Jump to content

Talk:Tucker Carlson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AMDG09 (talk | contribs) at 12:59, 30 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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

excess detail in lead

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, this edit is putting excessive detail in the lead[[1]]. The lead is a summary of the article and should have high level statements. Supporting details such as specific examples which support the statements of the lead are for the body of the article. This content was reverted by two editors so it really needs consensus before being added to the lead. Springee (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, the edit above has now been opposed by 3 editors, myself, Volteer1 and Spy-cicle. Please use the talk page to make a case for this content in the lead. Springee (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of adding this sentence is that it illustrates the point about his statements being sexist and racist. It is just one sentence, not undue weight. More users support including the material than excluding it. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the lead, we don't need to illustrate the point. Point illustration happens in the body of the article. Additionally, after 3 editors reverted your change you need to understand that there isn't consensus for that edit. You might make a case here and change minds but you should not restore the content before then. 03:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, Springee and Volteer1, I want to suggest to you, from WP:BRB: Bold, revert, bold again, which says "try a different edit" to find a consensus, and "It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other editor objected to your change." Llll5032 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4.6 Immigration and race is a dumpster fire

It is nothing short of a hit piece. It appears that someone didn't like his views and decided to write a bunch of bad stuff. "has been described by various writers as demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants" by which writers? What is their evidence? This is not supposed to be an article based on Wikipedian's opinions, or on "writers'" opinions. We put the facts on what he has said, not what university professors say about him. Josh Theta (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the whole entire first paragraph is just opinions from professors and progressive organizations. Shouldn't we cut it out? It would be a shame to not be neutral by only showing people that don't like him. Josh Theta (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

by which writers? I see seven citations after the sentence. soibangla (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is character assassination, pure and simple. There is no linkage to actual statements or acts by Carlson. This violates WP:BLP. Removed. sbelknap (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a shame to not be neutral by only showing people that don't like him. I encourage you to provide content showing people who praise him. soibangla (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We could include people praising him when quoted by a secondary WP:RS. Llll5032 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect much of the negative content about Carlson in the current article is effectively primary sourced. That is a reporter from [news network] saying "Carlson invoked X when saying Y". Springee (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's almost all WP:SECONDARY by Wikipedia's definition ("an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event"). But secondary "positive" appraisals in a WP:RS ("influential", "important voice", "quick-witted") can also be good to include. Llll5032 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see JT's concerns. The section isn't so much a summary as it is a collection of quotes and interpretations often taken from sources that are critical or hostile to Carlson. When given full context it is possible that some of these statements are either less inflammatory than as presented or a reasonable view on a subject presented with a health dose of hyperbolic rhetoric. It's certainly not clear that all of the included content is really DUE (ie passes things like the 10 year test) vs is just a list of "outrage of the week" moments. Consider the offensive comments made as part of the Bubble Love Sponge show. Should those comments made 15 years (or so) ago be taken as true to his feelings on a topic or just that he was engaging in insensitive humor? How much of his rhetoric is is true feeling vs just trying to be a contrarian (successful or otherwise) and pointing out flaws in the thinking of the other side. Much of the included content might be good material for a biographical author to draw conclusions from but many not actually be good content on which to establish his own personal views. Unfortunately when so much raw content is added in a way that comes across as non-stop criticism vs thoughtful analysis it can easily come across as a hit piece. A big part part of the problem is Carlson's comments, for what ever reason, get a lot of "next day" replies by the usual list of RSs who's talking heads say why Carlson was wrong. Unlike say a president who died a century ago, we don't have a lot of dispassionate sources creating summary biographies for us to draw upon. I do think there are things we can do to make the article better within WP's sourcing/NPOV rules. The first would be to use a summary style when covering topics. We should avoid "sound bite" quotes and instead try to summarize what was said and try to avoid using word that suggest doubt. If sources say Carlson was wrong we let the sources say so, we only need to impartially offer what Carlson said and the replies of others. This incidentally applies for car more than just this article. Springee (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should summarize where we can, and especially follow WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE, as well as WP:10YT, WP:RELIABILITY, WP:NPOV and WP:FACTCHECK. They remind us to go by the secondary RSs, be fair and factual, and per WP:BLPSTYLE, avoid "both understatement and overstatement". Llll5032 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The immigration section is blatantly in violation of WP:BLP. Yet, it stands. Various opinions are provided without linkage to facts or context. I favor deleting this section. sbelknap (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." BLP does not require "linkage to facts or context" for this, although I think the immigration section includes it. Llll5032 (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sbelknap, previously you incorrectly asserted There is no linkage to actual statements or acts by Carlson as a premise to assert This violates WP:BLP. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my assertion was and is correct. sbelknap (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You believe. soibangla (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can’t have it both ways. If we listed every piece of evidence for “has been described by various writers as demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants“ - would that pass the WP:10YT? If we don’t include the evidence then we violate WP:BLP? starship.paint (exalt) 02:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorist

This is pretty incredible: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/16/tucker-carlsons-tinfoil-hat-theory-blaming-fbi-jan-6/

Yes, but again we can't have every loony thing he says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that I have made are not radical ones. There is no evidence that he spoke up against legal immigration. He has, though, been an active opponent of illegal immigration. Also, the other changes were just realignment of the information.

Yes they are, its why they have been reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSA spying

Is it worth adding this? https://deadline.com/2021/06/tucker-carlson-nsa-spy-claim-jen-psaki-fox-news-1234783858/ AMDG09 (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tucker_Carlson&oldid=1031226672"