Talk:Tucker Carlson

"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)

I disagree that it's automatically a contentious label; it's a term frequently used in academia to quantify both political movements and individuals, including Carlson. See eg. [1], US Fox News talk show host and far-right pundit Tucker Carlson... Simply having people who disagree with a label is not enough to render it contentious to the point of unusability; it would need to be a label inappropriate for use in high-quality writing. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a contentious label. That doesn't mean a high quality source could never use it (though I'm not sure an obscure article that has been cited zero times counts as quality). Springee (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Most everything Carlson says is contentious. I have always assumed purposely. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think "far-right" is well-sourced and should be including. Those claiming it's a "contentious label" are confusing "contentious" with "negatively-tinged". Just because they don't like the fact that "far-right" tends to connote a negative perception of someone doesn't make it "contentious". There are plenty of people described as "far-right" on Wikipedia if reliable sources describe them that way. Tucker Carlson is one of those people. Wes sideman (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

wrong. If Antifa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) is not "far left" then tuck is definitely not "far right" - it's quite simple. 75.105.36.127 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 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)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs). I do not think we should be adding far-right. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"far-right political commentator, writer, conspiracy theorist" - is very biased - Tucker Carlson is Center right. He calls BS - he is right about BLM, Covid-19 Vaccines, and the Ukraine war - jury not out on Jan 6th but videos are telling - Anyone who thinks he is a far right conspiracy theorist must be extreme left (fake wanting to help people to bring about Utopia but only wants control) - and also wants the World to be ruled like 1930's Nazi (socialists) Germany and 1930's Stalin's Russia/USSR - Those calling Carlson far-right as sourced have a screw loose. 73.20.34.120 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much summed up the extreme right position and made the point that Carlson is far-right. But, our opinions don't matter. We print what RS print. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC).

If you think that is far right you genuinely have absolutely no idea what far right means. Britannic16 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

And most don't call him far-right. Even in recent times we don't have a majority calling him far-right. Also, we should evaluate the quality of evidence presented by sources when they use contentious labels. Springee (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

SWo do any sources contest this, not not say it contest it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have things that way. Take an extreme case, if one source says he is a martian and no sources deny it we don't conclude that it must be true. To put this sort of label in the opening sentence we need to show that it's a common description and baked by good evidence. I don't think we have that. Springee (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but we do not have only one source. As such this is not an isolated opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

But do the majority of sources describe him as such? If not then we shouldn't use that contentious label in the opening sentence. I could be wrong but I think this was previously discussed with sources. Perhaps that was a BLPN. I'm on my phone so searches are difficult. Springee (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"But do the majority of sources describe him as such?" I'm not familiar with that standard. Is it a policy/guideline or something you came up with? –dlthewave ☎ 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE suggests that the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person. Additionally, MOS:LABEL suggests that a contentious label be widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. I concur with the perspective shared by User:Springee as it is well supported by policy, and has been successfully argued at many RfCs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Dlthewave, skipping over the issues Kcmastrpc rightly notes, let's turn this around. How many source is sufficient? Would you argue for this if only 1 RS used the label? Is that your standard? What if it were 2? How many is enough in your view? What about 1% of source? Is that your standard? How would you propose we decide? Springee (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you genuinely think the Nazis were left-wing just because they had “socialist” in their name proves that you have no business discussing politics in any capacity. Do you think North Korea is a democracy because their official name is the DEMOCRATIC People’s Republic of Korea? Unreal. Jrhjazznblues (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't figure the abuse of LABEL into my equation here, but do look at RS descriptions. Given how deceptive Carlson is (his lawyers say he lies and his show is just entertainment that should not be taken seriously), and how the latest Dominion vs Fox News revelations show he doesn't even believe (violently disagrees in private) what he says in his show, we can't know if he is really far-right or just uses his show to push such views. Therefore, I support Firefangledfeathers. We should describe him as a Fox News host who "gives favorable coverage to far-right views". I say "favorable" because he does not contradict those views and actually pushes them. That's why people think he's far-right. His actions speak loudly, but given that his private views and public actions are often contradictory, we can only describe his public views on this point. If we get evidence of his private views, then we can add that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe how this is handled by Andy Ogles BLP should be an approach we model here. It does not belong in the lede sentence; however, describing how his critics label his talk show views is appropriate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. What critics are we referring to? Since when does opinions and critics have encyclopedic value? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Their opinions have value when given in the context of a news report, when printed in a reliable source. You are well-aware of this, having been told countless times at the Ruble talk page. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing written would be too extreme for this bizarre crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

hence why RS call him far-right, his extremism. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Include What does it matter what he may or may not believe himself? He is a far-right commentator, writer, and conspiracy theorist because his commentary, writings, and conspiracy theories are far-right. Julia Childs first TV show was The French Chef; but she wasn’t French. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  It matters that the majority of sources talking about him don't use that contentious label. What has been in here for some time is a more encyclopedic entry (and better adheres to IMPARTIAL and LABEL). Springee (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Include "far-right" per Aquillion's earlier points. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE: "... avoiding subjective or contentious terms." I acknowledge that one might contend it's not subjective or contentious. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Contradictory information in the article

