and OANN when Fox News called Arizona for Biden They had also made public statements admitting Trump lost the election. The dramatic loss of viewers placed the network in crisis mode and they consciously decided to knowingly push election fraud lies to their viewers.

The sources are below. This is my little pet project where I post all the good sources I can find. Fox News does not report on this, partially because they are the defendants. Regardless, this fits the long-standing pattern (since 2016) of right-wing media. They have always been keeping the facts from conservatives: "18 Most Popular Conservative Media Outlets Ignored Fox News Revelations"

Have fun. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

So, what was it that he said? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Click show below, to expand the topic. Then, direct your eyeballs to the transcluded section titled "Here are a few sources". Place one finger on your Control key, another finger on "F". Type Carlson in the search box. Zaathras (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Off the air, Fox News stars blasted the election fraud claims they peddled - NPR Carlson was one of them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just for clairification, which election fraud claims were they talking about? There were a lot of different claims of fraud and/or improprieties. I thought Salon said Carlson himself pushed back on the Dominion voting machine claims. This is the sort of thing the courts will have to settle out. Consider if Carlson was "all in" on "vote harvesting (10000 mules)=fraud" but not on Dominion. If he felt the Dominion story was bunk and didn't push it (per sources) then we shouldn't claim he was pushing something he knew was false. He might have been pushing something else that was false (mules harvesting votes) but not this. The problem is the information just isn't clear. That is why we need to be careful how we right this. Again, this information was released by people taking legal action against Fox. We haven't seen any rebuttal so we should not assume the claims regarding what the material actually shows are factually correct. Springee (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  What we do here is document what RS say. We can quote RS when they quote what Carlson said privately and publicly. I can understand this is confusing. It is to me also. Because he knew that what he and his guests were saying publicly was bunk, there are a few occasions where his doubt of false claims peeked through, and he usually got in trouble for it. There are instances in that whole section where such exceptional instances are described. His public statements are what they are, and most of the time he was knowingly lying about the election results. He was a notable election denier who pandered to Trump's supporters. His private statements make it clear he knew he was lying and giving liars a platform. Murdoch knew this and knew that the hosts were lying to their viewers.

  I suspect we could do more justice to this whole subject in an "Election fraud claims" section in an article called Veracity of statements by Tucker Carlson, as there are many other topics where he is an infamous pusher of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of "what RS say", what are the contradictory things that Carlson has said in public vs. private, according to reliable sources? No one here seems able to answer that question. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, I don't know what to tell you. You keep refusing to look at the sources. You want us to do your work for you.

The general situation is that the many Fox hosts dealt with the disconnect between their private views on (1) who won the election (they knew Biden won) and (2) "election fraud" (they knew the claims were false and without evidence) and their public face on the matter (they fed the conspiracy theories themselves and allowed the worst promoters to blast out falsehoods on their shows) in different ways. Some were much worse than others, and Carlson was not the worst (Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro were much worse), yet he still fed the false claims and publicly backed election deniers like Powell and Lindell, giving them a voice. When Lindell, his biggest advertiser, went on Newsmax and criticized Fox News, Fox News leaders were very worried:

"But while Carlson did challenge Powell on air on November 20, Carlson nevertheless invited Mike Lindell on air to make the very same claims. Lindell’s company MyPillow is Fox’s top advertising spender...(Carlson knew Lindell is a major Fox News sponsor). Indeed, when Lindell made negative comments about Fox on Newsmax, Fox’s executives exchanged worried emails about alienating him and sent him a gift along with a handwritten note from Suzanne Scott. Exs.523-525. Fox had a strong motive to welcome him on air and avoid rebutting his baseless claims."

The hypocritical contrast is very nicely presented in this New York Times article.

"What Fox News Hosts Said Privately vs. Publicly About Voter Fraud"

Now please stop asking and at least read this one source. My list has now grown to 115. Start reading.

I don't know about you, but the rest of us know that Biden won, Trump lost, and Fox News is a major pusher of election fraud lies. Now Dominion Voting Systems has exposed them using Fox's own internal communications, and all but right-wing media are covering this. Right-wingers are kept in the dark and think this is all fake news. They have gone down the rabbit hole and live in a Trump cult bubble of disinformation. Fortunately, Wikipedia is supposed to cover what RS say about this scandal. We have a number of articles to update. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope you're not expecting readers to do the work of looking through the sources to figure out what happened... anyway, I think I understand the issue now: it's not that Tucker Carlson said something he thought was incorrect, but that he had Mike Lindell on his show, to say something Carlson thought was incorrect. Why that's scandalous, I don't know - the whole point of having guests on a news show is that they bring their own views. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's scandalous that Tucker didn't correct Lindell in front of viewers. Tucker had a responsibility to his viewers that they not be misled, but he also knew that if he told them the truth, they would attack him, leave Fox News, and go to Newsmax and OANN. The internal discussion was about how to "thread the needle" between the truth and pressure from viewers and sponsors. Tucker did it by appeasing Trump supporting viewers and not allowing them to sense that Fox News own hosts didn't believe the BS their shows were pushing. He behaved cowardly and dishonorably, selling his soul for money, and I'm pretty sure he really feels bad about that. Seriously. He had the option of quitting, as some honorable hosts have done, but he didn't do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Absurdly long article

