Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Tucker Carlson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

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.[1] 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 [2]). 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 [3] 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)

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"^[1]

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^[2] 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."^[3]

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

"What Fox News Hosts Said Privately vs. Publicly About Voter Fraud"^[4]

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

^ Lambert, Harper (March 5, 2023). "18 Most Popular Conservative Media Outlets Ignored Fox News Revelations". TheWrap. Retrieved March 6, 2023.
^ Khalid, Asma; Folkenflik, David (February 16, 2023). "Off the air, Fox News stars blasted the election fraud claims they peddled". NPR. Retrieved March 6, 2023.
^ "Dominion's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability of Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation, Public Version Filed on February 16, 2023" (PDF). January 17, 2022.
^ Thompson, Stuart A; Yourish, Karen; Peters, Jeremy W (February 25, 2023). "What Fox News Hosts Said Privately vs. Publicly About Voter Fraud". The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2023.

User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

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)

To be fair, any article on Carlson is going to focus on grievances. His entire brand is white male grievance, and virtually all reality-based commentary is a reaction to one or other shitty thing he said on air. With the Fox / Dominion discovery, he is quite likely to be attracting even more scrutiny going forward. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:13, 9 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)

I agree that a blow-by-blow of every single outrageous thing he has every done is not an encyclopaedia article. Summary sources discussing the quantity and nature of outrageous things he has said are much easier to turn into readable narrative. A paragraph or two on election lies, a paragraph or two on white supremacism, and so on.

After all, it's not as if anything he says can be taken seriously - even his own lawyers acknowledge that. To document a racist rabble-rouser does not require a lengthy discussion of each incidence of racist rabble-rousing, accompanied with the inevitable weasel-worded self-sourced rebuttal. That's journalism, not biography. The significance of his outrageous comments comes from their reach, not from their actual merit. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

(From BLPN notice) - We are not here to create a laundry list of every reported thing about a person (particularly when they are negative). At least 10% of this article feels like "This is opinion from RSes that reflect badly on Tucker, so we must include it", and that's weighing it down. There's also far too many quotes in the "Political views" section overall. We don't need everything he's said or reactions to what he said, this all should be much more high level. Separately, there is likely an existing or potential for such an article describing Fox News' propaganda over the "stolen election" and Jan6 events that have come out in detail since the Dominion VS suit. That would give a room for moving the stuff in "2021 U.S. Capitol attack" here onto that article since it is how Tucker and other Fox News talking heads handled it, and less about Tucker solo himself. --Masem (t) 03:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said on the BLPN, I agree with the general idea that summaries should be preferred over individual examples, on this article and others. I might begin doing some of the grunt work to move in that direction; given the nature of this article, I invite scrutiny to any such edits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I made the first such change here. I switched out some of the quotes and minor details from two sections about his opinions on Islam, moved closer to a broad overview, and then combined them into a single section. I think most of the content under "Political views" could benefit from some pruning in this way so that all of the main ideas remain but trivial details are removed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Dlthewave, it seems you're trying to replace some of these descriptions with labels such as "racist" and "anti-Islamic". Per WP:LABEL, you are generally not allowed to do this, especially for an article on a living person. You also seem to be misusing failed verification tags; not only do you not have to use the same wording as sources, but editors are actively discouraged from doing so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
No, we do not replace strong well-sourced language like "racist" and "anti-Islamic" with watered-down words such as "controversial" and "critical". That's whitewashing, a NPOV violation and I have to wonder about the motives of anyone who would do that. I tagged those terms because I could not find any source that mentioned guests being "critical" of Islam; they were anti-Islamic which is not at all the same thing. –dlthewave ☎ 01:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
We also don't treat subjective claims as fact in wiki-voice, hence why LABEL exists. The long standing versions of the text in question [4] was careful to attribute the claims to their sources. You have chosen to instead put them in wiki-voice in violation of LABEL and IMPARTIAL. Should we wonder about your motives since you want to wonder about those of other editors? Your tags are pointy as TBUA's text is a perfectly reasonable summary and satisfies IMPARTIAL. If you don't like the recent changes then we can restore the long standing text versions (while still maintaining the combined text). Springee (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy either way as long as it's condensed together and vaguely resembles policy compliance. Like I said above, my main goal is to reduce trivia and cruft. The wording used to do this can be sorted out separately (and will presumably be argued about until the end of time). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

