Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:37, 16 September 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Pool article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth"

Meaww (unreliable for new pages per https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide ) posted an article at https://meaww.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-impeachment-internet-calls-for-it-after-meghan-and-harrys-racism-claim following a JOKE tweet by Tim Pool -- discussion about this is around 1 hr 14 mins into his current livestream; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStgTNUetVM Harami2000 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a reliable source and it seems like precisely the sort of one-minute throwaway joke material that doesn't have any place in Misplaced Pages biographies. If some actual reliable source takes it up, there'll be something to discuss... but as of now, absolutely not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion of MEAWW on RSN, which concluded that it was, at best, a clickbaity tabloid site which should be accorded little weight and not used for claims about living people. Unless there's clear consensus to overturn and reject that conclusion, we need to avoid using that source to make tawdry claims about an obvious joke tweet. There doesn't appear to be any lasting importance here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick entry because page keeps getting changed and my edits lost. MEAWW is NewsGuard certified. Your linked archived discussion is just a couple of users providing zero sources that the site is "clickbaity tabloid" plus no mention of NewsGuard certification. I Use Dial (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that I Use Dial (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

"NewsGuard certification" does not dictate Misplaced Pages policy toward sourcing. You do not have consensus to add this material and the source is, at best, questionable; if you continue to edit-war this material, you will likely be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. If you are proposing that we include this material, you need to find better sources and you would probably need to explain why we would devote space to questionable and gossipy claims about an evident joke tweet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It is you who is edit-warring - take a look at the history. You address basically nothing I stated about how there are ZERO sources for the claim that MEAWW cannot be used. You are engaging in threatening behavior toward another editor and I feel offended. You need to take a break from bullying people here at Misplaced Pages while I do the real reporting on the actual behavior here this evening. I Use Dial (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Three editors here agree that MEAWW is not a sufficiently strong source. Also consider checking out Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Ad_Fontes_Media and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Media_Bias_Fact_Check. Newsguard is pretty similar. These are not typically useful for arguments about the quality of sources for wikipedia. Jlevi (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You still aren't discussing MEAWW. I Use Dial (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In regards to NewsGuard, it seems there are quite a few other editors on Misplaced Pages who consider it a substantial enough source to include it within articles, including AlterNet and The_Epoch_Times, among many others. So it seems that there are a larger number of editors disagreeing with the three editors here as to whether NewGuard is a service usable on Misplaced Pages. It is completely clear that this is a reliable service as far as editor consensus on Misplaced Pages goes. I Use Dial (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Since it is clear that the across-Misplaced Pages consensus on NewsGuard is that it is a reliable source, I will be adding their story back until someone decides to either undo all the other articles on Misplaced Pages or explain why the Tim Pool article receives different rules from all of those articles. In regards to whatever Pool tweeted, Pool cannot be a source for the Tim Pool Misplaced Pages article. I Use Dial (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, that "MEAWW is NewsGuard-approved" (whatever that means, and a fact not in evidence), does not automagically make the site a suitable source for Misplaced Pages. BLP policy requires that we use only the highest-quality sources and avoid sensationalism when discussing living people. Moreover, the weight to be accorded to a single gossipy source stretching a joke tweet beyond meaningful recognition is subject to editorial consensus, and you are the only editor proposing that it be included, while several editors have objected to your proposal. Your bold proposal has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. You have two choices: work to gain consensus for your proposal, or or drop the stick and move on to something else. If you cannot gain consensus for this addition, it will not be included, no matter how much you want it there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, more editors have attempted to make the edit while a few editors have been reverting every edit as if those few own the article, and your assertions here suggest that the editors in this talk page own Misplaced Pages, because I have just linked to specific articles using NewsGuard within the article, both pro and con, to discuss the worthiness of the news outlet. The sum of the editors editing those posts is higher than the number of editors that have had anything to do with the Tim Pool article. You are using original research to support your claim that it is not a valid source, and that goes against the very foundation of Misplaced Pages, itself. Unless you can find sources to back up your claims, I will be adding the edit back in per the authority of the great many editors already using NewsGuard to evaluate sources. I Use Dial (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

MEAWWW is a low quality outlet that tends to cover trivial material that other outlets don't give any time of day. Pretty clearly undue in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Source? I Use Dial (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This content was rightly removed. Springee (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it was not.I Use Dial (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This content has been REINSTATED AND SOURCED. As a long-time editor here at Misplaced Pages, it is truly shameful what has become of our organization. Further, TDB is _not_ a reliable source, as it is a left-wing biased news source and thus sources using it need to be vetted additionally (check NewsGuard for more information about their lack of credibility). Effort needs to be made to tag these sources as dubious at best and OR at worst. As it is right now, authors at TDB and Meaww can practically make things up and then be "sourced" for academia.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 13:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• That you disagree with the consensus here is evident, but that's a problem we can't fix. Your options are to attempt to create a new consensus, or to accept the status quo and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Edit-warring will just get you blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we get some addtional protection on the main article page? It seems we have some editors here with alterior motives attempting to sully it. The following text— "Also on this day, Pool clarified for the world on his show that his latest viral tweet was made sarcastically due to the very concepts of "impeachment" and a "monarch"; moments after, he further claims that he did this in order to prove a philosophical point regarding the nature of having "no accountability in media" (Pool)." —does not violate any of our policies here and the idea of asking for a "consensus" to post NON-BIASED BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT IS CONSIDERED A VIRAL TWEET PHENOMENON makes little to no sense. Is there something here you disagree with on a factual basis or are you simply against the very admission of new information because it does not meet your personal standard? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC) This question is exceptionally pertinent to you, North. Please get back to me on one of our respective talk pages, thank you.