We’ve got contradictory information in the article, in the section “Departure from Fox News”. The last sentence of the first paragraph says “The decision to dismiss Carlson was reportedly made by Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the board of Fox News Channel's parent company Fox Corporation." The last sentence of the second paragraph says “The decision was eventually made by Murdoch's son, Lachlan Murdoch, and Fox CEO Suzanne Scott to oust him."

Which is it? We need to resolve this contradiction - or else allow for both somehow. MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They probably both needed to be mentioned as potential possibilities. There's not a RS consensus from what I've seen on who exactly fired him. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they're all correct. Here's how the Washington Post puts it together:

"When Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott called Carlson Monday morning to tell him he would be “parting ways” with the network, the host repeatedly asked why, according to people familiar with the conversation. Scott would only tell him that the decision came “from above” — meaning Rupert Murdoch and his Fox Corp CEO son Lachlan. Scott and Lachlan Murdoch had made the decision to fire Carlson Friday evening, three days after the settlement, and Lachlan spoke to his father about it on Saturday, according to two people familiar with the discussion."[2]

How about we replace the stuff now in the article with info based on the WaPo summary? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times says it was Scott and Lachlan, omitting WaPo's inclusion of Rupert: "The decision to let Mr. Carlson go was made on Friday night by Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corporation, and Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, according to a person briefed on the move. Mr. Carlson was informed on Monday morning by Ms. Scott, another person briefed on the move said."[3] Sounds like WaPo has more sources than NYT? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think I've fixed it - by putting all the information into the second paragraph, and citing the Washington Post for names and dates. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is any of this content in our article. Why are we speculating on the internal management and decision authority inside a corporation, and what difference does it make to the subject of this page? It's all UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Does it matter if Tucker was fired by Rupert vs. Lachlan vs. Suzanne Scott? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think so. The higher up the chain that decision was made, the more extraordinary the situation is shown to be. I don't think Rupert Murdoch generally gets involved in the firing of staff. (and personally, it seems unbelievable to me, that Lachlan would make the move to fire this guy, and not pick up the phone at some point to talk it over with his Dad, there's just too much money involved, but that's all just personal speculation on my part, and can be ignored for article-purposes :) ). Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 17:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Tucker on Twitter

There is an incredible number of viewers leaving Fox because of him and an even greater number of people looking at his first Twitter thing.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

a bigly number of people, i bet. have a source? ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Episodes 2 and 3 were just posted recently on Tucker Carlson's Twitter. Please include details about these episodes and their viewership numbers. 2603:8000:6001:8E45:8C2B:6C05:B936:F8E2 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Serious Neutral Point of View issue

I maintain that if the label of "far-right" is to be applied to this individual - in the first-sentence of the lead paragraph (i.e. accepted as an axiomatic truth, not subject to opinion or open to debate) - then, at the very least, one right-learning source must be provided to offer some semblance of neutral balance. As it is, the sources provided (NYT, NBC, Guardian, CNN) are all notoriously heavily left-leaning, penned by journalists who are naturally hostile to his particular branch of conservatism (undoubtedly on the hard/populist right). It's sad that I even have to point this out. The rest of the lead quite rightly mentions how many of his opponents on the left label him as a right-wing extremist, however, this is their opinion. Opinions are diverse on this issue, heavily divided by political affiliation and Wikipedia should always strive to maintain a neutral point of view - regardless of the views of its editing community. His info-box also doesn't deny his conservatism, which presents another issue; is Wikipedia now equating conservatism with the far-right? - signed in as user: 'VideoGamePlaya' — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. I believe the only way for a lead to infer such a contentious label is through one of only a few mechanisms:

• Clearly established editor consensus
• Reliable sourcing indicating the subject refers to themselves as such
• Court of law convicting someone as such, eg: murderer, rapist, etc. (obviously doesn't apply in this case)

