Talk:Tim Pool

Tim Pool's Reject of Left Right dichotomy

I feel a counter point to his self described labeling should be added. While he may claim not to use left/right labels, a good portion of his content his him attempting to discredit 'the left', and he uses the term 'left' explicitly.

How he chooses to self describe himself is rarely an accurate reflection of his beliefs as he is categorically a grifter.

This is most evident in prinary sources such as his own videos, which I recognize may be harder to source.

But this article gives the impression that he is somehow an American centrist (as he self describes), despite sitting right of center by American political standards. 71.7.225.104 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tim Pool's new single

Tim Pool has released a song that has gotten attention in the media and 1.5 million views on YouTube. Much of it is negative. I believe this warrants addition to the article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfvaUwWi2k https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-far-right-youtuber-tim-pool-uses-butt-rock-to-lure-in-viewers My tightness (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

Add a section to his career "music." This section should reflect that he collaborated with drummer Pete Parada to release a song, Only Ever Wanted. If critical reception is reflected in this section, it should reflect that the song has seen mixed reviews thus far.

Add a "discography" section reflecting that he released one song, Only Ever Wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfvaUwWi2k My tightness (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/tim-pool-only-ever-wanted-itunes-pete-parada/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-far-right-youtuber-tim-pool-uses-butt-rock-to-lure-in-viewers?source=articles&via=rss Are these sufficient to warrant a mention? @madguy7023 --My tightness (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Add a section to his career "music." This section should reflect that he collaborated with drummer Pete Parada to release a song, Only Ever Wanted. If critical reception is reflected in this section, it should reflect that the song has seen mixed reviews thus far.

Add a "discography" section reflecting that he released one song, Only Ever Wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfvaUwWi2k

Use these sources to show this is reliable information: https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/tim-pool-only-ever-wanted-itunes-pete-parada/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-far-right-youtuber-tim-pool-uses-butt-rock-to-lure-in-viewers?source=articles&via=rss My tightness (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@My tightness

I agree with you for the most part, but if we have a discography section shouldn't we also include "Will of the People" a song he released last year 2601:243:1400:D95:4CE6:9830:8802:E9CF (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added it to the "Other" section. Discography for just one song is excessive. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Tim Pool's comments related to the Colorado nightclub shooting

Tim Pool's comments in this regard have just been removed by User:Springee under the guise of being recent, but it's obvious that what he said in this regard will color the way he is seen and talked about in the times to come. It's not every day that an influencer with millions followers on social media endorses mass killing or, at the very least, prefers to demonize the victims over the gunman. The section, which by the way barely took up three lines of the article and thertefore can't be reasonably described as carrying undue weight, should be inserted back in. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Peleio, the material was rightly removed. This article is supposed to be a summary of the person, not a play by play listing of every comment they might have said that outraged someone at some point. I would also note that most of the sources are of questionable quality. Two appear to have plagiarized off one another (or both off a common source). Stating that Pool even "seemingly endorsed" a mass shooting is a hell of a claim to put in a BLP. That some commentators took the tweet that way is not notable. It isn't some sort of clear representation of his view on the subject given the ambiguous nature of his exact quote (this is always a problem with Tweets given they are inherently short). It is possible his comment develops enough outrage that the blow back and his reactions to the blow back make this content DUE in the article. However, that will take time to tell (IE RECENT). Until then, the sourcing isn't sufficient for inclusion and we would need a CRYSTALBALL to see if this should be included in the future. Also, please use neutral section headings. Springee (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You would perhaps be right if this article were about an artist or a scientist. But when it comes to politicians and, even more so, political commentators, it is impossible to compose an informative article without referring to their political values ​​and their positions on prominent events that made the news. At least two of the referenced articles, one from NBC News and another from Rolling Stone, are considered bona fide sources in Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. Saying that one source "plagiarized" another seems overblown, as it is customary for one media outlet to report what another has said, but in any case, it is no excuse to remove BOTH. And describing what Tim Pool said as an endorsement of the massacre is not "a hell of a claim" when he literally said that Club Q goers were pedophiles and groomers. At least two credible sources report that he engaged in victim-blaming and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric (and that's because I haven't sought out more sources yet), and they did so in news columns, not opinion columns. News columns are the stuff of that makes the part of Wikipedia that deals with current events, and such columns can be quoted without even needing attribution. To speak of "the ambiguous nature of his exact quote" is pure nonsense, for lack of a better expression, as anyone here can directly verify what he said (in more than one tweet, something you don't seem to know), and none of the reliable sources report ambiguity about his meaning, nor has Pool contested how they reported his views on the shooting. The arguments you've been raising have all the trappings of Original Research, to be honest. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not restore without consensus. Springee (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The removal was correct. The content was not supported by the sources and constituted a pretty strong BLP violation. The only reliable source in that section was NBC News. Rolling Stone is not a reliable source for politics (see: WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). However, let's see exactly what Rolling Stone specifically said about Pool's comments:

• Tim Pool, a conservative YouTuber and podcast host with 1.4 million followers on Twitter, seemed to blame the venue where the shooting occurred. “We shouldn’t tolerate pedophiles grooming kids,” Pool tweeted. “Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?” He appeared to reference the all-ages drag Sunday brunches hosted at Club Q.[1] How does that even remotely translate into "His comments were widely interpreted as support for the massacre, or as engaging in victim-blaming" or he "seemingly condone[ed] the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting"? The deceased are the victims of the shooting, not the club itself.

NBC News states:

• Tim Pool, a conservative internet personality with 1.4 million followers on Twitter, targeted the venue, Club Q, where the shooting happened.“We shouldn’t tolerate pedophiles grooming kids,” Pool tweeted. “Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?” Pool appeared to be referring to all-ages drag Sunday brunches that were being hosted at the venue[2]. And then they quote Media Matters Ari Drennen criticizing Pool.

Neither source states Pool supported the massacre. A correct interpretation of the sources would be something like "Pool seemingly blamed the shooting on the venue and tweeted, “We shouldn’t tolerate pedophiles grooming kids. Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?”". However, as Springee mentioned, we still have to be cautious of WP:RECENTISM, Due Weight, and other similar policies before inserting such content. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't read the RS version of the story but when you see RS, NBC and MS's text it really seems like they have a coordinated message. The texts are only slight paraphrases of one another. Springee (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Peleio Aquiles, currently there is no consensus to include this content. Concerns have been raised by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and myself. That one commutator who appears to either be coordinating or plagiarizing from others raised a concern doesn't make this content DUE. You are now edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edits as well as Korny O'Near's edits without getting consensus here. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Institute for Strategic Dialogue: Tim Pool engaged in "apologism" for Colorado shooting, slurs LGBTQ people

A variety of social media influencers have engaged in apologism for the shooting, continuing to slur LGBTQ+ people as ‘groomers’ and ‘pedophiles’. Tim Pool, a verified ‘independent journalist’ with more than 1.5 million followers on Twitter dubbed a ‘superspreader’ of 2020 election disinformation by the Universities of Stanford and Washington, insinuated that the mass shooting was justified due to Club Q hosting a ‘grooming event’ being held on the same day. Pool retweeted another tweet by Kurt Schlichter (454,700 followers), a columnist for Townhall, indicating that conservatives did not have to “tolerate pedophiles because some asshole shot up a gay bar.” Schlichter has suggested that drag queen events ‘ought to be illegal’ in the wake of the shooting. (Source) Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned because the source is ISD's "digital dispatches" which is a "blog for the latest in data-driven research on hate, disinformation and extremism." WP:BLOGs are typically prohibited for claims about living people, even if the blog comes from a respected institution/individual. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The text in WP:BLOG seems to be referring to personal blogs, not those blogs kept by institutions, think tanks, or universities, however. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Swatting incidents

Pool has been swatted several times, which has no mention in the article. Why is this the case when less popular people in the political sphere such as Keffals have an entire section of the article dedicated to it? 142.186.88.120 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Independent covered one January 2022 swatting incident. Has there been more coverage in reliable sources about that incident or others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hard to find sources Wiki deems reliable, considering such reliable sources will purposely ignore it. But I did come across two more (albeit seen as questionable sources per Wiki standards): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tim-pool-swatted-livestream

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/tim-pool-podcast-swatted-for-ninth-time-this-year-40k-viewers-stayed-to-watch-abandoned-studio-for-three-hours/

Number of available sources aside, my question remains - is this not mentioned in the article due to a lack of plentiful sources, or because it is somehow not notable? And does the reliabiity of these sources actually mean we can't verify if the swatting occurred? This event is obviously true with video evidence. The only thing that makes the sources questionable is their potential bias, but that can easily be avoided for a case such as this. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)