Well this must be fixed post-haste. Clearly, 3 users do not a consensus make. However, we still need vetted and verifiable sources. Consider the following: the "Meaww" article was a talking-point for the Tim Pool commentater in order to show that making seemingly nonsensical statements in jest in today's current world-environment often results in it being taken at literal face-value and unduly enrages (outrages?) people with differing viewpoints. The point of sourcing the Meaww article is not to show that it is a credible source, but in order to show that this claim is not completely baseless and that it did originate somewhere on the internet. This is further why video links to the podcast with Tim himself, as well as dubious tags and OR tags have been added such that readers can clearly see for themselves what is factually accurate. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Moved from my talkpage Jlevi (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed? This is a BLP discussion so consensus isn't needed to keep this out, rather consensus is needed for inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed is our (Misplaced Pages's) standards regarding whether or not we as a whole consider "Meaww" a viable news source. Users have mentioned that it is "NewsGuard certified" while others have noted that it is "tabloidy". We cannot claim any form of credibility if we cannot even agree as a whole what is and is not "credible" with regards to one specific news site. Either the site publishes information that is true, is considered a news-source, and should thusly be used in citations for all of our works where pertinent OR the site publishes heavily spun articles with little to no credibility and an effort to be "click-baity". Why are we including an article about a random lady's cat that has to do with Pool but not a story literally regarding the Queen of England? Furthermore the claim that Tim Pool's site is "defunct" because of the aforementioned incident with a cat is verifiably false (just…go to https://www.timcast.com and you can see it is still up and running).

Additionally, every single TDB article reference needs desperately a neutrality tag (just the same way that TDW articles—that's The Daily Wire, for those unfamiliar—needs this tag). Generally here at Misplaced Pages, the usage of "far" left/right news sources is frowned upon and information needs to be revised for accuracy many times. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus that The Daily Beast is a reliable source - see its entry at WP:RSP. If you wish to change that consensus, you can open an RFC at WP:RSN. On the other hand, there is consensus that The Daily Wire is unreliable and may not be used for any factual claim on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

1 2 3 4

"The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Thus it is actually consensus that we should not use TDB for BLP's (at least heavily limit its use and vet all claims for these matters).

The template here clearly states that even though it is factually reliable, it is heavily opinionated (a.k.a. biased). In fact, they have been sued before for defamation of character so even more caution should be used due to the fact that we do not want any random legal battles here due to something a "source" said that we published.

As for Meaww, it has no entry or even a talk-page-entry on our RSPs—perhaps one should be started.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the "defunct" language LiphradicusEpicus. From where are you quoting? Jlevi (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing TDB article saying the site "collapsed" due to the issues with the Tim-Cat-Lady incident.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• It is not enough for a source to be from a superficially reliable outlet, sources must be evaluated in context. The specific Meaww source is gossip citing other gossip. It also cites Quora, which is another red flag that this is nothing worth taking seriously. In context, this sources is extremely flimsy. While this tweet, and Pool's subsequent response, might seem like a useful demonstration of Pool's current approach to punditry, this conclusion would have to be made by a more substantial or reliable source in order for this to rise to WP:DUE. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note Pool is tweeting about this, and seems to be actively engaged in trying to get some nonsense on to his Misplaced Pages page to prove a point of... some kind. (also see around 54:00 mark in this video). Aside from the dubious sourcing and due weight issues, it's clear that this isn't sincere belief, so it's just plain contrary to the core mission of Misplaced Pages to add it to the entry. Nblund 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Media FALLS For Tim's Tweet Calling To IMPEACH The QUEEN Of England" (podcast). Timcast IRL Podcast. Series 241. 2021-11-03. 48 minutes in. YouTube. Retrieved 2021-03-12. "This is clearly not a real, real tweet…."—Tim Pool {{cite episode}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

Friendly BLP Reminder

Let us take a moment to recollect the following information we have so graciously available to us over at our BLP policies section:

• Avoid self-published sources—even books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets unless written or published by the subject of the article.
• Avoid gossip & feedback loops
• No original research
• REMEMBER THE STEPS FOR COVERING PUBLIC FIGURES

1. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy,
2. relevant,
3. and well documented;

it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources.
• Linguistic tone is paramount to a good article
• Balance criticism and praise alike
• Avoid making the page an "attack" page.

მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Another reminder, WP:NOCON, Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. We have no consensus here. Springee (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP does not mean that everything embarrassing or controversial that the subject has said or done must be whitewashed, which seems to be the current state of this article. There's no valid reason to exclude Tim Pool's repeated predictions of "49 state landslide" win by Trump in 2020, for example. — Red XIV 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If reliable, independent sources mention his failed predictions, or anything else he might find embarrassing, we evaluate those sources on a case-by-case basis. If you know of such sources, please present them here. I've looked for recent sources, but have not found very much. I think the lack of sources is likely because Pool isn't all that noteworthy outside of his specific youtube bubble. Since his Sweden trip in 2017, most or all of his noteworthy activity is social media-based punditry.

It's also worth noting that LiphradicusEpicus has (ironically) been blocked for personal attacks. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Far right stance

If you take a look at the titles for every single video, it's all slanted with far right buzz words. "Far left Rioting BACKFIRES As Armed Counter Groups Strike Back, Regular Americans Have Said ENOUGH", "Antifa Leader Arrested Charged With FELONIES, Fired From job", "INSIDE A "NO GO ZONE" IN MALMO, SWEDEN", "Ebay Just NUKED Dr. Seuss Books As OFFENSIVE, RSBN Gets Nuked By Youtube As Censorship Escalates", "HARD Evidence Of Widespread Fraud Announced By Voter Audit Group, Media And Democrats STILL Deny It".

Doesn't matter what your stance on the guy is. This article claims he is not political, but he is using far right buzzwords constantly, and the slant appears to cater to right wing viewers in general. There's hardly any indicators he is anything but a right wing commenter at this point. He is frequently making podcasts with right wing view points. This needs to be rectified under this article, instead of serving as an inappropriate vehicle for plausible deniability by blurring his obvious slant which indicates at this point he is more of a right wing commenter than a gonzo journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.66.182 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Titles of videos and what he says in said videos are far from the same thing. While I can concur that the video titles share a lot with traditional right wing types such as James O'keefe, Steven Crowder, and Mr. Obvious, you have failed to substantiate what the far right is. Cherry picking specific examples of things he has said that sound radical are far from an objective assessment of his own views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.60.159 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dissappointed no-one removed that tag which has sat there for a week or more. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Somebody tried but they got reverted, see what the person has to say about it LucasImpulse (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Right Wing Viewership statement

I reviewed the sources that call Tim Pool's audience primarily right wing. Not only does this sentence seem out of place in the entire page, but one of the included sources is literally someone writing a few sentences about what twitter users have said on the subject at hand (The Daily Dot). Additionally, the Buzzfeed and Indepent both make claims that Tim Pool's audience is right wing, but fail in my opinion to adequatly substantiate their claims other than "trust me bro".

Perhaps I am not familiar with Misplaced Pages citation standards but I don't believe this is enough of a fair argument to call Tim Pool's audience right wing, particularly without any real data to back up the claims made in the respective pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.60.159 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News, The Independent, and The Daily Dot are generally reliable sources (see WP:RSP), which means their articles do not need to contain the type of "data" you suggest because they already have strong editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Your characterization of The Daily Dot article is also factually inaccurate (literally). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Daily Dot is only green for internet related content. I wouldn't consider the political views of Pool's audience to fit into that category. I also agree that the other two sources are really making this claim without evidence and there are examples of how once source makes an unsubstantiated claim then others follow it and now we have "proof" (I'm specifically thinking of myths related to the M4 Sherman tank). It may be better to attribute the claim rather than state it in Wiki-voice. Regardless, the sourcing is sufficient to include at least as an attributed claim. Springee (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

At the very bottom he even outright rejects left and right ideology so why does the article start with "far-right"? Media outlets are far from having the final word on what is what. The opinion of a journalist does not translate into fact.

The admin User:Drmies who protected the page and defends the "far right" allegations of Tim Pool claim, Pool that in my opinion always commented on reality in a pretty neutral way, is clearly a propagandist. This story doesn't end here. I want to see him stripped from his administrator privileges in the best scenario. Also why does the user User:Vigursii have multiple accounts and what does he use them for? Misplaced Pages doesn't need political bias and polarizing buzzwords artificially created by think-tanks or propagandists, both from the right AND from the left. --SamZane (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

SamZane, the grammar of your first sentence is very difficult to parse, but PLEASE go ahead and report me on WP:AN and ask for my privileges to be stripped. The moment you do that, someone will go look at what I actually reverted, and why I protected the article, and will discover what you apparently could not see: that I removed "'far right' allegations" from the page. Maybe you should look a bit more carefully before you start throwing accusations around. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I find your question unduly cynical, User:SamZane. I have exactly two Misplaced Pages accounts, one of which I no longer use. As I clearly state on my user page, my old account included my full real name, and as such I phased it out in favor of this account for privacy. Although I no longer use my old account, I still disclose its existence on my page for transparency.

Do you have any other questions? — Vigursii • 📨 09:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is true and you only have two accounts for the reason you mentioned, no more questions. --SamZane (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, the new source has nothing to do with Tim Pool, just far-right echo chambers on YouTube, and is only an attempt to make this seem more solid. The original source, the article, focuses on putting Tim Pool's character down, and is very biased. It's not suitable as a neutral factual source such that it validates the label "far-right". As SamZane says, Misplaced Pages has never been the place for right wing or left wing bias. We're here for the facts, backed up by reliable and neutral sources. LucasImpulse (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I should note that the new source you mention has a full-text PDF available: . The full-text PDF includes an appendix on page 29 which lists Tim Pool as "far right".

I agree, though, that this is a suboptimal source. It's on a preprint server (Arxiv) which is generally not peer-reviewed and does not describe its methodology for compiling the mentioned appendix. — Vigursii • 📨 09:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like that arxiv source with dubious peer-review too. Also I don't like their way of putting everyone in a four or five way category. It is pretty weak calling Pool far right only on the base of a table in a (peer-reviewed?) publication. I think we would need more of them, all that agree on such classification before ruining Pool's life for nothing --SamZane (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

My bad, I didn't see that they had classed Tim Pool as far-right. However, if the second source is to be reliable, which we're disputing already, it says that The Daily Beast is far-left, which reinforces the point that the first source, a Daily Beast article, can be targetted, and reinforces that it has bias, because of a motive and reason already there to benefit them.

Also, Tim Pool's Twitter generally talks about anti-capitalist topics positively, and is against racism. That doesn't align with far-right very well. LucasImpulse (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? Remove the ridiculous far-right tag and get on with productive editing. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We tried . LucasImpulse (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If it gets reverted this will have to be raised further. Can't have such libelous information thrown willy-nilly around on such important places. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removal of "far-right" from the lead. Using a bucket type classification system from an pre-review paper isn't a good way to state in Wiki-voice that Pool is far right. I agree that his positions are a bit all over the map and I think he is popular with the right at this time due to some of his particular positions. I wouldn't oppose putting something in the body of the article saying, in effect, X sources have called Pool far right. I don't think we have sufficient sourcing to put it in wikivoice. Also, it should follow from the text of the body. Springee (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a little impatient. I've been on Misplaced Pages over 10 years and seen it all. As all wikipedians know, the header should be supported in the body of the article. At present 1) The body of the article mismatches blatently with the tag "far-right". 2) the sources are very thin on the ground for such a life changing claim, and with WP:BLP there needs to be a number of things meet in order to change the article so drastically. 3)There is a lot of information available online that support a significant shift in opinion for Tim Pool. For example he's now pro-gun and other more traditional republican stances. If people genuinely want to improve the article then they should try and demonstrate how his views have changed instead of lazily adding a tag and leaving it at that. I'm always very dubious of people who don't make many edits to a page and then come along and make a contraversial edit as noted here by a random ip. It's very rarely in good faith. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You go, detective. LucasImpulse (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Springee and Alexandre8. Sources like The Daily Beast, The Daily Dot, etc. - while reliable for the who/what/when - should generally be used with caution for controversial statements involving living people. While we don't have to attribute facts, where sources are on the edge it is best not to use Misplaced Pages's own voice to present them. And hot takes don't generally belong in the lead. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

After some reflection, I somewhat agree with @Springee, @Alexandre8, @SamZane, and @LucasImpulse—the ramifications of adding the `far-right` qualifier on a Misplaced Pages BLP are too serious to be backed up by a single pre-print arXiv paper and news article. However, we cannot purely rely on the subject's self-identification (we cannot call Pool a leftist if he merely claims to be one, for example).