So far, none of these apply so the overwhelmingly contentious MOS:LABEL should stay out. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not what you did, you removed far-right, you did not add an alternative sourced to right wing sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course I removed the term "far-right". When applied here, I consider it highly contentious and largely subject to political opinion. That's the whole point of my above paragraph. If it is to be included, my own personal prerequisites for such are listed above. As it is, these parameters have not been met - hence my removal. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? - User: VideoGamePlaya

Then why even mention "one right wing source", why not just say "it is contentious"? Discussion is easier when it is focused, and we know what point we are addressing. Now do RS consider this term (when applied to Carlson) contentious, do any RS dispute the idea he is far right? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Because if even a single right-wing source can be found (although I still would consider one to be woefully inadequate), then some semblance of balance would have been achieved and an argument could then be made to apply the term far-right without breaching a neutral point of view. As it stands, this is not the case. And despite my efforts, I have not been able to find any sources from major right-learning publications describing Mr Carlson as such. Indeed, the inverse is true. They virtually always describe him as a conservative at best and a populist at worst. People are innocent until proven guilty; there does not have to be a right-learning source that exists which dispels the notion of them being far-right - instead, a right-learning source must be found that asserts he is far-right. User - VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: For example. See Paul Joseph Watson's article. He is described as far-right there, and some of the sources provided include right-wing publications such as The Daily Telegraph.

Irrelevant, we do not judge sources based upon their political leaning, but on their status as RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Then, by your logic, the very concept of a neutral point of view is by extension irrelevant. Just because a source is reliable does not mean it isn't subject to political bias. There are left-wing publications that lean left and right-wing publications that lean right. Both express different opinions. Whether or not Mr Carlson is far-right is not some axiomatic truth established by selectively accumulating sources from his political opponents. It is a contentious label, heavily divided by politcal opinion and for neutrality to be reached, the same far-right assertion must be found from reliable sources that edge towards Mr Carlsons own position on the politcal spectrum. This should be apparent to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No as it says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". that is almost what I have said, we reflect what RS say. If RS do not see a controversy there is not one. If we do not go with what RS say, and reflect what RS say then we are in fact violating wp:npov in the name of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, "all the significant views". The only people that appear to make this claim are the left-wing publications. There exists, to my knowledge, no right-learning sources that assert the same thing because they do not believe it to be true. This is neither "fair" nor "proportionate." I've also just read your profile, where you openly declare yourself to be a left-wing UK Labor Party supporter. It's obvious now you yourself have your own political motivations for labeling Mr Carlson far-right, so I will end this discussion here and simply hope that non-biased minds prevail. As it stands, the contentious allegation seems to have been removed, and I hope it remains so until balance can be achieved. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice try, but anyone who actually reads what I said won't believe for a moment that I've attacked you personally in any way, shape or form. I quite rightly highlight that your open affiliation with left-wing politics will, by nature, influence your opinion on this matter. There is nothing personal about it. Again, good day to you.

Actually, I was just about to also point you to WP:NPA as yours was a clear violation. Discuss edits, not editors. The lead was balanced and should be returned as WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to him as far-right. 16:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret.

I'm not interested in what you were "actually" about to do, either, my friend. I actually respect the fact that Mr Slater is open about his political affiliation. However, I maintain the view that it heavily influences his opinion here, and I have simply listed that as my reason for ceasing participation in this discussion, as I believe it to be pointless. As I ceaselessly point out, this issue is heavily divided along political lines. What I said regarding his politics was indeed highly relevant to the discussion, and perfectly legitimate, and in no way, shape or form represented a personal attack - and I will not apologise for it. Good day to you both - User VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not relevant to the discussion. I personally don't think Hitler was a nice guy. Doesn't mean I can't edit his article in a neutral manner. This page is for discussion of this article. It is not for a discussion of your unsupported opinions about another editor. You will not last here long if you don't understand this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am entitled to give my reason for leaving a discussion, and neither you, nor anyone else will prevent me from doing so. I simply believe there to be a conflict of interest, quite reasonably, which renders further discussion fruitless. I am entitled to my opinion, and, again, I have not attacked anyone personally. I have not attacked Mr Slater's politics, which I wholeheartedly respect, nor anything else. And your attempts to portray me as doing such have floundered. Also, your threats mean nothing to me, as I know I haven't done anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You should not have brought Slater's personal politics into this discussion. Would you like us to discuss your personal politics? Everybody has bias, WP:NPOV states that we reflect what the sources say neutrally. We don't add WP:FALSEBALANCE to "even out" reliably sourced criticism of a subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As I ceaselessly point out, I did not bring Mr Slater's personal politics into the debate. I did not use Mr Slater's politics as a means to discredit his opinion, an opinion I value as much as the next man's. Nor did I not attack Mr Slater's politics. Indeed, I said I wholeheartedly respected them. Nor did I attack the fact Mr Slater has chosen to reveal his politic affiliation. Indeed, I said I appreciated it. I simply said I personally believe that an obvious conflict of interest exists here, one which is irreconcilable, and one which leads me to believe any further participation with the debate would be fruitless and a waste of time on my part. It was simply a just reason given to end my personal involvement here. Please demonstrate (using quotation) where I have personally attacked Mr Slater. If, for example, I had revealed my politics, and then tried to edit an opposing politic figure's page as an axiomatic extremist, you would be within your rights to have the same reaction. And it simply would not be a personal attack. Which, by default, has to involve an attack on one's person. User - VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are describing is a personal attack on Slater. Saying that their political preference presents an obvious conflict of interest is an attack, a more mild one than others I've seen, and just plain wrong. Editing this page is not a privilege granted to only his supporters. Comment on content, not contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone's political preference presents a conflict of interest, when debating a highly divisive political matter, would only be a personal attack, sir, if what you said afterwards resembled the truth even remotely! "Editing this page is not a privilege granted to only his supporters." I have not insinuated, even for the briefest of moments, that Mr Slater is not entitled to give his opinion here on account of his politics - and I resent, oppose and detest with every fiber of my being your insinuation that I have done so! That is a greater personal attack than anything I have said! Free speech is something I hold very dearly, above all else, and I would never deny a man his opinion, under any circumstances. You have absolutely no evidence to assert such a vile allegation when everything I have said is to the contrary. The conflict of interest is simply my reason for withdrawing from the debate, an opinion I should surely be entitled to give in any society that calls itself free. Mr Slater, is, of course, free to remain here and debate with anyone who decides to resume this discussion. But I personally believe it to be pointless, given the revelation that, by the nature of his politics (and which I don't hold against him), he is inclined almost by default to oppose anything further I have to offer. My points had been made. It was time to end it, and I provided the reason for leaving - the honest one. I maintain that there has been no personal attack on Mr Slater himself, and I still vehemently reject any insinuation that have done so. - User: VideoGamePlaya

The article does not say that Carlson is far right, but, "He is known for circulating far-right ideas into mainstream politics." Some of these ideas are later mentioned in the body of the article, such as white nationalism, the replacement theory and George Soros conspiracism. I don't know if Carlson himself believes any of those things, but he provides a platform for far right extremists to express their views which then enter mainstream political discussion.

Incidentally, neutrality does not mean that we balance facts presented in mainstream reliable sources with false information from right-wing commentators.

TFD (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. When I first made this post, the very first sentence labelled Mr Carlson a member of the far-right as though it was an axiomatic truth. The article in its present state, at least for now, however, doesn't have any issue with neutrality. - User VideoGamePlaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGamePlaya (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The current state is euphemistic. And, Wikipedia is not about "truth". It is about verifiability according to reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion above regarding describing Carlson as far-right in the lead. I think the confusion in this discussion is that the term was added to the article on 13 June by an editor with perhaps two dozen edits [4]. So it was recently in the lead. The sourcing added in the subsequent edits are mixed with some calling Carlson "far-right" while others described the audience/reactions etc as far-right but didn't call Carlson himself far right. Regardless, this is an issue discussed above. I restored the stable version of the lead. Springee (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am the user you are referring to who made the edit, and I would urge you to reconsider and put "far-right" back into the first line of this page. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe him as either far-right and/or a right-wing extremist, and his views make this abundantly obvious. The arguments made by "VideoGamePlaya", who originally removed far-right from the first sentence, are specious at best. If we followed his logic, we'd need to remove "far-right", "white supremacist", "Neo-Nazi", and any other "contentious" language from the first sentence of the pages of almost every other living right-wing extremist on Wikipedia, as right-wing sources (very few of which could accurately be described as reliable sources, anyway) rarely use this language to begin with. Also, "VideoGamePlaya's" idea that all "left-wing" sources ought to be counterbalanced by right-wing ones is absolutely ridiculous. All sources have bias, but every source I used was a reliable one, and I could easily find a dozen more that unambiguously refer to Tucker Carlson as either far-right and/or a right-wing extremist. This should not be even be an argument. Even "VideoGamePlaya himself admits that Carlson is "undoubtedly on the hard/populist right" which shows that even he doesn't believe that Carlson isn't a far-right extremist, he just doesn't want him labeled as such. Jrhjazznblues (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)