Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Media Matters analysis

This content:

Analysis conducted by Media Matters in December 2021 found that during the preceding ten months Carlson discussed vaccines in roughly 50% of all original episodes of his program. In 99% of those episodes, Carlson or his guests made at least one claim that undermined vaccines or vaccination efforts

was removed by Springee on the basis that it "is a claim about his show, not Carlson himself. We shouldn't conflate the two" and questioned MMFA as "not a great source per RSP," where it is indeed yellow.

Zaathras restored it on the basis of "Tucker IS the show and the show is Tucker, the two are inseparable. Also Media Matters is fine with attribution." I concur with both of those comments. Springee reverted again and so here we are.

The MMFA WP:RSP entry states "its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis." In this case, MMFA provides extensive details on how it conducted its analysis by searching SnapStream and Kinetiq video databases on specific terms and then applying criteria filtering to the results to ensure quality results, such as:

"We defined a claim as an uninterrupted block of speech from a single speaker. For host monologues, we defined a claim as an uninterrupted block of speech between quotes that were read or clips that were aired. We did not analyze claims within read quotes or aired clips unless a speaker in the segment positively affirmed any speech within either directly before or after reading the quote or playing the clip."

This content is thus highly analytical and transparent and warrants inclusion. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

First, this is mostly about his recent show, not Carlson himself. If you want to add it to the Tucker Carlson Tonight article I wouldn't object. I say about his show because it includes statements of his guests rather than just himself. Second, MM4A is a poor source so and of questionable weight. All of your arguments for inclusion, ie that this particular MM4A article is a good one, focus on how they claim to have analyzed Tucker Carlson Tonight. That strengthens the view that this is content about the show, not about Carlson. Thus adding it to this article looks UNDUE to me. Remember, this is meant to be a summary, not "every bit of negative content we can find about TC". I would also add that this seems to be a lot of analysis vs factual reporting on MM4A's part. Do we have any evidence they are reliable for such an analysis? Springee (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, Springee. Your argumentation is not particularly strong here. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What? This article is talking about what is discussed by Carlson and his guest on the show, not Carlson himself. How is that not squarely about the show? Second, MM4A is not a source with a strong reputation for this sort of data reduction and analysis thus why should we trust their methods or conclusions? It would be one thing if they were reporting straight facts or easily verified claims. They aren't. We are supposed to trust their self generated data. That again is a problem. Finally, this article is already way too long. It needs to be cut down, not further stuffed with the next bit of negative news we can find. Those are very solid reasons to keep this sort of content out. As I said, if someone wants to add this to TC Tonight I would withdraw my primary objection as it would be an analysis of the show itself vs acting like an analysis of the show is an analysis of Tucker Carlson himself. Springee (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee is right. I actually read the Media Matters analysis, and it looks like their definition of "undermining the vaccine" is so broad as to be meaningless. Apparently stating that the vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting the disease (which is true) counts as "undermining", as does stating getting COVID provides greater immunity than the vaccine (also apparently true), as does stating that federal vaccine mandates violate the U.S. Constitution (arguable, but far from a fringe viewpoint). Given all that, this analysis seems pointless - and worse than that, summarizing the findings as saying that Carlson "undermined vaccination efforts" is a blatant misreading. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, please point me to where the source says "stating that the vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting the disease counts as 'underminining'".

Please also provide reliably-sourced evidence to support your claims that "the vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting the disease" and that "federal vaccine mandates violate the U.S. Constitution" is "arguable". When we analyze sources for accuracy, we compare them to what reliable sources say about the topic, not the unsupported claims of an individual Wikipedia editor. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't go to the trouble, but these requests are surprisingly easy to fulfill, so here you go: 1 (this is cited as evidence in the MMFA analysis), 2, 3. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, so Carlson/his guest said there's "no medical justification for" vaccine mandates because "the vaccinated can spread the virus as efficiently as anybody else".... and you're saying this is a "gotcha" example of Carlson not undermining vaccines? The whole "less likely to get it, and thus less likely to spread it" thing, and the whole "less serious cases when vaccinated" thing are "no medical justification"? Yikes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