These are not subjective claims, they're objective reporting by reliable source and it's not our job to second guess. Our policies do not prohibit these words and replacing them with weaker language as you're advocating is in itself a violation of IMPARTIAL. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, "Carlson's views on Islam were the subject of controversy" is not long-standing. It was added here with no sourcing to support. –dlthewave ☎ 05:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The diff I linked to has the long standing text. Even with the consolidation, that is the text we should follow. Also, even if the Washington Post says it, these are still LABELs. Springee (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
LABEL is a guideline which doesn't override our NPOV policy; we can and do make exceptions in cases such as this where the description is factual and reliably sourced. This isn't just someone's opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 06:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I reverted your recent edit because of formatting errors. But I don't object to restoring the stable wording and sources prior to the recent edits, so you could try again without fear of edit warring. Llll5032 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think one important step right now is condensing "foreign policy" down to a few paragraphs. We don't need a detailed breakdown of every country he's ever mentioned or every foreign policy issue he's ever commented on. A section on Russia and a section on the Middle East are probably due, but the rest should just have the general ideas summarized instead of going into specific quotes and examples. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Jan. 6 Attack

Willbb234, you've removed a paragraph about video footage from the Jan. 6 attack several times now. It's not clear exactly what the objection is but it seems to have something to do with WP:SYNTH. Could you please explain your reasoning? –dlthewave ☎ 17:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And you've added it back without consensus. It's your responsibility to tell me. Willbb234 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I also think my edit was quite clear in reasoning. Willbb234 17:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain your reasoning here so that we can discuss it? –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but WP:ONUS is clear, you have to make the case. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning is that this paragraph is well-sourced content that is relevant to the subject and meets our due weight requirements. –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to the coverage of Carlson's Jan 6 footage coverage. Please present some and make the case for inclusion, with the proposed text so we can smith it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The proposed text is here. I also linked it in my first comment. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The CNBC piece does not mention Tucker, so I agree with the WP:SYNTH objection. The NBC News piece is clearly relevant. The other sources appear to be on target. I have no objection to restoring the content minus the SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is my impression as well. Given the considerable level of coverage this has received, it shouldn't be too difficult to find articles that explicitly describe omissions made by Carlson. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no issue with the text. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234, I think this content is clearly due. However, I think the current presentation is unbalanced. The Reason source could be used as a more balanced source as well as more IMPARTIAL tone. In reading some sources on the topic they provide the impression that Carlson said no violence occurred etc. I would suggest making changes rather than simply removing. Springee (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Reason is considered generally reliable, but it's recognized as a WP:BIASED source and I wouldn't recommend using it for any claims that are in dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If MSNBC says, "Carlson didn't mention the violence" and Reason says, "Carlson did mention the violence" then there is a leg to stand on when handling quotes like, "liars when portraying the attack as violent". Carlson's report may go too far in downplaying the violence but a number of sources talking about Carlson's report appear to go too far in the other direction. Reason is taking the time to find the middle which makes it a good source in this case. Springee (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we use a known biased source to establish some sort of middle ground between Carlson's own words and what reliable sources say about him? We can't do that, we only follow reliable sources writing in Wikivoice, but we could consider using the Reason piece for an attributed opinion if it's prominent enough. Do you think it meets WP:WEIGHT? –dlthewave ☎ 21:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That is the wrong way to look at it. Instead a source that breaks down what Carlson said and showed and compares it to what was said in other sources is what I'm suggesting we use as a middle ground. Reason is not biased in favor of Carlson. I would also note that in terms of bias, it's a false view to assume that say, MSNBC is "green" vs Reason when RS specifically says we should be viewing things on a case by case basis. However, if you can find faults in the specific criticisms Reason offers then we can discount them. Springee (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I just restored this content before seeing this section. The reason for deletion was about as bogus/tendentious an argument as I've seen in a long time. IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason. The content was accurate and backed by multiple RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I took out that CNBC source and toned down the "scathing condemnation" language. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both, it looks good to me! –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine. The way this should have been dealt with is governed by WP:Preserve. That's a real policy, so it's binding. The one who discovered the SYNTH violation had already found what needed to be done, so they should have just fixed it. There are myriad ways to deal with problems other than complete deletion. Tagging, tweaking, etc. are better options when dealing with properly-sourced content added by good faith editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the wholesale removal and refusal to explain further was a conduct issue and that editor has since been blocked. –dlthewave ☎ 19:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the original text was problematic (as I think we have already established here). It was also added without conensus and the original editor provided no edit description nor did they attempt to fix the issues once they had been pointed out. Why, then, should I spend my time fixing content that was added by someone else? You might say that I would do it in the interest of the article as a whole, but I believe other editors are much better at writing content on contientious issues like this. I am happy to remove content or discuss it, but reading through American sources on topics which I am not all that familiar with and then writing content on that is not in my expertise.

