Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Again, this should get consensus before being restored. ] (]) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
:Again, this should get consensus before being restored. ] (]) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
::Its LEAD not lede, they are different and we should not be writing in the style using lede. We would need multiple reliable sources for the claim that "the primary thing that Carlson is known for". Just having an opinion piece pointing out mistakes would probable belong in the article about the show and not the LEAD section of a bio. Post some citations here and we can discuss. Thank you, --] (]) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
::Its LEAD not lede, they are different and we should not be writing in the style using lede. We would need multiple reliable sources for the claim that "the primary thing that Carlson is known for". Just having an opinion piece pointing out mistakes would probable belong in the article about the show and not the LEAD section of a bio. Post some citations here and we can discuss. Thank you, --] (]) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
:I'm confused about the assertion that this is a "controversial" claim; is there a prominent opposing viewpoint among reliable sources or is this merely a "controversy" among Misplaced Pages editors who don't like to see negative things written about right-wing figures? In any case, there are numerous sources cited in the article that mention false and misleading statements made by Carlson. They don't all need to be cited in the lead but here they are: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Given the amount of coverage of false/misleading claims within the body of the article, I'm concerned that we might appear biased by omitting this from the lead. –] ] 17:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:56, 4 December 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tucker Carlson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement 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.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
It does not say it in here at all because no one has found the gumption to find an acceptable source and add it to the article. Don't just complain... be the change you want to see! Le Marteau (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Drinking
I removed some recently added "material" about a friend saying he was a heavy drinker but quit. This should be looked at from a NPOV and due weight. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal life section
Do we need half the section on "personal style and habits"? Can somebody trim this stuff and add it back into one section. He eats junk food and doesn't exercise? Really not that notable. Dead head? ok I guess. What else? Malerooster (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Are there any sources about his trademark "I-don't-get-it, all-those-long-words, I-will-drool-on-my-tie-now" facial expression? Or pictures of him doing it? The one marked "Carlson at the Immigrants' Rights rally" gets close, but there must be better ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Zaathras, this is yet another outrage of the week. This article is far too long already and this is just the sort of content that bloats the article but almost certainly doesn't pass the 10 year test. I get the view that this is an example of Carlson amplifying fringe views. However, if the intent is to include this as such an example we need a RS that is saying as much and then it would have to be included in a section about that, not in it's own section which suggests the interview itself was significant. IE, this is a supporting example of a bigger thing, this interview itself is not a bigger thing. Absent consensus to keep it in the article is should be removed. Springee (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The outrage over Kanye's antisemitism is longer than a week, and Tucker's milquetoast handling of it, by omitting the bits that made Kanye even more bigoted, is well-sourced. Zaathras (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I think West's recent comments will have lasting weight with respect to West's BLP. But I have trouble seeing how it will be lasting with respect to Carlson. Springee (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Carlson's interview conduct received attention from a lot of WP:GREL sources in the United States and Israel , so I think WP:WEIGHT suggests that it should be included. The paragraph could be rewritten to make the context clearer. Llll5032 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Deference and admiration toward some authoritarian foreign leaders
The passage "On Tucker Carlson Tonight he has shown deference and admiration toward some authoritarian foreign leaders, notably Viktor Orbán of Hungary and Vladimir Putin of Russia" was removed with the rationale "it seems we would need better or more sourcing for this. Is this new?". Malerooster, what is the specific concern about the sourcing and what do you mean by "is this new?"? Did you consider adding a "better sourcing" tag or searching for sources yourself instead of removing reliably-sourced content? –dlthewave☎02:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't restore disputed content until there is consensus to do so. I object to this recently added content on several grounds. First, Britannica is not a good source for controversial claims in a BLP. Britannica can be a good source for basic facts and as a guide to what a professionally editted encyclopedia felt was due. However, using it's not a good source for either vague or potentially controversial claims. That gets to the second issue which is this is a vague claim about Carlson. This is clearly a case where the details are important since they could range from "he admired that Putin is happy to have opponents killed" to something much more mundane. Given that this is a leading statement that could imply something about a BLP subject that isn't true, either the detail must be included (which opens the material up to DUE considerations) or it needs to go. Any such content is going to need more sourcing that just a WashPo "angry at Carlson again" article. Springee (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Dlthewave, i meant by new, was this "material" just added recently, or has it been in the article for awhile? If it was just added, and editors are questioning it, then there should be consensus for its inclusion, thats all. This seems to be a somewhat controversial claim, so it needs better, or more sourcing it seems. What do others think? --Malerooster (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
This one isn't sourced to WaPo but are you saying that this needs a BETTER source than the WASHINGTON POST? What would that type of sourcing look like? –dlthewave☎15:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct here, this wasn't sourced to WP. You made several edits and I confused which one had which source. It was only sourced to Britannica. If that is the only source then we have a weight issue. Even if it was sourced to WashPo, the sentence as added is still a problem. It suggests something without providing correct detail. Imagine if someone said, "Well Hitler was right about that topic." and we included in their article that "X has said they agree with Hitler" with no other context. It seems like the sort of thing that could be taken to mean something that wasn't the correct context. Now what if we found the full context to be, "X said Hitler was right to view smoking as harmful to one's health." So basically X agrees with Hitler and the American Lung Association. Saying that someone's views align with a despised person/group without providing context is a classic smear technique. While that isn't always the intent of a writer, the fact that it's a potential and reasonable reading violates IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Noted for false and misleading statements
The passage "(Carlson) is often noted for false or misleading statements on his show", sourced to Brittanica and WaPo, was removed from the lede without a clear explanation. As one of the primary things that Carlson is known for, this seems relevant to the lede, especially since it's sourced to a top-tier newspaper. Malerooster, what are your concerns? –dlthewave☎03:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Britannica is not a good source for controversial claims about BLP subjects. Using WashPo as a source for such a generalized, subjective claim in Wikivoice is also an issue. This sort of generalized, negative, subjective claim about a BLP needs very strong sourcing. Additionally, it's inclusion really doesn't help the article. Springee (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Its LEAD not lede, they are different and we should not be writing in the style using lede. We would need multiple reliable sources for the claim that "the primary thing that Carlson is known for". Just having an opinion piece pointing out mistakes would probable belong in the article about the show and not the LEAD section of a bio. Post some citations here and we can discuss. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused about the assertion that this is a "controversial" claim; is there a prominent opposing viewpoint among reliable sources or is this merely a "controversy" among Misplaced Pages editors who don't like to see negative things written about right-wing figures? In any case, there are numerous sources cited in the article that mention false and misleading statements made by Carlson. They don't all need to be cited in the lead but here they are: Politifact, CNN, Politifact, NY Times, WaPo/AP Fact Check, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, FactCheck, Politifact, WaPo, AFP Fact Check, Forbes, Politifact, CNN. Given the amount of coverage of false/misleading claims within the body of the article, I'm concerned that we might appear biased by omitting this from the lead. –dlthewave☎17:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}