Is this guy the single most important figure in U.S. history? The length of this article is absurd. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a specific part of Wikipedia:Article size you wish to address, or is this just a random off-the-cuff opinion? Zaathras (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It started as a random roadside opinion but after reading a section or two, I think I may have a months long project in front of me. That is if I can get motivated enough for it. Goodtablemanners (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds ominous. Remember to follow our WP:Preserve policy by improving rather than just deleting, as the size isn't a real issue. Discuss any changes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's on the longer side, no doubt. But, I don't think it's absurd. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of larger bios here. Tucker is an absurdly notable and very controversial TV personality with a long history in many areas. That the media documents every aspect of his life means we are able to easily do our job and document it. His pushing of election fraud lies, COVID19 fringe ideas, and Jan. 6 conspiracy theories just adds more. If a certain topic gets too large and creates an undue weight problem, the proper thing to do is split it off into a sub article, per SUMMARY STYLE. That can reduce the size here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It certainly could stand some reduction. It suffers from outage of the week coverage. Many of the "Carlson said X" last night parts could be shorter or even cut in some cases. Also many are presented as he views on a subject. If that's the case they should be summarized. If they are being included because he said this crazy thing then they should probably be lumped into a rhetorical style type section. This has gone well beyond a "summary" and into a play by play. Springee (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Goodtablemanners, it's time for you to follow BRD. You made some very BOLD changes and I REVERTED them. Now DISCUSS them here while leaving the status quo ante version in place.

I restored a lot of the content you deleted and left this edit summary for you:

"from here on you need consensus, so discuss first. Yes, there should not be content in the lead which is not in the body, but you are deleting content from the lead without moving it to the body. This is the internet's premier source and should indeed contain his family history. We should contain much more than any other source. If the genealogy stuff gets too large for this article, then split it off into another article on the subject, but do not delete from here until that is done."

The only way for me to easily make that edit unfortunately deleted a few good copy editing and minor edits by you. Feel free to restore them, just don't make a single edit that can remotely risk being controversial without discussion first. Otherwise, you risk being suspected of whitewashing and/or other nefarious motives, and I really doubt you intend to do such a thing. Follow PRESERVE and SUMMARY STYLE very carefully, as suggested above. There is no need to rush any cleanup here. Make small steps and seek consensus first before making controversial edits. Be more careful.

Editing a lead is always a minefield. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to dump stuff there before/instead of in the body, so, using great care, you might be able to find such material and move it to the body while leaving a brief mention in the lead if warranted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is content in the lead paragraph with no mention in the body, carefully move it to the body, and if it has enough WP:WEIGHT then mention it in the lead proportionally This is a popular article so you can always ask the talk page for help/consensus on a proposal. Eruditess (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If something is mentioned in the lead but not the body, we move it to the appropriate section instead of removing it entirely. This article is long because the subject had received large amounts of coverage and there's no need to pare it down to match bios with less coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to look at it is how significant will Carlson be in 50 or 100 years. Let's apply the Hooke test. Take someone like Robert Hooke. Are we going to claim Carlson is more significant than Hooke? The length of the two bios suggests yes, very much so. If no then chances are this bio is too long. Consider that this article is more than twice as long as Henry VIII. Springee (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles this long tend to discourage rather than encourage people to read them. And, of course, Carlson is only 53 years-old. What will the article be like when (and if) he reaches his dad's present age? Material like the Lincolnesque description of his lineage should be the first stuff to go. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A properly written lead will inspire some people to read the article, but few people read long articles. That's their choice. Nowadays few people can read more than a tweet. People use articles to find information, and they can search the article for key words, and they'd better find it here. We do not want to disappoint them. Keep this in mind: "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." (Baseball Bugs)

You wrote "to go". No, instead we "split it off". (Maybe you meant that, which is good.) We do not leave out what RS tell about him, other than true trivia (which is only covered by National Enquirer and other gossip rags), or things mentioned only a couple times for a day or so. Otherwise we document it. IF multiple RS mention something, it is no longer trivia, no matter how silly it may seem.

We do not just delete the good faith hard work of other editors. We respect their efforts and PRESERVE it, even as we tweak and improve it. We are not paper, therefore, roughly put, the amount of information is of no concern to us. If there is a lot of info out there, then we create a lot of content with it here. Our primary focus is as inclusionists, otherwise we aren't building the encyclopedia. Our secondary focus is to improve that content, and sometimes that means condensing and refining it, but it doesn't just "disappear" completely.

That doesn't mean it all has to be in this "mother" article. Sub-articles spring up when certain topics get so large they create a due weight problem here. Then we "move", not "delete" it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well put, Valjean. –dlthewave ☎ 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Springee, those are some interesting new ideas! I've never heard of the "Hooke test" or that we should consider a subject's significance in 50-100 years or that article length has any relation to the "importance" of the topic. A BLP about a prominent and controversial figure is probably just about the worst possible place to try out these new concepts. My advice to you would be to write an essay or maybe even something for the Signpost and see if it gets any support from other editors. Until then I would ask that you stick to current standard practices. –dlthewave ☎ 00:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I took the idea from JzG/Guy. It certainly helps decide if we are just loading an article up with a laundry list of grievances as this article is. Still, if you think Henry VIII isn't prominent or controversial... Springee (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This so-called "Hooke test" and comparison to Henry VIII's articles are extreme oversimplifications, and not an indication that an article is "too long". Article length and depth is simply a product of the volunteer editor(s) who choose to come here and work on that particular subject. No one with even half a bran cell would think that Jonas Salk has less his historical importance than the Cultural impact and legacy of BTS, yet the former has 8 pages of readable text while the latter hits 10. The Wikipedia attracts more k-pop stans than fans of polio researchers, this is an unavoidable reality as millennials take over. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is one of the problems with pruning down an article like this. Too many editors feel their little bit of dirt is too important to wash out of the article. Springee (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wash out"? Well-put. Maybe because whitewashing is wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

But cutting down undue content isn't Springee (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

True, but we do know that opinions differ on that. Due weight is often a rubbery issue that is frequently invoked and often misused. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly true and in both directions. Springee (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Topics that can be split off

The sections "Media career" and "Political views" can easily become sub-articles. That would leave short summaries here with "main" links. The article would be drastically reduced in size and easily read.

I like to use the lead from the sub-article as the section here. That works very well. Then the section here should only be edited when a major change of the sub-article's lead warrants it.

The "Rhetorical style" section could also be developed enough to warrant becoming a sub-article. His constant use of outright falsehoods and hyperbole have caused him to end up in court, with his lawyers affirming that he is not a reliable source for news.[6][7] That's in court records. That section could easily become a Veracity of statements by Tucker Carlson article, like the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article. People who have a reputation for constantly pushing misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories are noted for it, and RS document it. It's certainly a notable enough topic for an article. We should be developing this stuff. The sources are myriad.

Goodtablemanners, these would be great projects for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think political views could reasonably be turned into a fork article. Media career, eh, possibly. However, I can't think off the top of my head of any other news commentator who has a whole article for their media career. I don't think Rhetorical style needs a fork. It's not even that long in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "Political views" would be the first and most logical place to start. "Media career" is iffy, and spinning off "Rhetorical style" would only make sense if it is developed much more, as I described.

Do we have a consensus for spinning off Political views of Tucker Carlson? Feel free to suggest other titles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose. We should clean up the mess here rather than create what would likely become POV forks. It might be helpful to post the question to BLPN so we could get the views of people who don't normally edit the article. Springee (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In what way would it be a POV fork? Spinning off such content is standard procedure. Keeping it here would tempt people to violate PRESERVE. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson 'passionately' hates Trump

Tucker Carlson 'passionately' hates Trump, and eight more key revelations about Fox News from new Dominion filings — CNN, March 8, 2023

The legal filings total hundreds and hundreds of pages. Journalists will unquestionably be sifting through them for days and weeks to come. But here are some immediate takeaways:

Carlson "passionately" hates Trump: In a number of private text messages, Carlson was harshly critical of Trump. In one November 2020 exchange, Carlson said Trump's decision to snub Joe Biden's inauguration was "so destructive." Carlson added that Trump's post-election behavior was "disgusting" and that he was "trying to look away." In another text message conversation, two days before the January 6 attack, Carlson said, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait." Carlson added of Trump, "I hate him passionately." The Fox host said of the Trump presidency, "That's the last four years. We're all pretending we've got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it's been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn't really an upside to Trump."

Maybe some of this should be included in the article, in relation to what Carlson actually thinks of Trump. Perhaps in the Parties and candidates section, with a new sub-section specifically about Trump? Just a thought. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)