I suggest the following course of action:

1. Any right- or left- lean descriptors are removed from the lede of the BLP;
2. Information about the dichotomy between Pool's claims and his actions/videos be put at the end of the Views section.

Do we have some sort of consensus on this? I think it's a good mix that avoids libel but does not place undue weight on Pool's own self-identification. — Vigursii • 📨 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also the SPLC piece on Tim Pool that seems to have spurred on the Daily Beast article. In the SPLC piece, it directly refers to Tim Pool as a 'reactionary', but it doesn't call him 'conservative' or 'far-right'. I suppose you could argue that a reactionary is just a type of conservative/far-right, but it's something to consider, since the SPLC is a much more credible source on this kind of stuff than the Daily Beast.71.121.237.216 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is a reliable source.

Regarding the dichotomy, we would have to find a reliable source which mentions the dichotomy and summarize what that source actually says. Otherwise this is a form of WP:OR. By placing this discrepancy at the top of a section on his views, and giving equal weight to these different assessments, this paragraph is stating in Misplaced Pages's voice that the mainstream sources which cover him are not consistent or reliable. Since sources naturally make these assessments at different times and in different contexts, this is editorializing. In this particular case this is also another BLP issue, since it could be seen to be implying that Pool is a hypocrite, without actually saying that he's a hypocrite (or indicate who's calling him a hypocrite). The Daily Beast article does a pretty good job of explaining why people might make that accusation, but this Misplaced Pages article would obviously have to handle it carefully. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Good points.

If it was so that he was a reactionary, it's best to use the label conservative. The far-right are people who genuinely love fascism and/or see Hitler and his actions as amazingly good. Ultimately we can see why far-right is less suitable. LucasImpulse (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Makes sense. We can stay neutral by not affiliating him with either political wing. LucasImpulse (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:BLP noticeboard

The SPLC removed an article that described Pool as a fascist or something similar and apologized to him. The SPLC, unlike newspaper reports, are considered experts on the far right and therefore their opinions should be presented rather than news articles. News media's area of expertise is publishing current events, not political analysis. Also, I would avoid the term conservative, which is ambiguous and because Pool may not meet any standard definitions of the term. Probably best just to present in te lead the positions he holds that make people consider him right-wing. This should be presented first. TFD (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias in this article

I know very little about Tim Pool, and have never watched his show on YT, but I did read the exceedingly long Daily Beast piece on the guy, which is the main source used for this Misplaced Pages article. That Daily Beast polemic is dripping venom, and hardly the sort of reliable source that should be the main supplier of information for this Misplaced Pages article. The Daily Beast diatribe is used as a source no less than 46 times, which dwarfs the amount of citations taken from any other source. Not saying that a critical piece can't be RS, but there is quite a difference between a dispassionate, NYT-style takedown and an article written in abject fury. Even then, the Daily Beast piece has its uses, but multiple parts of this Misplaced Pages article are virtual transcriptions of the Daily Beast article.

If someone is more knowledgeable on the subject of Tim Pool than I am, as I'm sure many are, perhaps you can balance out this article.

Thank you. Matza Pizza (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that the source is written with "abject fury". Being less formal than the NYT is not necessarily a problem for any source, and your opinion about the level of passion in this source is not necessarily relevant to that source's reliability. Sources are allowed to have specific perspectives, and are not obligated to present those perspectives in an encyclopedic fashion. Instead, they are expected to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and our job as editors is in turn to summarize those source from a neutral point of view.

If you have some specific reason this source is unreliable, please explain that. Otherwise, if you have some specific reason this source is not being summarized neutrally, please explain that.

Inviting people who are more knowledgeable about this person could be construed as inviting original research. As a reminder, first-hand knowledge is of very limited use for writing Misplaced Pages articles. As for balance, Misplaced Pages is not looking for "equal validity", we are looking for reliable sources.

