Talk:Tucker Carlson - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dlthewave (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 4 December 2022 (→Noted for false and misleading statements: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:56, 4 December 2022 by Dlthewave (talk | contribs) (→Noted for false and misleading statements: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

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.

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.

Template:Vital article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 16, 2019.

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal 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 arts and entertainment work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

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.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance 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.

Media Mid‑importance

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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.

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

Politics: Libertarianism Mid‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Anti-war

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Paradise PD

He is depicted in this show, a lot. Why doesn’t it say it in here at all. #letthetruthbeknown #paradisePD 2605:C900:8007:DF60:29B7:DCD6:C693:8085 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

I prefer the previous version of the personal life section without the habits sub-heading. Some recent additions are WP:PRIMARY sourced and may not be due. Llll5032 (talk) 01:06, 8 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)

I restored the previous version and condensed the language. Llll5032 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Kanye West interview section

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)

I have to agree, this is not about Carlson. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 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)

Again, this should get consensus before being restored. 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)

Categories: