Talk:Tucker Carlson

Carlson should be described as "far right" since sources describe him as such

As of now, the lead states that Carlson is "conservative" and " circulating far-right ideas". I think he should just (either instead of additionally) be described as "far right", sice this is what plenty of reliable sources use e.g. Sky News, Politico, The Guardian, The Independent (here and here), the WSJ, and CNBC. Cortador (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not also say he is a conservative? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, either additionally or instead, and instead because not one of sources actually calls Carlson conservative. Two sources in the article, from 2009 and 2017, describe him as such, but it seems that this descriptor isn't used any more, as Carlson has drifted further to the right. That said, we can use both descriptors if there's consensus for that. Cortador (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Re the suggestion "it seems that this descriptor isn't used any more": I googled "tucker carlson" "conservative" today and within the first page of hits got things dated 2023-2024 from Barron's Britannica Politico Al Jazeera Washington Post. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Both descriptors are fine then. Cortador (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPSOURCES, some of the sources you listed while credible, other editors have noted as either bias and/or opinion pieces. If you must include “far-right” why not say something along the lines of “The Wall Street Journal, describes Tucker as Far-Right.” Due to the fact that it’s all opinion. That’s just my view. Interesting point you brought up my friend! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a single source I have listed above is an opinion piece. I don't know why you think that a WSJ descriptor should be attributed; as per the list you linked to, the WSJ is generally reliable and the notes do not mention attribution. Cortador (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I was using the Wall Street Journal as an example. Each source you listed whom calls Tucker “far-right” is an opinion of the Author(s) of said article. It’s not a fact that he is or isn’t. We have to be in line with WP:NPOV Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, those are no opinion pieces. They are news articles. Cortador (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please understand the difference between reporting of facts and opinions mixed into factual reports [1] (and from a WT editorial on the topic [2]). That sources call him far-right might be encyclopedic but the problem with so much of this is we are telling vs showing. If nothing else, we can take a wait and see approach. Just because we have recent sources that are making these claims doesn't mean we should instantly change the article, especially when the term is a contentious label. If nothing else, it's poor writing style (see IMPARTIAL). Springee (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

According whom is the label "contentious"? Cortador (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether something is contentious or not depends on whether the sources are in disagreement about it, per WP:NPOV's avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts and Avoid stating facts as opinions; if high-quality eliable sources state something without any indication that it is controversial, and no other sources contest them, then it is not contentious and should be stated in the article voice. (This is a frequent problem people have when interpreting related policy, since everyone has their own "gut feeling" about what terms and words and descriptors they find controversial and in what context - but it's important that we rely on the sources, not on our gut feelings.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not what LABEL says. From LABEL, "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." Since our Far-Right topic says it's associated with Nazi's, yes, far-right is always a contentious label. Springee (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but calling him a "conservative" is blatantly false as the guy is basically a right-wing populist and hasn't held conservative views for a long time. But I suppose if enough sources are using the word "conservative" incorrectly there's no sense in arguing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you said is correct, but do you have any evidence that the sources are in disagreement about this characterization of Tucker? If not, then by your own logic, there's nothing controversial about it. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

See AllSides: "Far Right Also known as the extreme right, ultra right, or radical right, this term is most often used pejoratively to refer to politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the mainstream political right. Sara Diamond made a similar comment in her book, Roads to Dominion, p. 5.[3]

The term is used because unlike other ideological groups, such as liberals and conservatives, they do not have a shared self-description. For example, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada calls himself a liberal, while no one calls themself far right.

Therefore, we should be cautious in using the term and make sure if it is used it is to enlighten readers rather than shame the subjects of articles.

Descriptions of political positions by journalists should be seen as analysis and therefore not rs. Journalists are experts in telling us what happened today, but they are not political scientists, sociologists or historians.

I don't see the problem with conservative. While most experts agree that American conservatism is misnamed, it was the term adopted by the radical right in the U.S. in the 1950s. I don't see a big difference between Carlson and the Birchers, McCarthyists and other extremists who first called themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The implication with far-right politics is that it covers ultranationalism and authoritarianism. Is Carlson a nationalist? Does he support political violence? Because ultranationalists generally do. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Determining whether or not Carlson meets the criteria for the far right is synthesis. What matters is whether experts have come to the same conclusion. MAGA supporters blame the Democratic Party for violence by BLM demonstrators. Americans historically have portrayed their opponents in extreme terms, which is ironic considering how little difference there is except in such as issues as which bathrooms transgendered students should use. TFD (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Americans historically have portrayed their opponents in extreme terms" Far from unique to Americans. What you describe is demonization: "propaganda or moral panic directed against any individual or group, for the purpose of defamation, character assassination and/or dehumanization." Anyway, the ultranationalist type has some common features across continents. The typical "we are going to regain our past greatness" bullshit.  :

• "Janusz Bugajski, summing up the doctrine in practical terms, "in its most extreme or developed forms, ultra-nationalism resembles fascism, marked by a xenophobic disdain of other nations, support for authoritarian political arrangements verging on totalitarianism, and a mythical emphasis on the 'organic unity' between a charismatic leader, an organizationally amorphous movement-type party, and the nation"." ..
• "Roger Griffin has stated that ultranationalism is essentially founded on xenophobia in a way that finds supposed legitimacy "through deeply mythicized narratives of past cultural or political periods of historical greatness or of old scores to settle against alleged enemies"."

Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually describing opponents in extreme terms is largely unique to Americans. For example, the Founding Fathers insulted each other as royalists and jacobins. But over in France, where there actually were royalists and jacobins. Similarly, there actually are communists, fascists, socialists in legislatures outside the U.S.

It doesn't matter whether you believe Carlson meets Griffin's definition of ultra-nationalism but whether experts do. However, it is doubtful. As pointed out in a paper from the Carnegie foundation, "The Paradoxes of American Nationalism", American nationalism is qualitatively different from nationalism elsewhere. It "is defined not by notions of ethnic superiority, but by a belief in the supremacy of U.S. democratic ideals." We would expect for example a U.S. nationalist to denounce Putin as un-American. Biden supporters. who meet the definition of American nationalists, denounce Carlson for LACK of patriotism.

The problem comes IMHO in trying to explain the politics of the U.S. in the 2020s by referring to the politics of Italy in the 1920s. TFD (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually describing opponents in extreme terms is largely unique to Americans.

If you sincerely believe this, perhaps take some time to familiarize yourself with the views of one Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Or do you think there is nothing "extreme" about labeling your opponents as Judeo-Bolsheviks? Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If the example you come up with is HItler and Mussolini, then it must be pretty unusual. But the reality is that Hitler and Mussolini's most hated opponents were in fact Bolsheviks. The official name of the Russian Communist Party at the time was the All Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

Note also that the Communists referred to Hitler and Mussolini as fascists.

Calling people communists or fascists (or royals and jacobins) when that in fact is what they are is not describing them in extreme terms. It's only extreme when those terms are used against opponents who are not fascists and communists. That's why describing opponents in extreme terms is largely peculiar to the U.S. It's because there are no actual communists or fascists in the political mainstream. TFD (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Carlson's graduation

"Despite being listed as a member of the class of 1992, Carlson did not complete enough credits to graduate and did not receive a diploma."

This claim is supported by a single source, a book, with no accessibility except you go out and get a hold of it.

Multiple sources—Britannica, New York Times, inter al.—state that Carlson did graduate; in summary, in 1991 he left college with a B.A. in history. JohndanR (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed that inaccuracy with a credible source. Not to mention this citation used a few sentences later > https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/tucker-carlson.php mentions him graduating. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just deleted the ref-tags because they do not work correctly in talk pages --2003:6:33AE:3D51:B446:1EC7:749:9951 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's uncommon for BLPs to explicitly call out an individual did not graduate; rather, that fact is not mentioned at all.

As mentioned above, multiple reliable sources state Carlson did graduate; some author, whose source is unknown, made contradictory claims. Wiki may consider going so far as to call out this discrepancy, but completely erasing prior assertions because someone claims they aren't true is not encyclopedic. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused, if he was listed as a member of the class in 1992, how can he have graduated in 1991? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The theory of he finished in fall of 1991 he could be part of the class of 1992 since the official graduation is in the spring.

Looking at the original question, if only one source claims he didn't graduate and most say he did I would ignore that single source absent strong evidence. Carlson is the story of public figure who's credentials would be strongly questioned if such a gap was found. Springee (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Springee, @Kcmastrpc keeps reverting my edit, i don’t want to start an edit war. I was hoping you could take the reigns on the final say of what the outcome is on this one my friend! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was mistaken, I didn't realize you were trying to restore the more accepted position (for some reason). I've restored your changes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s ok! See you around. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Friends with Tucker updating? Weird 2603:7080:EC01:DA49:2034:6631:8AEA:2C7B (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Citation needed" can be solved easily

In the section "Vladimir Putin interview" there is a "Citation needed"-Template. The bbc.com/news/world-europe-68223148 source after the following sentence does give the needed citation: "outspoken defender of Mr Putin since the war began". This is literally in the text, at least in the 20240222164654 Internet Archive version. You may delete this Talk thread after solving the "Citation needed" in the Wikipedia article. --2003:6:33AE:3D51:B446:1EC7:749:9951 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

Refer to the sentence: "Carlson traveled to Russia in February 2024 to interview President Vladimir Putin, whom he "has been an outspoken defender of".[213]" in the section: Vladimir Putin interview.

This sentence is convoluted, uses quotes needlessly, and is perhaps ungrammatical. The use of 'whom' seems incorrect. I suggest changing it to:

Carlson traveled to Russia in February 2024 to interview President Vladimir Putin whose Carlson has been an outspoken defender[213].

or

Carlson has been an outspoken defender of President Vladimir Putin[213]. He traveled to Russia in February 2024 to interview Putin.

for better readability. The.real.curious.george (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The use of 'whom' is correct in the sentence, and, IMO, the current sentence reads better than the two proposed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You should at least consider using "of whom" and make the sentence less clunky. See https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/623470/is-this-use-of-whom-grammatical/623474#623474 for a good discussion. Many seem to think that your current choice makes the sentence clunky (although grammatical). The.real.curious.george (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)