I do agree that the source is over-cited, but that's a minor issue. As I've mentioned above before, there is relatively little coverage of Pool over-all, and especially recently. It makes sense that a source of this length would be useful to such an article. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Drawing too much from one source with a strong bias is an issue. While RS allows POV, we must be careful that we are impartial even if the source isn't. Speaking on impartial, NorthBySouthBaranof's recent edit got rid of material that was not supported by the source. With respect to the edit summary (which is not article content), it is worth noting that the judge in the case did not allow the deceased to be referred to as victims in at least one hearing. In this article I don't like that we just say Rittenhouse shot the people but we offer no context at all. Just saying he shot them allows readers to jump to the not unreasonably assumption that this was an act of intentional harm like we saw at the Charlottesville car attack. The Rittenhouse case is much different in that there is a strong self defense argument in that case. I think it would be proper to include a statement that Rittenhouse is claiming self defense (this can easily be sourced). I would include this as part of a BLP protection for Rittenhouse as he is not an intentional public figure. Springee (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I should probably remind you that the subject of this article is Tim Pool, not Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting the three protesters is all that's relevant as far as this article is concerned, and any further clarification is unwarranted, and quite possibly POV. If a reader is interested in how Rittenhouse and his lawyers frame the shooting, they can look up the relevant article on the shooting itself. We are not required to bring that up every single time his name is mentioned. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies to all mentions of a person anywhere on Misplaced Pages, not just in their primary article. If we imply someone committed a crime but fail to note that it may be self defense that may be a violation of BLPCRIME since we are required to presume innocence. Sentences that reasonably imply this was something like murder could be problematic. To extend the thought, what if Rittenhouse is found to have reasonably acted in self defense? Would we still leave it in a way that could imply this was a murder? Springee (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If that's what the cited sources say, then that's all wikipedia can say. Isn't citing an additional source to introduce information that does not pertain to the subject WP:COATRACK? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so clear cut. BLP is a policy of Misplaced Pages. Statements that imply someone committed a crime for which they haven't been convicted are a problem. In the case of Rittenhouse RS do support self defense and no RS is claiming this was some sort of murderous rampage. A neutral statement that his lawyers say he was acting in self defence is not a coatrack. Springee (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: And that would be a valid concern if the article claimed he "murdered" the protesters. But the article says Kyle Rittenhouse "shot three protestors killing two". This is an objective, verifiable statement of fact, that isn't even contested in court. The point of contention is whether the shootings were in self defense, and even if the judges will accept this defense (which at this point would not surprise me), it's not going to change the fact that the act of shooting and killing happened. Compare Murder of George Floyd, which was called "Killing of George Floyd" before the court ruling, as opposed to "Death of George Floyd", despite multiple move requests. The curent wording is neutral and does not violate any BLP policies. Adding material irrelevant to the article subject on the other hand, would be problematic for several reasons. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the implication is there it is still a valid concern. Springee (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I already explained why this is not the case. This does not address any of my arguments which are based on site policy, nor the precedent I provided. Repeating an assertion does not an argument make. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion so there is no reason to ping me. You are concerned with COATRACK which is a valid concern. I'm concerned with BLP. One is an essay, the other is policy. Springee (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And as I have stated previously and even brought an example to prove my point, the current wording doesn't violate BLP because there is no claim that a crime was committed. In my example, "Killing of George Floyd" was the neutral, non-blp-violating wording BEFORE the court ruling, and was changed to "Murder of George Floyd" AFTER the court ruling. This is a simple assertion of the fact that somebody shot or killed someone, without the explicit claim that it was murder, so no claim of a crime is being made. The wording is neutral. On top of that, there is literally no way to wedge in the tangent about Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, without drastically rewriting the entire paragraph, to the point where it's no longer about what Tim Pool said or did. Imagine doing that on the article of every single person who commented on the Kenosha shooting, only to undo it all in the event that Rittenhouse is found guilty. In the event that Rittenhouse is found not guilty, I guess the wording can be changed from "shot three protesters" to "shot three people in self defense", but until then, the current wording is the neutral one, and does not violate BLP. I'll leave it at this because I see no point in repeating myself like last time. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Leading a reader to a potentially false conclusion by omitting critical information is still a BLP problem. Another reason why this information is important is because it adds critical context to Pool's tie in. Saying that Pool supported someone who shot someone else without providing additional information is also potentially leading readers to a false conclusion. Springee (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The reader can follow the link to the Kenosha shooting article for context. The self defense claim is critical to the outcome of the trial, but not to the fact of the shooting itself, which is undisputed. Unless the source specifies that Pool supports Rittenhouse because he believes his self defense claim is valid, or unless you can find other reliable sources specifying that Pool believes Rittenhouse acted in self defense, a tangent on the specific details of the kenosha shooting seems undue. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm the person who added most of the content from The Daily Beast to the article, the question I have is, are any of the claims made by The Daily Beast wrong? If not, then as long as enough of the bias from the source is removed when being added to the article, then I see no problem with using The Daily Beast as a source, although I do agree that the article should rely less on the single Daily Beast source and more on multiple sources. However, looking for more sources to back up all the claims would be hard. As Greyfall pointed out "there is relatively little coverage of Pool over-all, and especially recently." X-Editor (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

'He claimed that this decision was due to "death threats" from the left.'

I don't think this is a question of bias as much as one of accuracy, but I'm putting it here since it relates to the TDB article. In the article, we say:

He claimed that this decision was due to "death threats" from the left.

This is correctly sourced to The Daily Beast article. The Daily Beast Article, in turn, provides a direct link in the article, leaving no ambiguity as to its source for the claim. The source linked is a YouTube video on Pool's channel, for which TDB provides a timecode. The direct quote is:

"Now, I'll be honest. A lot of people would say the same thing about me. They'd say 'I used to cover things on the ground and then I started doing news and political commentary'. Maybe. But I will say it's different. Maybe ... maybe, there's just an opposing view. Maybe this is my bias. But one of the big reasons I stopped going on the ground was because of the death threats and the physical attacks against me and the violence. I just couldn't do it. So we made efforts to launch, you know, some actual reporting from the ground to get that job done, which we're still planning on expanding."

Typically, I would say that if a RS makes the claim, we shouldn't be second-guessing it by fact-checking the claim against the primary source. However, in this case, given (a) the lack of consensus about the reliability of TDB, (b) the particular caution PSN gives us about using TDB to source BLP, (c) the fact the article provides a direct link to its source which is fairly straightforward and doesn't require much in the way of interpretation, I feel like this claim needs to, at a minimum, be edited to remove "from the left" which appears to be an unambiguous factual error in the TDB article. We may want to consider removing the line altogether. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Got rid of the "from the left" part. X-Editor (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of that was good but how many other examples of misrepresenting statements exist in that article? This is one of the issues with using sources with strong POV. It calls into question any claim sourced to that article (though I suspect most are fine). Springee (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Going through all the claims in the article to make sure they aren't misrepresenting anything else would take a lot of time, but one claim being slightly misrepresented in TDB article isn't necessarily too concerning, considering that it is a very long article, so you're bound to make some minor mistakes. What would be concerning is if TDB article contains multiple misrepresentative claims. I apologize for adding anything to the Misplaced Pages article that was possibly misrepresentative. X-Editor (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is when a individual source has been shown to be inaccurate it becomes questionable as a RS. This isn't saying the DB as a whole isn't a RS, but that this specific article can be challenged on those grounds. I do agree that this single instance isn't large enough to dump the whole article but it is a clear red flag. I would not blame you personally for adding something that was 100% faithful to the DB source since it was certainly reasonable to start with an assumption that the article was reliable. Ironically, had it not provided a link to their source we wouldn't be in a good position to review it now. Springee (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Maybe we should first try to verify what claims in the article are correct so we know when it's appropriate to use the article as a source. X-Editor (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question. If we're dealing with an already marginal source, and we've identified one objectively false statement in it, we may need to question whether the overall reference is therefore a "poor source" as imagined by WP:BLPRS. I'm a bit on the fence on this one. If this were an article on an inanimate object I'd say this isn't maybe a stellar source but good enough. Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"... one of the most-watched independent YouTube political pundits in the country ..."