I think that it is entirely reasonable that the content is therefore removed before consensus can be gathered. I am glad that other editors fixed the content and re-added it into the article, but when I saw the synthesis of sources that allowed one to come to a certain conclusion I immediately removed the content again, as I don't believe that it is my responsibility to babysit you through the process. Just fix the content yourself.

Another reason for my response is that they content added was clearly not impartial and used language that furthered a specific viewpoint. I am tired of this kind of content being added (and there's an awful lot of it in this article as Springee has pointed out) and so my reaction was natural. I don't have time for editors who want to act like this and so I removed the content. I also shouldn't have to repeat myself when giving justifications. I hope this clears things up and I believe you should be grateful that I took the time to justify my actions as it is clearly on those wishing to include the content to give their justifications in the first place. I would be happy to discuss specific parts of the text further but it seems this has already been done to some degree. Willbb234 23:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

BRD restrictions

The article is now under Bold, Revert, Discuss restrictions, per suggestion at the Administrators' Noticeboard. This means that an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Broken door?

FormalDude, do you think it is appropriate to include this statement of doubt [5] with respect to Carlson's claims regarding the his door? The NBC source quotes Carlson telling the Wash Po that his door was cracked. The recently added CNN article seems to have been added only to suggest Carlson might be lying, "though police found no damage to the door". However, this is not a reasonable summary of the CNN article. It quotes the police as saying, "MPD did not observe any visible damage to the front door of the victim’s house the night of the incident". That doesn't mean the door wasn't damaged. Right after CNN quoted the police the article said, "It is still possible that the door was cracked. And there is no doubt that the overall incident was disturbing to the Carlsons." This means the statement that was recently added to the article is not true to the source and there is no doubt that the protesters came to his house. The police statement is not definitive that no damage was done and CNN clearly states that damage may have been done. I don't see an issue with removing mention of the door but we shouldn't include a statement of doubt that exceeds the level of doubt provided in the source. Springee (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you trolling me? "police found no damage to the door" has exactly the same meaning as "police did not observe any visible damage to the front door". It does not proclaim the door wasn't damaged, it proclaims police saw no damage. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

They aren't exactly the same thing. The former can indicate a clear search to verify the claim while the latter suggests just a quick observation. Even CNN says, that doesn't mean the door wasn't damaged. My question is why should we include that statement of doubt that suggests Carlson might have been wrong about damage to the door when sources have confirmed other damage to the property? I see no reason to include CNN's statement of doubt. If we doubt that particular claim then just remove it from the article (which is what I did). Note the history here is the door damage claim was long term content. An editor recently added the statement of doubt. I removed both the statement of doubt and the claim. Springee (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

How about "though police observed no damage to the door"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers and Springee: - I've changed it to that. starship .paint (exalt) 06:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I propose that we delete the entire paragraph; I considered doing so before this dispute began. It's a random incident with very little weight relative to the rest of Carlson's career, and it probably never should have been added in the first place. There are a bunch of insignificant details like this throughout the article, which is why it's so long and difficult to read. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the incident at Carlson's house should be removed. That part was widely reported and including 1-2 sentences seems reasonable. Springee (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It either gets removed in full or stays in full. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of a reliable source to include based on your personal preference. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no reason the choice is keep the part about the attack and the door or remove the whole part about the attack. I'm fine with removing the claim about the door and the police comment. I'm not fine with removing that Carlson's home was attacked (not sure attacked is the correct word btw). Thus we would include, "In November 2018, a "Smash Racism D.C." activist group associated with antifa protested outside Carlson's Washington, D.C., home. Carlson's driveway was vandalized with a spray-painted anarchist symbol," Note, that status quote is including Carlson's statement but not include the police comment. Springee (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that an objection to an edit that gives no substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines, or conventions is not a valid objection. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify your thoughts on this. I'm saying I don't think the fact that the police didn't observe damage to the door is due in the article. I do think that people went to his house and did damage and scared his family is due. Why do you think it's critical to include the police part? Why do you think it's critical to include the statement of doubt? Springee (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for half a sentence to be undue weight. We have an entire RS covering the fact that police saw no damage on his door despite Carlson claiming there was. It is a flagrant NPOV violation to try and wash that portion out while keeping the parts that line up with Carlson's story. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we don't get to cherry pick which parts of the story to include. –dlthewave ☎ 06:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding? We do that all the time. If we didn't we would have to include every fact/claim in our sources. Springee (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're seriously gonna advocate for WP:Cherrypicking we can go straight to a noticeboard. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Including it is already cherry picking. I'm doing a search of sources to be posted later. Most do not mention the police observation. Springee (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the CNN source already in the article, the following sources describe the police observation contradicting Carlson:

––FormalDude (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What key word search did you use to find those sources? I did a search just for "Smash Racism D.C. Tucker Carlson" and found the following (note, "no mention" means no mention of the police saying they didn't observe damage):

NBC (article we already have) Mentions Carlson's claim otherwise no mention [6]
CBS News [7] it does mention the police report called this a possible hate crime but no mention of the door by police.
The Hill [8] no mention though it was focused more on Twitter's response
Business Insider [9] they do mention "Police reportedly confirmed that members of the group also spray-painted an anarchy symbol on the driveway, and left signs on vehicles" but nothing about the police and the claimed damage to the door.
CNN [10]. Again mentions the same police confirmations as the BI source above as well as this is a possible hate crime.
Politico [11] says the protesters denied damaging the door. No mention of the door by police.
AP News [12] "Door" isn't in the article.
USA Today [13] mention's Carlson's claim of damage to the door but no response by police

Basically, we are cherry picking by choosing to emphasize that the copy of what ever police report was reviewed said it didn't observe damage. Why not include the fact that the police said this was a possible hate crime? Regardless, when one searches for news on this topic most sources don't include a statement of doubt regarding possible damage to the door. It's cherry picking that, after how many years this has been stable in the wiki article it was added recently. Springee (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

All of those came out before November 15th, 2018, which was the date when it was first reported that the police did not find any damage. Crazy how that works. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet when we search for the teens in question the are the top items. If we have to stoop to Vanity or Daily Beast perhaps it's not due. Springee (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You just cherry-picked a response here. Vanity, Snopes, and The Atlantic are all green at WP:RS/PS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

BS. I just showed my search and the sources that came up. Note that they are more factual, less commentary in general vs even a good source like The Atlantic. I also didn't sort. I picked based on the order they appeared in my search. Springee (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You left out two green rated sources and said we were stooping to The Daily Beast. The Snopes article is detailed and particularly interesting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Snopes also supports that it was being invested as a possible hate crime. We should include that fact. Springee (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It is in no way shape or form a NPOV violation to remove the minor detail that police didn't observe the claimed damage. Beyond that is also in no way shape or form a violation to simple remove mention of the door. We are meant to summarize sources. That means we can leave details out. Springee (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to quote what David Fuchs said on the BLP/N after looking at this article (in the hopes that I'm not taking the quote out of context): A handy way of seeing which controversies or actions merit inclusion is to see if the article actually gives any context for why it matters. The paragraph about Carlson republishing an old video of Obama around the election? The article doesn't tell me why that matters. If it can't be justified, it's probably just routine news that doesn't deserve mention. I think this is a great rule of thumb that we should apply across the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the fact that 20+ anarchist/activist did damage to his property and threatened (via their actions) his family is relevant if nothing else as an example of the response people have had to his public statements. Springee (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Got an RS that says that? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources in the section we are taking about support those claims. Springee (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the "examples" in this article should be removed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection and all that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just quote? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the quote is selective. It suggests that Carlson may be lying about the damage. Most sources don't include it so if we add it we are over emphasizing doubt. Alternatively, we could over emphasize that police considered that this could be a hate crime. But it's would be better to avoid the controversy by not mentioning either if we are going to force in a claim of doubt. Springee (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Not saying something is not the same as denying it. If RS say police saw no damage (even if some do not) there is not a reason not to include it. However the simplest method is to use only sources that are not close to the event, and so had a chance to look at it outside the "scoop cycle". Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If we include that then I think we're also include that it was being invested as a possible hate crime. Springee (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If latter sources say so yes, what do latter sources say? what we should be using is post-event reporting not at-the-time reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol, no, not a chance in hell of that. A one-off line by the Hill, briefly picked up by sa few outlets, and soon faded away. Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that Carlson's door was damaged. Indeed, Snopes points out that "Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple reminded readers he had gone to Carlson's home to inspect for himself the reported damage, publishing photographs of what appeared to be an intact door". To add this accusation (even if by someone not known for making false claims) without also including RS that say there is no evidence is irresponsible. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

O3000, "(even if by someone not known for making false claims)", Yes, especially because Carlson is infamous for making false claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

At this stage I am thinking that as this seems to rely too much on at the time reporting remove it, the whole thing. If no charges were filed, and not proof provided this is hearsay. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: There is currently a report involving this discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Springee regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:06, 12 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.[14][15] 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 think this is a very good idea, hopefully someone can go for it! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm already starting work on it. The lead is the challenge. Every topic with a heading deserves short mention, and there are a whole lot of sections! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:12, 9 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)

Any time you start splitting off sections of a topic, especially a controversial subject, there is a risk the slips become POV forks. There is so much general crap in this article, minor dramas that could be cut. Splitting it up looks like a really poor choice. Springee (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible to abuse it, such as to "hide away" uncomfortable topics (that's a POV fork), but this is a significant portion of the article (about 193,000 bytes), and spinning off such content is the recommended way to deal with this type of problem. It's not like we'd be spinning off only one aspect/POV of it (that would be wrong), but all of it. What's left behind should be a good summary of the whole sub-article and readers can hop over and read more if they wish. If you want to fight against standard practice, you can go to some drama board and try to change our guidelines. I have spun off content many times and will always welcome constructive criticism and help. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your concern is true but it can work both ways. Forks can be used to hide material from the primary topic or as a place where material that would fail impartial etc can get a second life. Springee (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Which material fails WP: IMPARTIAL here? If there's something that needs to be rewritten or cleaned up, please tell us or simply address it yourself! –dlthewave ☎ 11:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would you ask what material fails impartial when I'm saying this is a potential future issue with forked articles? Springee (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Forking is a really bad idea. There's too much here already. A nest of articles risks POV-forking, and would also be a poster child for recentism. We should say about half as much about Carlson as we do about a real journalist like Dan Rather or Bob Woodward. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've posted a BLPN request for help with this subject as well as getting outside views on how this article might be cut down to a more reasonable size. Springee (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I added a section size tab to the talk page and skimmed the article. Political positions would probably be the easiest split. The article is starting to be WP:TOOBIG, so working on a split is probably a good idea. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Political positions of Tucker Carlson would be a very short article. White supremacist, big fan of fascism, and opinions sufficiently ill-informed that his own lawyers say not to take anything he says seriously. So neither should we.

After all, we don't have an article on political positions of Leni Riefenstahl. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@JzG, Political positions is the largest section of this article. Rhetorically this comment make sense, but in the context of this article its kind of nonsense. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree: in fact, it is the section in most pressing need of serious reduction. His political views - or rather, those of the character he chooses to play on TV - are not at all nuanced. I understand that in political biographies there's a tendency to include the subject's position on well-known issues, even though this is largely boilerplate in these polarised times (good luck finding a Republican in Congress who's in favour of gun control, women's reproductive rights, and a secular society), but Carlson is merely a commentator and I don't actually believe that most of the political statements he makes are sincere statements of position.

As we know from the emails, his actual positions as expressed privately appear entirely inconsistent with those of his TV character, so we should if anything give them even less weight. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't pretend that Sir Anthony Hopkins thinks like Hannibal Lecter. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Carlson is sincere with public statements made in his capacity as a Fox TV commentator, it is still notable. I don't know how we give less weight to his political theatrics, without sources making such an analysis for us. It's not up to us to determine if he is being honest, or actually believes what he says. He has a long track record, and while his private comments are interesting and important to note in the article, his public persona has a broad reaching impact on American politics and culture. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It is, however, up to us to summarise a subject rather than document it blow-by-blow in real time. It is also the nature of the outrage-industrial complex that each new statement must be more outrageous than the last, so many of his earlier statements are comparatively insignificant.

Carlson's political views as played on TV are entirely straightforward and can be summarised quite succinctly. He plays a white supremacist supporter of fascism. We don't know his real political positions, other than that he hates Trump. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Reduction in size

I've fully condensed the section titled "COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines", cutting its length in half while retaining all key ideas of the original (before and after). The old version used long quotes, said the same things several times in different places, and included trivial or tangentially relevant details. The new version is organized so that each paragraph addresses a different aspect of his views on the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As a follow up thought, I believe that basically any idea in the format of "In (month), (thing happened)" needs to be seriously reconsidered on the basis of weight. If we can't talk about it in a general sense, it's probably undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

On your last point, I'd say "yes and no". We document history here, and we should not engage in historical revisionism. Dates are important. They give context. So just keep that in mind and not delete all of them. (I doubt you would do that.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, regarding the use of Template:Proseline, see WP:PROSELINE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw it, and it's irrelevant. Template:Prose is not for that, it's for sections that are organized with bullet points (i.e., for lists). Sections which have list-styled content and shouldn't have, are the proper target of Template:Prose. That is not the case with § Media career. There is no guideline or policy that supports the use of Template:Prose for sections that are already organized as prose, as this section already is (every subsection of it is prose; there are no lists anywhere). It's possible that there is a guideline concerning chronological presentation of sections that may have a corresponding template associated with it, but if such exists, I'm not aware of it. If I can find one, I'll link it here. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't use Template:Prose, I used Template:Proseline. The fact that it redirects to Template:Prose indicates that this is intended use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The instructions on the template and the contents of the Manual of Style indicate its intended use, but I agree with you that this is a confusing situation that needs resolution. I'll open a discussion about this shortly, and invite you to it. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Template:Prose timeline. Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 13 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)

As he is a liar, I am unsure we can take his word for anything. Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"As he is a liar ..." Yes, truly problematic. But there does seem to be a distinction between his public persona, and his private communications. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It makes you wonder if you can trust anyone at Fox anymore EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Steven, you do realize that those who lie in public tend to be more honest in private? These were the views of most Fox News hosts and leadership, but only in private. Publicly they lied through their teeth to their viewers. The exact words escape me....Oh! It's called "hypocrisy", "propaganda", and "disinformation", not "misinformation", and definitely not "news". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I also realize that some lairs also lie in private as well. Slatersteven (talk)

It's not for us to decide if the statement is truthful or not. All that matters is he said it. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We just use whatever RS say and quote. We don't need to concern ourselves with such issues. He said it. That's what matters, and if further context is revealed, we can tweak it accordingly. I just love the sound of the word "tweak"...

It covers so much of what we do here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Reception section, in a blp?

There is a reception section in this blp. It seems like partially what I'd see in the reception for a TV show, and partly a mix of other points. Is this an artifact from some earlier state when the show and the subject may have shared a page? Very Average Editor (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be merged into other sections of the article. Llll5032 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If the show article was split from this article at some point, editors should have noted it here on the talk page with a header. But editors don't always note splits so it may have been. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it should be merged out into other sections. Eruditess (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Born?

One of my friends who has been in the know says that there is information coming out that Tucker is actually from Vancouver, Canada, in particular the town of Douglas. My friend tells me that Tucker went to Buttercups Daycare and Douglas Elementary before attending one of the private schools in Blaine across the border. Does anyone know if this is really true? 216.195.89.58 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

As no wp:rs have mentioned this it has no place in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Departure and Fox stock drop

FWIW, yahoo finance is drawing a connection between Mr. Carlson's departure and a precipitous stock drop in Fox Corp. Tucker Carlson’s Fox News Exit Erases $590 Million in Value. ValarianB (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The finance markets overreact to everything. Means nothing. There are reports he was fired. But may also be incorrect. As usual, we must wait and see. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we would need sources to say this was causal vs correlated (ie Dominion settlement). If a number of source offer the same speculation then it may be due. If financial results indicate Fox's bottom line took a hit with his departure I would say it's due. In the short term I wouldn't include it as it's too speculative with limited sourcing. Springee (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Improper description

Carlson has not just been described as a "nationalist" but as a "White Nationalist" [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] 2600:1700:E43:7CE0:214B:E6D6:73F9:F25C (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Carlson "dismissed"

Per RS, e.g. most recent NY Times Carlson was "dismissed" without warning by Fox. Notwithstanding the typical language about "mutually agreed to part ways" RS tell us it was precipitous and Carlson was taken by surprise. At any rate, it was not a joint decision. The word "dismissed" has been reverted, along with the fact that Carlson's executive producer was also fired. These need to be reinstated. I can't do it due to the page restriction. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I reverted it back. It is reliably sourced that this was a firing, despite the terse statement from Fox. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

This edit request to Tucker Carlson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change past tense to current tense as it relates to Mr. Carlson’s line of work. He was fired from an employer, but that doesn’t mean he is retired or dead. To say “former” as it relates to his career as a journalist is inaccurate and sounds like a personal attack rather than a statement of fact. He is a former FOX News journalist, not a former journalist. 72.31.21.108 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Already done Actualcpscm (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

[Lambert_3/5/2023-1] Lambert, Harper (March 5, 2023). "18 Most Popular Conservative Media Outlets Ignored Fox News Revelations". TheWrap. Retrieved March 6, 2023.

[Khalid_Folkenflik_2/16/2023-2] Khalid, Asma; Folkenflik, David (February 16, 2023). "Off the air, Fox News stars blasted the election fraud claims they peddled". NPR. Retrieved March 6, 2023.

[Dominion_brief_1/17/2022-3] "Dominion's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability of Fox News Network, LLC and Fox Corporation, Public Version Filed on February 16, 2023" (PDF). January 17, 2022.

[Thompson_Yourish_Peters_2/25/2023-4] Thompson, Stuart A; Yourish, Karen; Peters, Jeremy W (February 25, 2023). "What Fox News Hosts Said Privately vs. Publicly About Voter Fraud". The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]