An attributed MMFA analysis in the body is fine. It's clearly of longterm encyclopedic value to cover how Carlson, a widely popular cable news host of our era, chose to turn his show's coverage of a deadly and revolutionizing pandemic into deadly misinformation. This kind of coverage matters[1][2][3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Korny made it clear why the report is factually misleading. Such misleading studies is why MM4a is considered a biased, questionable source. As such it shouldn't be used. Your "disinformation" claim is refuted by Korny's review of the misleading and biased nature of the report. We should not counter "disinformation" with alternative disinformation. Springee (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Korny made nothing clear. He cited nothing and provided no concrete examples of anything. MMFA's methodology appears to be specified here[4][5]. Repeatedly saying "vaccinated people can contract the virus" while always omitting that vaccines substantially lower the risk of infection is disinformation and intended to mislead viewers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's factually correct and undermines the quality of MM4a's work if such information is left out since it specifically weakens the claims MM4A is trying to make. Springee (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Factually accurate snippets can be "misleading" and "disinformation" if they purposely omit relevant context. The statement "The climate has always been changing" is technically accurate but is intended to mislead if it purposely omits the nature of the change (the speed of change, the role of human activity). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)\

Springee, if you agree with Korny that the report is factually misleading then I'm assuming you also agree that the vaccine doesn't prevent you from contracting the disease and that federal vaccine mandates arguably violate the U.S. Constitution? Can you provde sourcing to back up those claims? –dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Does your Google not work? Are you saying you haven't read stories or even met people who got Covid after vaccination? Is the CDC acceptable [6]? I'm sure you can find legal opinions as well. Perhaps we should find a more reliable source for this claim? If this were Fox News saying s something similar about a left leaning source would you support or oppose inclusion based on the yellow status? Springee (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL dude the CDC source you linked literally says "COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death." I think you might be confused about the definition of "prevent" in this context. I'm not going to go searching for legal opinions, that's on you if you're making it supporting that claim. And yes, I would treat any yellow-linked source according to its specific caveats. In this case the research appears to be sound with no signs of inaccuracy or bias. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest saving your laughs and reviewing the claims Korny actually made. The claim you were disputing wasn't do the vaccines reduce the likelihood. It was do they stop (ie a 100% reduction). As for the court case you can't Google, the stories make it clear this is heading for the USSC so a claim on the constitutionality is certainly reasonable commentary as the question is disputed. So based on your final claim you would accept a mirror of this content of Fox News was the source? Your answer was evasive. Springee (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone could question that Carlson undermines the vaccine. Anyone who watched and believed his show would be less likely to become vaccinated, particularly compared with someone who watched and believed CNN, NBC, etc. One could argue that he is merely noting the problems with the vaccine and therefore performing a public service, but that doesn't change the basic claim.

I would however avoid this source because of its rs rating. There are other media watchdogs and news sources. I don't think this deserves more than a sentence. something like, "Following Biden's becoming president, Carlson's show has devoted half its time to casting doubt on the effectiveness and safety of covid vaccination."

TFD (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support the brief 2-sentence attributed summary as a conclusion to the extensive COVID-19 section. Media Matters is an "evaluate case-by-case" source and in the case we have a study with published methodology that seems to accurately quantify vaccine information. The topic at hand is healthcare, so there's no reason to suspect political bias. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  Given how political Covid policies are how can you reasonably claim MM4A is now reliable because this is "healthcare"? Springee (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, obviously. Springee's argument is specious to the point that it should just be dismissed and we move on. There is literally and factually no difference between "Tucker Carlson Tonight" and Tucker Carlson the man, any more than there was for Rush Limnbaugh vs. the Rush Limbaugh Show, and countless others. As for Media Matters, its use can be decided on a case-by-case basis, and if used it is with attribution. Well, here's us deciding. Zaathras (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Guilt by association is not allowed in BLP's per WP: BLPBALANCE. The content that is being attributed to guests of the show does not belong here, though it would be appropriate on the shows article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The Association fallacy is in regards to irrelevant associations. If you purposely platform known extremists and nutjobs on your prominent platform to spout nonsense, then the association is clearly relevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, the assertion that if a person "platforms" something means they believe it is nonsense. The association you are trying to make is not allowed per BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm confused by your comment. The text that is being discussed here specifically says "Carlson or his guests". The text does not say that Carlson personally believes what his guest says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
      • That highlights the conflation concern. If the view or claim is that of the guest then this is about the show, not Carlson. Springee (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Carlson controls the show. He chooses to platform these crackpots. These are not people who randomly call in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
      • The "Or his guests" is the association. This isn't about his guests, it's about him. If the source separated out the two and noted what Carlson said, and what his guests said specifically we could use the content on Carlson. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Kyohyi, I wonder how many angels can dance on a pin. Springee, if you really have such serious methodological concerns and all that, why don't you take that article to RSN? It seems to me you're going through an awful lot of trouble to remove a two-sentence, properly attributed claim out of this article. But if you do, please keep it clean--no talk of the Constitution or whatever, because that just leads to mire. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
          • If you would like to contribute to the discussion DrMies, be my guest. But snark and sarcasm are disruptive. Some potentially useful avenues of approach would be why a marginally reliable highly partisan source is acceptable on a BLP, especially in a politically charged topic. Or maybe some other sources which are considered more reliable which cover similar content. Or even an argument on why that isn't guilt by association. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
          • LOL - it's a "properly attributed claim" from a partisan hit-piece. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Did you ever see Tucker's piece in which he attempted to smear MMFA founder David Brock as a drug-crazed maniac, citing unidentified "insiders?" Just wonderin'. soibangla (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm wonderin' why you brought this up. Are you already bored by the topic of discussion? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
              • Did you ever see David Brock's book in which he attempted to smear Anita Hill as a liar, using fabricated evidence? Just wonderin'. TFD (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
                • Wasn't that when he was a conservative operative? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was. But we digress. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
          • I fail to understand why we should omit the content of Carlson's show in this article. It strains credulity that Carlson is somehow accidentally always inviting COVID crackpots to his show. He's purposely platforming these grifters and conspiracy theorists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Because "He's purposely platforming these grifters and conspiracy theorists" is a guilt by association argument. We have an article on his show, such content belongs there, not here. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
              • Are you saying he has no influence on who is invited on the show? Is he just some random guy who sits there and listens and makes that "I gon't get it" face of his? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
                • No, his influence on the show is irrelevant to what the guests say. This is an article on Carlson, not his guests, not his show. Grouping what his guests say with him is guilt by association. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
                  • Ah. So, he had no idea beforehand what those people would say? Don't be ridiculous. He purposely invites guests who he expects to spread COVID misinformation because they have done it before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
                    • Please try to respond to what I said. He is not responsible for what they say. Period. End of story. Grouping in their commentary with him is guilt by association. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
                      • Carlson is responsible, I'm afraid. Cable news talking head shows are essentially scripted events. They book guests who are like-minded in every way, the questions are known ahead of time, the answers planned out. Carlson's guests simply reinforce the hosts own words on the topic of the day, no new material or ideas are introduced. Zaathras (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of this, briefly. There's no shortage of reliable sources covering Carlson's spreading of vaccine misinformation. While I don't support inclusion of every little criticism MM makes about Fox News personalities, a thorough report, especially when it can be supplemented by other sources, merits inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support It is his show, he decides who goes on it, he decides twhat they get asked, he decides to not challenge what they say. Also the whole section seems well sourced, this is just a general analysis that seems to sum up what the other RS are all saying.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not going to vote here, because this isn't a vote, but the problem here is not the information that MMFA provides, because it's basically just a group of video clips (some of which are already quoted in the article), it's their analysis - in which every statement made that doesn't treat the COVID-19 vaccines as a panacea is some kind of act of sabotage. Do you think some people have gotten sick after being vaccinated, or have reacted negatively to the vaccines themselves? Or that unvaccinated people should be allowed to go to public places? Careful how you answer, because if you say "yes" to any of those, you're, in the words of Media Matters, "undermining public health efforts to protect people from COVID-19." Korny O'Near (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - what did Carlson actually say, and in what context did he say it? How was it that he purportedly "undermined vaccines or vaccination efforts"? If we cannot provide an actual quote (in-text attribution cited to high quality RS) by Carlson clearly demonstrating that he is undermining vaccines, then it's a BLP vio to include it. The CDC stated: "Some people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick and have a vaccine breakthrough infection because no vaccine is 100% effective." Excuse me - no vaccine is 100% effective?!! Did the CDC just undermine vaccines? CDC also stated: However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19. An infection of a fully vaccinated person is referred to as a “vaccine breakthrough infection.” Is that another example of undermining the COVID vaccine? Hmmm...see how easy it is to take things out of context and make it seem nefarious? Just leave it out. Atsme 💬 📧 23:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to the data analysis, the MMFA article also includes a substantial number of quotes/videos of Carlson's assertions to illustrate the findings. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless, MMFA is an unreliable source and BLPs require multiiple RS for such allegations. I also don't see that it adds anything of value to this BLP. Discussing a controversial topic is what talking heads do on national television - we don't always agree with them - so? If you've got a notable quote by Carlson that is cited to multiple RS that corroborate it, then let's see what you've got. Atsme 💬 📧 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Regardless, MMFA is an unreliable source is not a truthful statement. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  It is not unreliable, it is "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context" and "its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis." The story contains numerous actual Carlson quotes supported by video clips, which is standard procedure for MMFA and exceeds what the vast majority of reliable sources do. soibangla (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  WP:NOTTRUTH, and marginally reliable on a case by case basis doesn't cut it in a BLP. MMFS is negatively over the margin here and fails factual accuracy, so unless you can cite several other RS that corroborate MMFA, and can use in-text attribution to factually pinpoint what you're arguing to include, then leave it out. We use caution when it involves a BLP - reread the policy. ^{Adding:14:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)} It could be said that some in media are concerned Carlson provides a platform for guests that are doubtful about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine, yada yada - but cite it to multiple RS, and stay away from marginally. Atsme 💬 📧 13:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  The numerous reliable sources in the COVID-19 section corroborate the overall trend, MM4A is just quantifying it numerically. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, WP:NOTTRUTH says that users are allowed to utter untrue statements on talk pages, but nobody is allowed to point out that the statements are untrue? I can't find that one. Maybe the NOTTRUTH link refers to something else then? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the prior statement about direct quotations from Carlson. If there is not an actual quote from him that we can point to than it seems like the entire discussion is hearsay. While MM may still be in yellow, it is labeled a partisan advocacy group. The attribution to them also seems like it is intended only as an attack against Carlson. Additionally, Carlson's guests are not him.Viktory02 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Did you see "In 2021, he repeatedly aired segments casting doubt on masks and vaccines, and falsely accused National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci of contributing to the creation of the virus" supported by five sources in the first paragraph of the subsection? Then in the third paragraph: "In 2021, Carlson ran segments that misrepresented the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and asserted that U.S. officials were 'lying' about them," supported by six sources. The MMFA data analysis serves to affirm and supplement the anecdotes provided by those sources. soibangla (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • If a child wrote in crayon, "Tucker Carlson is a poopyhead and he lied about the vaccine", that would also "affirm and supplement" these anecdotes; but we wouldn't include that as a source. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
      • So what? If that reasoning were valid, you could use it also to reject every other source in every other article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Viktory02, did you click through any of the two dozen or so blue links in the source? They will take you to the specific quotes that MMFA is talking about. Many are also backed up by top-tier reliable sources in our article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, yes I did the links redirect back to MMA and some are outright lies. For example the very first one states that Carlson said the vaccine is killing people and government and media are not looking into it, but the actual transcript they cite only critiques the media for not investigating claims of vaccine injuries.Viktory02 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
      • MMFA correctly quotes Carlson saying "The question is, are we as a country or the federal agencies and is the news media making a good-faith effort to find out what it is and then to care about what is?"[7] soibangla (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Viktory02 You asserted MMFA published outright lies but I showed the example you cited was not a lie. Please would you present another example of what you assert is a lie? soibangla (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
        • The claim in question I believe is this one [8]. MM4A says "killing". I don't see where TC says killing. The video link doesn't work. Is that where the "killing" was claimed? If "killing" isn't supported then yeah, that's an issue. Springee (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Yeah what they said. unless there's more information here MMA puslihed outright lies in this instance. Viktory02 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
            • I don't find your argument persuasive. MMFA did, in fact, include federal agencies, contrary to your assertion, and that Carlson falsely claimed vaccines were killing people had been previously established, so there was no need for MMFA to rehash that in the particular article you cited.[9][10][11]. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
              • I'm curious, why do you find Fox News unreliable here [12] yet it's appropriate to use MM4A in this BLP article? Springee (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why we would use a marginal source, created specifically to oppose certain viewpoints, to say anything remotely controversial is beyond me. If other, more reliable, sources make the statement we can talk about using them. Beyond that, this is a hard pass. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As I and dlthewave explained earlier, the COVID section contains at least eleven reliable sources that cite anecdotes of what Carlson has said. The MMFA data analysis affirms and supplements those reliable sources, and also includes numerous additional anecdotes, all captured on video. Yes, MMFA was created specifically to oppose certain viewpoints, namely lies, so it's no surprise liars vilify and demonize MMFA to keep people from reading it. MMFA does not lie, nor is it a "hate site" as Bill O'Reilly asserts. soibangla (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Media Matters' findings are not controversial. –dlthewave ☎ 19:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The source is controversial as a biased/advocacy organization. Have other sources picked up this story? If, as Soibangla said, we have 11 other sources why do we need to keep this one? Springee (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, that one again: People just have to say something is controversial, and bing! it becomes controversial by definition through that very statement. When a source summarizes other sources and notices a pattern, it becomes more useful than those others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Not when that source is unreliable my friend. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This is starting to look like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS kind of deal here. "But I know they are right" is not a convincing argument on Wikipedia. Find a reliable source that says the same thing and you would not have nearly the same push back. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
      • This is starting to look like a WP:IDHT kind of deal here. soibangla (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

        Says the pair that has commented on every oppose? Just because you like it does not make it a reliable source. End of story really. If it was as universally accepted then find a RS that says it. Otherwise I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. PackMecEng (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

        It's clearly not Just because you like it, I reiterate points when I sense others aren't reading and flatly dismiss MMFA as unreliable which is contrary to RSP. soibangla (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

        Okay then lets quote the RSP entry, There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable which does not inspire confidence to make statements about a BLP. Marginally reliable is unreliable for a BLP. So removing it seems to be in line with WP:BLPREMOVE, heck it could be argued it would exempt from 3RR. PackMecEng (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

        Is that all RSP says? its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. Apologies, that's the fifth time "case-by-case" has been mentioned in this thread, I won't repeat it anymore. soibangla (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

        Yes and I explained WHY it is not useful or reliable in THIS case. I even linked policies and the like for you. I have reviewed your arguments above and they amount to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS & WP:ILIKEIT. Again find a RS for this content and it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Honestly since you seem unable to do it, this becomes an WP:UNDUE issue as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

        they amount to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS & WP:ILIKEIT is simply false and that is likely the most pleasant way I can express it in this venue. Good day. soibangla (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

        lol nonsense my friend. PackMecEng (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

      • My position, and I believe several others agree, is that this particular MMFA article is a reliable source for this purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
        • It doesn't appear to be a consensus position and concerns about the method and nature of the claims have been raised. That and we have the question if, regardless of reliability, this study is due in this article vs the article about the show. This is very much looking like a no consensus result. Springee (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Well then, you can walk away, as you have no consensus to remove it. There is not one valid argument that has been presented for removal anyways that isn't "I don't like it". Zaathras (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
            • Your suggestion is inconsensent with how NOCON says to handle disputed changes. Remember this is newly introduced content, not long standing content. Springee (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
            • BLP's require high quality sourcing, not marginal sourcing. That is justification enough to remove it. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
              • As others have pointed out, and which you seem to blissfully ignore, the Media Matters sources simply reinforces what other sources are also saying. It is not being used to singly source anything controversial. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
                • Since you have basically conceded that media matters is not a good source I will remove the content sourced solely to Media matters. If you would like to re-include it find a better source. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
                  • Kyohyi: Your removal was improper as the matter remains under active discussion. soibangla (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
                    • Soibangla, this was a bad revert [13]. You correctly noted that the content was under active discussion but fail to acknowledge that this is new content thus per ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". There isn't consensus to include so you are now adding it when it clearly doesn't have consensus. Since there is no consensus the material should stay out during the discussion (please review NOCON). Please self revert. Springee (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
                      • The removal was correct under BLP. Active discussion is not a valid reason to re-insert material on a BLP that is not up to BLP standards. See WP: BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
                        • WP:CRYBLP isn't going to carry the day here, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

                          Please self revert per policy WP:ONUS or we are going to AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

                          • Zaathras, Please review WP:NOCON. 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.. There is no consensus thus per policy this should be reverted. Springee (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

                            I am inclined to support inclusion of the Media Matters content, but I agree 100% that we should leave it out while discussion proceeds. This is basic ONUS stuff, and in a BLP besides. Firefangledfeathers 04:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• There's plenty of high-quality secondary coverage of Media Matters' general opinion about Carlson's COVID coverage, eg. - it might make sense to expand the section to cover that more generally, but the use by reasonably high-quality sources makes it hard to argue that Media Matters' opinions are completely undue or that they're such a fatally flawed source that they fail WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

References

• Comment - I feel like in all of this BLP talk, there's an important point: this isn't some brand new aspect of the subject being introduced and sourced only to Media Matters. If nobody were talking about something Carlson did/said, and we only had MM to go by, I would get the BLP-centered controversy... but we have an entire section about it, and the MM source is a useful summary line at the end (or could be moved to the top of it, even). And it's not some low-effort "get a load of what Carlson said" blog post but a report loaded with links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The content that is being disputed is only sourced to MM, not anyone else. That other sources say similar things doesn't mean that a self-published source like MM is suddenly acceptable. In this case we use what is sourced to non-SPS, and drop the content that is only sourced to SPS. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You have twice asserted MMFA is a self-published source, but I don't see it. It has been in business for 17 years and is staffed by researchers, analysts and writers, it's not Brock sitting at his kitchen table. During its time, many have been conditioned by those MMFA has written about to reflexively hate and dismiss it such that many don't even attempt to read it. Is MMFA biased? Well of course it is. Everyone who has ever lived is biased. But bias is not the issue. Lying is the issue. MMFA doesn't lie. soibangla (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Who are the independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest with MMFA) which review MMFA's work before MMFA publishes MMFA's research on MMFA's website? Ford has been in business for longer, and it's research on it's website done by it's researchers would be self-published for the same reason. To head off the claim newspapers are the same. Newspapers are traditional publishers, and are trusted as traditional publishers to employ independent editors. (editors not beholden to any ideology) But that is a case unique to traditional publishers, which MMFA is not. EDit to add: From Identifying and using self-published sources which you linked to. "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." So if the author works for MMFA, and the publisher is MMFA and their job is to produce that type of research (this is in line with MMFA's style of advocacy so, yes) then the author and publisher are the same. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no information about Carlson's position on LGBT people?

A general question: Under "Commentary," there are 10 subject areas about which Carlson speaks: Political parties, Abortion and death penalty, Economics, Environment, Regulations, Foreign policy, Immigration and race, COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 election aftermath, Alleged surveillance. I noticed that LGBT issues are not included in this list. In fact, the words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," "trans*," "queer," "gender," "sexuality," and "LGBT" appear nowhere in the article. The word "homophobic" appears once, in reference to Carlson's head writer, not to Carlson himself. Since Carlson frequently makes strong comments on these topics, it seems to me to be a significant omission. I don't see it mentioned on this Talk page, either. I wonder if there is a reason why this topic has been excluded.

A question specific to my reverted contribution: Yesterday, I created a "Sexuality and gender" section and added content. This was a +4,095 character edit including 7 sources. Several hours later, an editor reverted it, providing 4 reasons.

• "out-of-context quotes" - I don't know what this means. Carlson routinely makes anti-LGBT comments, and I don't think adding "context" will reveal Carlson as having meant anything apart from what he said. I don't understand specifically what context is being requested.
• "synthesis" - I understand the logical principle that merely listing "A, B, C, D" may not entail conclusion "E", and also that Wikipedia does not want original research. I am admittedly a little fuzzy on why "synthesis" is a problem, since citing multiple sources is synthetic, collaborating is synthetic, and Wikipedia is synthetic by nature. Anyway, I believe the editor is asking for a reliable source that itself draws a broad conclusion like Tucker Carlson is homophobic and transphobic. If that is what you want, here are New York Times articles that say that Carlson uses "isolated" clips of transgender people to make "viral content" (not op-ed; Politics, printed front page A1) and that he "shifts topics to imply hypocrisies," illustrated by an example about "transgender bathroom use" (television critic column), and a Time profile piece pointing out that, when he asked about "chang[ing] your biological sex just by wishing it so," he did so as a rhetorical "whataboutism". Even the conservative magazine The New Republic, only one month ago today, published a profile piece on Carlson by a staff writer saying that, post-2008, "Carlson’s meanness began to warp into cruelty. His racism and homophobia, long parts of his journalistic oeuvre, became even more pronounced." I am not sure what kind of authoritative source you are looking for. Do we need a book published by a university press that discusses the problem of homophobia and transphobia in right-wing media and specifically names Tucker Carlson? If you search YouTube for ["tucker carlson" transgender], you will find a number of clips on his show where he has spoken about policy issues: sports, military service, gender transition in childhood. In 2017, a senior writer for Politico discussed an instance in which Carlson said BuzzFeed was an illegitimate news organization because they supported gay marriage. In 2019, a feature (not op-ed) for the NY Times Magazine discussed a conservative gay man described as "Tucker Carlson’s go-to gay on the supposed hysterics of the gay left," i.e. sometimes Carlson brings a gay man on air to state the anti-gay points for him. The more sources I find, the more it might appear to be "synthesis," but I don't think I'm synthesizing an argument as much as identifying multiple sources that are all saying the very same simple, obvious thing.
• The editor raised 2 objections that were specific to 1 of my 7 sources. First, that the source, LGBTQ Nation, was unreliable. I would like to point out that this source is not mentioned (neither one way nor the other) on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; also, that Media Bias Fact Check indicates that LGBTQ Nation has "not failed a fact check" and that they qualify it as "Mostly Factual" solely for its failure to label opinion pieces as such; also, that the same information I found at LGBTQ Nation is also available at Yahoo News, The Daily Beast, The Advocate,, and Metro Weekly. Second, the editor objected that the content I cited from LGBTQ Nation contained "incorrect statements" about Carlson, who "didn't say the girl was grotesque". I disagree with that assessment. As shown in Carlson's video itself, which is embedded in the Daily Beast article, he did say that. Carlson played a video clip of a 4-year-old transgender girl, showing her and her mother's face, and providing the girl's first name. That clip ends at 1:02. Then Carlson had some words to say about it: "Many small children are being given puberty blockers and irreversibly damaging their bodies. Of course some of them later regret it. It’s grotesque." The word "grotesque" occurs 22 seconds after the end of the clip of that specific girl. Whether "grotesque" refers to certain hormonal treatments as given to "small children" (in Carlson's imagination; there is not yet any puberty to be blocked in a 4-year-old) or given to people of any age, or to the concept of being transgender, that perhaps is open to interpretation, but he did clearly say the word "grotesque" in a discussion about gender transition, and I don't know what context or interpretation we can put on it that makes it not prejudicial against and harmful to transgender people. I mean... if you interpret Carlson not as having said that a particular 4-year-old is grotesque, but rather more broadly that anyone's gender transition is grotesque, this is all the more reason why this article should have a section about Carlson's anti-LGBTQ comments. The broader interpretation admits that this is neither "out-of-context" nor "synthesis"; all that is needed is to listen to the man's own words.

We went through a similar thing at the beginning of the Trump administration. Someone would write on Wikipedia that Trump once said he has no problem with gay people, and I would provide a dozen of Trump's actual anti-gay policies since he had taken office, and my edit would be reverted because Trump once said he has no problem with gay people and that was somehow supposed to be the authoritative synthesis. I am still trying to figure out what is the appropriate way to reflect someone's obvious anti-gay and anti-transgender history. In Carlson's case, not even conservative media sources are denying it. Do I need to find a PhD scholar who analyzes right-wing media and who has already synthesized a dozen of Carlson's comments? I am being half-sarcastic, as it doesn't require a PhD to identify blatant vitriol and disinformation, but also my question is partly serious, as I would like to know how to appropriately add the facts to this article.

- Tuckerlieberman (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

First, your edit implies that Carlson is homophobic. Articles should never imply things but should report the conclusions explicitly reached in sources. Second, per weight, you need to show that this position is widely reported. Although LGBTQ Nation may be reliable, it is a niche publication. It's specific purpose is to cover topics of interest to the LGBTQ community that do not get cover in major media. TFD (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Since reliable WP:RSP sources are writing about his commentary on this, I think citing them in a subsection would satisfy WP:PROPORTION, "avoiding both understatement and overstatement" per WP:BLPSTYLE. Llll5032 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The content seems fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The removal was good. Far too much of that material was sourced to LGBTQ Nation. The reliability of that source is unknown and even if reliable, the weight is limited. This article already has far too much "source X thinks Carlson said something they didn't like". It needs to be cut down not expanded with lesser sources. Springee (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The original edit relied too much on the one source, but now Tuckerlieberman is citing green WP:RSPs. Llll5032 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I appreciate the engagement and the helpful perspectives. Especially considering Llll5032's comments here, it seems to me now that my original text that I put on the actual article was not very good, in large part because of the sourcing, but that the extended argument I put here on the talk page began to go in a better direction and has better sourcing. For example, as I put on this Talk page, that The New Republic's staff writer recently said that Carlson has displayed "homophobia" for the last 13 years. (Personally, I try to avoid the term "homophobia" because it is often understood to describe someone's inner feelings or intentions which of course we can never know, and I'd rather say more precisely that a person outwardly takes certain anti-LGBT positions, but that terminology is a relatively minor point here. The point is that The New Republic has recently made that synthesis about Carlson's overall attitude/behavior toward LGBT issues.)

For a model that's already on the main article, I'm looking at the subsection "Immigration and race," which begins: "Carlson is a frequent critic of immigration, and has been described by multiple writers as demonizing both legal and illegal immigrants." (Sources: NYT, Washington Post, Vox, Esquire.) If that sentence is OK, suppose that someone were to create a subsection "LGBT rights," and begin with a similar sentence. Would that be appropriate? - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Reliably sourced facts should be in Wikivoice, but some of the assessments may require inline attribution. Llll5032 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that this article is way too long as is. That some New Republic writer happens to claim Carlson is transphobic is not sufficient weight for such a statement, even attributed, to be included in the article. Seriously, the man is controversy of the week and millions of words have been said about him. Heck, CNN seems to have an article about "what Carlson said wrong" every day. Unless such claims are made by a broad base of sources they simply aren't due. That said, I appreciate that Tuckerlieberman understands that a big issue with their original edit wasn't the general direction but how it was implemented. Springee (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support something similar to "Immigration and race" as well, this seems like a glaring omission on our part since the new sources clearly establish due weight. The article isn't overly long and his controversial comments and positions rightfully make up a large portion of it. (Reliable source) seems to have an article about "what Carlson said wrong" every day would be a reason to include coverage of these comments. –dlthewave ☎ 14:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Due or not, the article is absolutely too long per guidelines. The text of the article is about 65k characters (241,239 total bytes). Per WP:TOOBIG we are in the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" assuming 1 character=1 byte. Based only on the number of bytes we have exceeded the max size by 150% . This is especially true when so much of the content isn't summary but specific quotes/summary of specific statements, "Carlson said X". Springee (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps this would be a good place to WP:IAR because of the sheer amount of content that is due here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Even better, pay attention to such rules and clean things up and get rid of the lower quality claims etc. Why would you suggest it's good to ignore rules when it comes to packing negative content but not ok when it comes to factual reporting on congressional testimony? Springee (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some sections could be shortened and summarized more. Llll5032 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Readers are looking for answers, not puzzles. We could present 500 stupid and insensitive, xenophobic, transphobic etc. things Carlson said and let the reader figure out what this means. But it is better to say that Carlson routinely makes these types of comments and explain what the consensus of informed opinion says about this. Quoting opinions isn't going to get us there. I would rather say less and adhere to rs and weight, than provide more for the sake of more information. TFD (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

TFD - the "answers, not puzzles" thing is exactly right. I disagree, though, that the article should say that Carlson makes anti-gay (or anti-transgender) statements; rather, if reliable sources have said that about him, then the article should quote them saying it. There's no way, with the paucity of evidence I've seen so far, that this kind of assertion should go into wiki-voice. And Tuckerlieberman - you said a number of incorrect things, but the most obvious is that The New Republic is conservative; it is, in fact, left-wing. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the added nuance, Korny O'Near. I still think of The New Republic as associated with Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative who once upon a time was its editor, but inarguably that situation is a quarter-century outdated. I also remember that, when I was in journalism school in 2003–2004 while the invasion of Iraq was a major topic of national debate, the magazine's new editor was a hawk, and on the topic of the role of the U.S. military, the magazine printed conservative arguments. But that is old information, which came from my personal knowledge bank stamped in my organic brain, and I did not bother to re-google it to see if the once-true is still today-true. It seems you are correct that the magazine has gone left on most topics in recent years, so that is a valid correction. Thank you. I do not have current information about the positions of the magazine or its writers specifically regarding LGBT issues that would be relevant here. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a LGBT subsection. Here's a source to add to the pile: The Independent saying Carlson "has a long history of making homophobic remarks". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the BBC with [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/16/pete-buttigieg-tucker-carlson-fox-news-paternity-leave "making homophobic comments". In slightly-related news, the same source also has "Carlson is one of the most controversial figures in US media with a history of extremist and racist statements".Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Homophobic slurs, according to the Washington Post. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Tuckerlieberman, I think a WP:BRB (bold-revert-bold) edit using RS would be appropriate. Llll5032 (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I re-added a section here. Llll5032 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the section is still a mess and should be out until fixed. Far too much of what was restored looks like editors finding "sound bite" quotes to include rather than a comprehensive discussion of his views on the subject. This flaw is not unique to this section but it is still a serious flaw none the less. Oppose the restoration as is. Springee (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PROPORTION we "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject", so yes, it should be edited if any WEIGHT differs from RS. But I think omission would violate WP:PROPORTION. Llll5032 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about what TFD said on 17 Oct. We can find a long list of things that TC said because many sources like to run rage bait stories about his latest statements. The problem is we are supposed to create a wp:SUMMARY, not a list of quotes others have pointed out. Consider we might have a hypothetical BLP who frequently says things that come off as offensive etc but who's core intent is good. If we were to only quote the times someone said "X said this offensive thing" we might miss the forest for the comments about trees. If we are going to say what Carlson's views on a subject are we should spend less time fixating on who was offended by the wrapping around the core message/belief and more time trying to find that core. I don't think this section does anything to find the core. If nothing else it could suggest he is nothing more than a shock jock. Springee (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee, can you find a RS that describes his core messages about gender/sexuality better? Llll5032 (talk)

I haven't searched for one and there may not be one. However, if there isn't one then perhaps this content isn't really a significant part of an article that is meant to summarize TC. Alternatively, perhaps this is a case where these LBGT topics are actually supporting evidence for something else. For example imagine someone being criticized for "supporting" anti-vax messages, hate speech and smut porn as art. Understanding their motives is easier if we are told they are a free speech absolutist. Springee (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you find a RS making an alternative explanation like this, we should include it. Llll5032 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Where did the name "Tucker" come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:5059:D121:39A2:458E (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)