This, again, is a case where the author of the TDB article links to his source for the statement, allowing us to peer behind the curatincurtain. In this case, his source is a Microsoft Excel chart of unclear origin posted to an unverified Twitter account operated by a fan (?) called @TimPoolClips. Were we to include this in the WP article, it would be a case of fact WP:LAUNDERing, where ...'improperly included facts result from "passing through" a medium which is generally considered a reliable source. Thus the characteristics of the secondary source function as cover for a dubious source.'. I'm somewhat uncomfortable sourcing from an article that contains multiple claims that are either demonstrably false or that we would have to choose to omit to maintain compliance with WP:V. Many of the claims in the article are from anonymous sources which we usually presume are accurately and appropriately obtained as part of normal journalistic practice, however, when we find major errors and shortcomings in those parts of the article that can be checked it makes one question the veracity of those portions that can't be. That said, I haven't been deeply following the discussion here so I defer to other editors opinions on the matter. Chetsford (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC); edited to correct typo at 01:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: That certainly isn't a good look for the article in question. Maybe we should first try to verify what claims in the article are correct so we know when it's appropriate to use the article as a source. X-Editor (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Would that not constitute as original research? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree this would be OR. As WP editors, we're not qualified to individually check claims made in articles, nor do we have the capacity to do so. For instance, in the previous case, we can unambiguously state that the author made an objectively false claim because their indirect quote was from a YouTube video to which they timestamp linked and we could easily check. But we can't, for instance, re-interview their interview subjects. If we get to the point where an article has so many questions about its claims that each claim needs to have secondary corroboration before we can include it, this may not meet the BLP directive that sources can't merely be RS but must be "high quality". Again, however, I haven't closely followed the discussion here so I defer to other editors. Chetsford (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

OR, only applies to content in the article, not discussions regarding reliability of sources or claims. We as editors are certainly allowed to challenge claims made in any source used in an article. If either by logic or citing other sources we can show a claim made by a source is wrong we can then treat that claim or source as unreliable. Citing RSs that disagree is certainly the preferred method since it avoids editors doing the analysis. The problem when editors do the analysis is getting consensus that our analysis is correct. That is likely easy in the case of say a simple but critical math error (RS says: "The train went 100 mph for the whole trip while setting the record New York to LA run in just 12 hours" - given that NYC to LA is ~ 2400 miles the example math just doesn't work). It's harder as the explanations become more complex. What we can't do, which I think was your intended point, is question that the quote or summary provided by a RS isn't reliable without being able to review the source for the quote. Springee (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe OR's proscription on the inclusion of material in an article based on independent research implicitly includes a proscription on the exclusion of material based on independent research. But that's splitting hairs; in essence, yes, I think I agree with what you're saying. Chetsford (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"...by 2020 he’d donated to multiple GOP candidates ..."

Again, the author of the TDB article links to his source for the statement, which allows a review. Technically, this statement in the article is correct as "multiple" can be as few as two. In this case, however, it appears to be exactly two:

• Billy Prempeh (Republican), $2800 in 2020
• Sean Parnell (Republican), $2800 in 2020
• Michelle Caruso-Cabrera (Democrat), $2800 in 2020
• Agatha Bacelar (Democrat), $2800 in 2019
• Tulsi Gabbard (Democrat), $800 in 2019
• Andrew Yang (Democrat), $2800 2019

My question is if the author intentionally worded his sentence "...by 2020 he’d donated to multiple GOP candidates ..." instead of "...by 2020 he’d donated to two GOP candidates ..." or if this is a case where he made another error? Again, the statement is technically correct but is such an unusual word choice to use "multiple" to mean "two" in this instance that, in combination with the more unambiguous errors, it makes me wonder if this isn't just another mistake in the article? Perhaps he misidentified the affiliation of Caruso-Cabrera or Bacelar? We may never know, of course. Chetsford (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that article is show itself to be too misleading to rely on for anything other than the most basic of claims/facts. Certainly saying a person gave money to "multiple GOP candidates" while not mentioning that he gave to even more Democratic candidate is misleading/deceptive. This BTW, would be an example of the factually correct yet misleading presentation of information which I'm concerned about with the Rittenhouse topic discussed above. Saying Pool supported someone who "shot people at a protest" without noting the self defense aspect is certainly not telling the whole story. Springee (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned that the article didn't mention that Pool also donated to Democrats since, depending on context, his donation to Republicans may be the only element that's actually relevant to the story. My concern is that using the word "multiple" as a synonym for "two" in this way is so syntactically unusual that -- when taken in concert with the previously noted errors -- leads me to believe this was another error by the author rather than an intentional word choice which further calls into question whether or not we can characterize this as a "high quality source" as required by BLP. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"I think that article is show itself to be too misleading to rely on for anything other than the most basic of claims/facts." I might actually take a more aggressive position on this than you; I'm not certain even basic claims should be cited from this article as one of the factual errors we noticed was a fabricated (indirect) quote. Quoting someone from a recorded source is one of the most basic reporting activities that can be undertaken as it requires nothing more than literacy and same-language comprehension. And they still got it wrong! Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What should be done about The Daily Beast article?

@Matza Pizza:@Grayfell:@Springee:@46.97.170.112:@Chetsford: Should it only be used in certain instances or should it not be used at all? X-Editor (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:RSP suggests we exercise "particular caution" using The Daily Beast in BLPs. That is not a prohibition on using it at all, as I read it, rather it suggests we need to evaluate each article carefully. After the above discussion, it's become clear the article has two unambiguous factual errors and, potentially a third (albeit more ambiguous) factual error. The standard for sourcing at WP:BLP is, not just reliable sources, but "high quality sources". If an article in a source that already lacks RS consensus has multiple, demonstrable factual errors I can't imagine how we could characterize it, with a straight face, as a "high quality source". For that reason, I think this is an either/or situation; either the article is a "high quality source" in which case we use all of it, or it's not a "high quality source", in which case we use none of it. If we use all of it, that would mean we would be okaying the incorporation of what we know to be false statements and invented (indirect) quotes into this BLP. Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like such a comically loaded question that I don't think any answer would be appropriate. A source is not reliable because individual editors dislike or disagree with it's findings. Likewise, sources are not required to cite their own sources (which are not required to cite sources, which are not required to cite sources... until every individual editor is satisfied). To put it another way, ee don't pick-and-choose which sources are reliable and which are not based on our own understanding of the topics, because that would be original research. So if someone would like to summarize why this source is unreliable per Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, please do so. Since this case hasn't been made, this is indistinguishable from back-door PR for Pool, and Misplaced Pages isn't a PR service. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A source is not reliable because individual editors dislike or disagree with it's findings." I don't think anyone is making that case. "So if someone would like to summarize why this source is unreliable per Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, please do so." The community has already done that here and determined "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." Since this is a BLP, the question is if an article that contains one unambiguously and objectively false statement and one laundered assertion, and which is published in a source with no existing consensus as to its reliability, is not only reliable but meets the WP:BLP requirements of being "high quality"? Chetsford (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Grayfell, this isn't a case of the editors deciding they "dislike" the article's findings. It's that the article is shown to be misrepresenting information and misquoting material. Editors can and should review sources for accuracy and if a specific article is found to be inaccurate then it should be treated as a non-reliable source even if the publishing source is still reliable (or semi-reliable in this case). Since you mention OR, please read the opening of WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". Springee (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor:In addition to the examples listed by various editors in this thread where the DB article went off the rails, I would add that the author of the exceedingly lengthy DB article made no mention of Pool's video being used to exonerate Alexander Arbuckle against NYPD accusations, which would be highly relevant to the entire piece, but was apparently omitted as it would bolster Pool's prior leftist bona fides; the article also twists in a brazen way the Sweden incident, which the DB article portrays as Pool doing the dirty work of the right, but this article shows - leaning upon numerous sources, including the London Independent - to be otherwise. Put those two examples together with the factual errors pointed out by others above, add in the tone of the article, as well as a headline which calls Pool a "coward and phony" and which tries to beat him over the head from the start, and I'd say that any controversial item whose only source is the DB article should be stricken. Using the DB article to provide background about Pool's grandma being Korean or whatever? Sure, no problem. But using the article as the lone source for claims vehemently denied by the subject, and for which there are no other sources (e.g. allegedly lying about his views on Occupy Wall Street), seems inappropriate. FWIW, Pool seems a little sketchy to me, but none of us would want to be treated this way in a Misplaced Pages article; we should treat others with that same level of fairness and deference. If it's true or harmless, go with it. If the only source is a very dubious and slanted article? That is why WP:BLP exists as a policy in the first place.

Matza Pizza (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's less convincing to me. Journalism is a process of selecting information to omit and exclude which is what differentiates reporting from chronicling. While I think we have license to question the TDB article on the basis of objective factual errors, I'm not sure that extends to questioning it on the basis of subjective stylistic analysis. Chetsford (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• The main arguments against the reliability of TDB seem to be that 1) they allegedly have a left wing bias according to sources which are not deemed reliable by wikipedia's standards and 2) that they use a format that makes it hard to distinguish normal reporting from opinion pieces.

My problem with the first argument is that bias has no bearing on accuracy of reporting. WP:RSP says Fox News of all things is generally reliable on subjects other than politics and science, despite them being, well, Fox News. Next to that uncharacteristic charitability, I don't see how TDB's allged bias can be taken as affecting their credibility (not to mention the claim sounds eerily similar to the "liberal bias in media" conspiracy theory, which has been thoroughly debunked by reliable sources).

My problem with the second point is that many news outlets with an on-line presence have adapted this blog-format. Keep in mind, they need to compete with independent bloggers and nonsense-merchants on a daily basis, and they need to retain their audience somehow. If this is a problem with TDB, it should also be an issue with sources like CNN or Buzzfeed News, yet nobody is questioning their reliablility. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The main arguments against the reliability of TDB seem to be that 1) they allegedly have a left wing bias according to sources which are not deemed reliable by wikipedia's standards and 2) that they use a format that makes it hard to distinguish normal reporting from opinion pieces." I'm not sure who made those arguments but, to be clear, neither of these are problems I have. My problem is that there are unambiguous factual errors in this article, including falsified quotes. Chetsford (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:RSP lists six separate noticeboard discussions next to TDB. These are the most frequently voiced complaints that are relevant to this topic. Any objection to the source's reliability are based on these two points. Your concerns are not about the general reliability of TDB, but rather the accuracy of the information cited in this article, so what you're doing is original research. You would need to find a source that is more reliable and higher quality than the Daily Beast, to counter what you call "unambiguous factual errors" rather than making that call yourself. Incidentally, I wonder if what you call "falsified quotes" are really just paraphrases complemented with information that can be unambiguously inferred from the context.

My point is that the case against the general reliability of TDB is weak, and if TDB were to be considered a reliable source, then the contested information meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Unfortunately, due to there being "no consensus" on the reliability of TDB (I personally don't think it's unreliable, just opinionated, but I will defer to consensus), some contributors recomend only using BLP related claims from TDB if they're supported by other reliable sources. If other, more reliable sources confirm the claims made by the Daily Beast, then it doesn't matter what you, or any of us think of their factuality. If not, then I guess they can be ommitted. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Chetsford explained why the quote was false as well as the other misleading presentation of information. OR only applies to material that appears in the wiki article. Editors can and should discuss if a source is reliable for the way it is being used in a wikipedia article. That is what we are doing here. Springee (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed many of the more controversial claims made in this article by TDB article, whose reliability for controversial claims seems questionable. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"The most frequently used source material in his videos as of mid-2020 was The Daily Mail, according to Jack Lawrence, a British medical student and independent journalist who’s carved out a niche documenting Pool’s work on Twitter at @TimPoolClips."

Here's what appears to be another case of fact laundering, though in this case it's a unique and exotic form of third order laundering. The link provided by TDB goes to a free Wordpress blog which bases its analysis (which TDB has, in turn, based several of its claims upon) on WP:MBFC which is a consensus-determined unreliable source: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings." A claim from an unreliable source laundered through a RS may or may not be reliable, however, a claim from an unreliable source laundered through a second unreliable source and then laundered through a third source of disputed reliability (such as The Daily Beast) certainly can't meet the BLP standard of a "high quality source" (which is implicitly, a source of superior quality to a 'mere' RS). Chetsford (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be very concerned about any claim that is ultimately sourced to a Twitter account who's objective is to attack Pool. Springee (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

9 Sept Edits

Just today, I have been reverted - twice! - for three types of edits:

1. Improved grammar and readability

2. Correcting a claim in the article which used a single source, NBC, but in fact wrote something entirely different than NBC did in its article, so I matched the article text to the NBC source, and

3. I removed the entire Rittenhouse paragraph, as the majority of those who have chimed in here believe that it violated WP:BLP.

In all three cases, I was reverted for "editorializing", which makes no sense. In the first two cases, my edits, which I spent time crafting, had as much to do with editorializing as my backyard tree has to do with the Dalai Lama. In the last case, I removed the entire Rittenhouse paragraph in order to AVOID editorializing. Including a claim that Pool supports Rittenhouse while painting the latter as a cold-blooded killer is obviously off-base, and recognized as such by most of those contributing to this thread. However, since an objection was raised to my previous edit which simply balanced out competing claims, I removed the entire Rittenhouse reference for now, at least until we can reach a way of inserting it in consensus fashion. By no means is that one paragraph integral to this article, so removing it (temporarily, at least) seemed a pretty safe way to avoid controversy. To be reverted for reasons that are clearly inapplicable and inaccurate is not helpful to anyone. Matza Pizza (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Matza Pizza, I don't see any consensus for the removal of that Rittenhouse material--but maybe it's hidden in here somewhere, in this huge and somewhat confusing talk page post. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies:Indeed, no consensus for removal, but a majority want it rewritten in an unbiased way, as opposed to how it had been presented prior. Due to the opposition of the minority to the balanced version, I removed the reference entirely until we could figure out a way to make everyone happy - it was just a compromise. In that the inclusion of the biased material did pose a problem in the eyes of the majority, and its absence seems rather inconsequential, leaving that mention on the cutting room floor seems to be a way to lower the temperature for now while doing no major harm.

If we want to reinsert Rittenhouse, we should be able to find a way to do so without turning him into a convicted murderer, and Pool into an ogre by extension.

Matza Pizza (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"He shot three protestors, killing two" is hardly a BLP violation: it seems pretty accurate to me. That he expressed sympathy or whatever, I don't know that that makes him an "ogre", but my reading of "ogre" is pretty much what it says in ogre. Removing a section in these circumstances is an odd kind of "compromise". And its importance seems clear to me: he's important enough that Trump would retweet him--that's something for him to be proud of, I imagine. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Drmies here; this is really more a point for discussion rather than a passage that demands bold removal. And the majority agreeing or disagreeing on something isn't that salient since this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Chetsford (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

While I have BLP concerns that the way Rittenhouse is mentioned here can reasonably imply he was acting with malice vs self defense or similar, we have enough sources that mention the topic to make this likely DUE. My concern with weight would be, why is this an important fact. Is it meant to tell us Pool's commentary has reach, is it meant to imply his political views on the use of guns, self defense, how protesters should be treated, etc? Why this is an important part of the Pool article isn't as clear. I think a case for removal would have to be made before removing it again. As for the part about visiting the White House, I think the updates here generally improve IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Springee, "He shot three protestors, killing two"--what someone can or cannot imply from that, really--it's as factual as one can get, unless you wanted to say "he pulled the trigger of the gun he was carrying thereby sending a bullet through the barrel which ended up meeting the body of a person, and that person subsequently died" or some crazy thing like that. No, "reasonably imply malice", that's really not so reasonable here. And it's important because a. reliable secondary sources reported on it and b. as an editorial decision it makes sense because it makes a statement both about his politics and how they align with Trump who, as you know, once was the US president and thus was very important. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies:Thank you, that is more or less what I argued for as well. I honestly do not understand the "reasonably imply malice" argument, when in every prior example on wikipedia, "killing" and "killed" was universally accepted as the objective and neutral language while a murder conviction was pending. Springee argued in favor of including a tangent about Rittenhouse's self defense claim, even though there was no apparent way it could be integrated into the article to make it not feel out of place, and now he's arguing for removing the paragraph entirely, in spite of it being relevant information pertaining to the views of the subject, based on the argument that so much as mentioning Rittenhouse in any capacity without emphasising his self defense claim is a BLP violation. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class Chicago articles
• Unknown-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles