Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Tucker as the Kremlin's Most Favoured US Commentator in the lede

So, I just added the below to the lede and just had it undone, on the grounds that it was too topical and too much for a bloated lede. Now, certainly in Europe, academia and the media are conceptualizing what is happening as the Kremlin trying to impose a new Iron Curtain, as the invasion concretizing the New Cold War, and as Putin becoming another Hitler. The only comparable historical episodes we have now are WWI and WWII. This is because, based on refugee numbers alone, the Russo-Ukrainian War has now superceded the Yugoslav Crisis. So, let us put the Kremlin making Tucker Carlson its sole approved US political commentator in a US context. A passanger ship has left the US. On May, 1915, it is sunk, resulting in 1,195 deaths. The British media, and the US media, accuse Germany of sinking the Lusitania via a u-boat. A single voice in the US media calls out: But the Lusitania was fair game! It carried military supplies to the British. The deaths of the American citizens, women and children among them, were justified. The German High Command welcomes that US political commentator with open arms, rebroadcasting his voice, in translation, throughout the world.

That is exactly what Tucker Carlson has done. In the historical context of the 20th century, it is not unprecedented. Certainly, US pundits argued in favour of isolationsim. But, in the 21st century, in this context of a hot episode in the New Cold War, it is unprecedented that the Kremlin has made Tucker Carlson not just most favoured US political commentator but _solely_ favoured US political commentator.

Interested in hearing other opinions.

/> and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, in the latter case leading him to find favour with the Kremlin.

Johncdraper (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

UNsure about the lede (Please read wp:lede). Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede must reflect noteworthy characteristics in the bio. In this case, the fact that Tucker Carlson is the only Kremlin-approved US political commentator on the war is noteworthy on a level that goes far beyond Carlson's contributions to Covid-19 conspiracy theories, for example, where he was one of many. His level of infamy with regard to enabling Putin is conducted as a sole operator, from the Kremiln perspective. His is the sole Kremlin-approved voice of any Western political commentator, anywhere, globally. The fact that Carlson has achieved this level of personal approval by the Putin regime goes far beyond his contributions to other consipracy theories and is emphasized by the sources. Johncdraper (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No the lede reflects significant parts of the article, this takes up less than a paragraph, and I do not think, the source does call him "the sole Kremlin-approved voice of any Western political commentator". Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I'm quoting from the MoJo article here: "This is the section of the memo that calls on Russian media to make as much use as possible of Tucker Carlson’s broadcasts. No other Western journalist is referenced in the memo... As with the March 3 memo, Carlson was the only Western journalist named in this more recent how-to-help-Putin memo." That seems both clear and significant. Johncdraper (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Zooming out, the lead is meant to summarize the article. Slatersteven is 100% correct, this is a part of a part of the whole article. It also is a very RECENT issue and it's hard to say if it will have staying power a decade from now. Zooming in, Mother Jones is too partisan a source to provide weight for something like that in the lead. Finally, what you were adding to the lead was a reaction to Carlson, it is not inherent to Carlson himself. Essentially you are saying that Russian propaganda related to Carlson is one of the most important aspects of this entire article. I think that is hard to justify. Springee (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Many news agencies have now picked up on and amplified the MoJo expose. It's factual, and they literally have the memos. The sources are reliable, and Russian broadcasting actually reflects the memos. Essentially, Russia has adopted Tucker Carlson as its US voice. What I could do is expand on that subsection of the bio. I could add the dates and times, contents of the memos, multiple corroborating sources, etc. That would build the case for Russia's promotion of Tucker Carlson eventually becoming part of the lede. How does that sound? Johncdraper (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

One thing is wait until RECENT doesn't apply. The problem with content in this article is so much stuff is written about Carlson. Reactions to his comments are less than a dime a dozen. That means it's hard to decide which are significant enough to make it into the article much less into the lead. Once in the article how do we summarize all these difference sources talking about this or that thing Carlson said or how someone reacted? The best way is to wait and not focus on any one incident in the lead. Springee (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I wanted to add to the reasons I reverted your edit here [1]. As I said in the edit summary, Mother Jones is the primary source for these claims so we shouldn't attribute the claims to them then not cite their work. As a minor point, I think Peter Gulutzan noted that the memo is not technically from the "Kremlin" rather from the "Department of Information and Telecommunications Support". Only the MJ lead calls it a Kremlin memo. As such it is probably better to refer to it just as a government memo. The bigger issue is you moved claims attributed to MJ, the source for all claims about this memo, to a blurb titled "Tangent" at the very end of a Forbes article about Tusli Gabbard. That Tangent section contained all of two sentences and only one was about this memo. That sort of throw away summary stuck into the bottom of an otherwise unrelated article should never be used as a RS when we have the source that actually is making the claims. Springee (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I'm going to avoid back and forth edits but this [2] isn't an improvement. First, it's awkward to attribute to Mother Jones, by name, twice in the same sentence. Second, "according to" is more common language vs "as reported by". Finally, it's not important that Mother Jones "obtained" the memo. The critical point is that Mother Jones is claiming the source of the memo. Right now we only have MJ's assessment to go on. Anyway, if nothing else this should be reverted purely because it's a convoluted sentence. Springee (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Johncdraper, Please remove the Forbes citation.[3] It's not appropriate to use a single sentence summary buried deep in an article as a citation for any thing that may be a contentious claim. If this is so critical why wasn't it covered in one of the me too articles that covered MJ's findings in greater detail? Springee (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Springee I'm a public figure 'out' Wikipedian, and you might notice that I am a journalist. At least with every editor I have had, 'as reported by' and 'according to' can have the same meaning, but 'according to' is almost always used for cautious attribution, whereas 'as reported by' is stronger. There is no cautious attribution here. The language of the Forbes article is cvery clear: the memo is real, and the reporting is true. The statement that only MoJo has seen the memo is false. MoJo digitized it and stuck it on the internet. Not a single source has questioned its authenticity. Further, the source tallies with the known facts. After the date of the memo, multiple Russian media sources, some of them analysed and re-rebroadcast by MSNBC in some detail, rebroadcast Carlson. That, again, is a fact. Next, the spin may be biased, but we have handled that by stating that MoJo has stated that Carlson is the only US media pundit adopted in this way. Even that is a known known. No other Western media pundit has appeared on Russian TV in this way. That's not an assumption or claim. It's true. Finally, I agree the sentence is convoluted. However, if you agree with the above, don't revert it. Improve it. Johncdraper (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Springee Add: Check WP Perennial Reliable. WP is very specific in accepting all Forbes articles, including Topline summary articles. I'd appreciate it if you kept the Forbes article in. You have no premise on which to remove it. Johncdraper (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The wiki version prior to your recent edits was better. Forbes is a generally reliable source but per WP:RS, context matters. Trying to hang any specific claim/part of a claim on the phrasing Forbes chose to use in a single throw away sentence at the bottom of an unrelated article is simply not good practice. If Forbes's take is that critical then some of the other sources that covered this MJ story in more detail should be able to support the claim you are trying to make. If you find it so important to say a memo was obtained by MJ, fine. No one is going to doubt MJ obtained a copy vs just looked at the memo. However, the origin of that memo is a claim that still needs to be attributed to MJ. Springee (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

SpringeeThank you for this reply. I am glad we are both discussing this rationally. However, I'd like you to look at the Forbes article from the POV of a journalist/editor team writing a summary piece, especially as Wikipedia does summaries itself. All encyclopedia articles are summaries. Our two lines in the Tucker Carlson aricle are our attempt to summarize hundreds of lines of copy, across multiple publications. From that perspective, we should be very interested in, and guided by, how Forbes summarizes its own story, a retelling of the MoJo piece. You might think that summary piece by Forbes is unimportant. It isn't. It's designed to be picked up by RSS feeds and so to advertise the main article. As such, it will have been written by a Forbes writer, edited by a Forbes editor, and likely reviewed by a senior editor. Every single word will have been parsed not once, not twice, but three times. And, it is a gem. It correctly uses 'as reported by' as compared to 'according to', and it encapsulates the whole story in the minimum of words. Hopefully now you can see what went into that paragraph, I hope you can appreciate why we should be guided by it in terms of length, structure, and use of vocabulary. If you agree, would you like to try to revise our two sentences? Johncdraper (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not actually seeing "as reported by Mother Jones" in the Forbes piece. The sentence reads "The Kremlin sent a memo to state-run Russian media calling on outlets to use as much footage of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson sharing his controversial stances supporting Russia and criticizing the U.S. and NATO as possible, according to Russian government agency documents obtained by Mother Jones and published Sunday." which attributes the documents themselves in Forbes' own voice. MJ is only mentioned as the entity that first obtained said documents. There's no evidence that this is in any way contentious and being "buried" or located at the bottom of an article has no bearing whatsoever on its reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Forbes is attributing the contents of that sentence to Mother Jones. Hence even if they don't say "as reported by" is is attributed to MJ. That brings us back to the earlier issue. While other sources are repeating what MJ said, MJ is still the origin of all claims. Springee (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It literally says "according to Russian government agency docuemnts". The fact that MJ was the first to publish is irrelevant; Forbes is a reliable source and we can trust that they've done their own fact checking and verification. Is the logic here that if a story is first published in an ostensibly unreliable source, it can never be reported on reliably? What would a reliable source for this look like to you? Wouldn't we still expect them to credit MJ for finding it first? –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And how do they know those are Russian government agency documents? They know because MJ says they are. Have any other sources independently reviewed the documents and vouched for them? If no then we clearly attribute the whole thing to MJ. Springee (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Forbes or any other supplemental source is irrelevant here. Sometimes someone slips a document to a journalist who then exclusively reports it as a scoop. No one can corroborate it. So for our purposes it comes down to accessing the credibility of the source, which we have: RSP green. And it's by David Corn, a well-established journalist. Has MJ ever published some stuff that really angers some people so they dismiss it as biased? Well of course. WP:MANDY soibangla (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone just "slipped" this into the hands of a MJ reporter then no one else can authenticate it. That means we have attribute it's authenticity to Mother Jones. Why is that an issue? We do the same thing if the sources is the State Department. MANDY might as well be red herring for all it contributed to your argument. Springee (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Except now Forbes has accepted the documents' authenticity. Do we seriously have to list all the WP:Reliable media outlets who have accepted the documents' authenticity, so 'according to Kremlin documents, according to MoJo, as accepted as factual by Forbes and ABC and CNN etc. etc. etc.'? At what stage do we accept that a fact is a fact? I sincerely hope it's not by listing source after source after source do we acceot that "Man Lands on Moon". A fact only has to be verified once. After alll, we are not talking about the Sagan Standard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Tucker Carlson promotes Russian propaganda. Russian ministry orders Russian media to play Tucker Carlson. Memo is leaked to Western media outlet by disaffected Russian journalist, of whom there are dozens, if not thousands. Story is published, together with all the documents. Forbes takes a look and says, "Yup, they're authentic Russian documents." Story passes Duck Standard. End of story. Johncdraper (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually, logically, know that from the Forbes sentence? The way the sentence is phrased can be read either way. Honestly, we need to zoom out and ask, if this MJ report has been covered by other sources why would we need to use this one sentence mention at the bottom of a Forbes article to state in Wiki voice the momo is authentic? Does The Guardian or any of the other sources that re-reported MJ's findings state the document is authentic? If they don't then we can't assume that Forbes was somehow unique in how it did this. Perhaps the best way to solve this is simply remove all of this as UNDUE. There isn't a consensus to include this content and removing it avoids these attribution issues. Springee (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do. This is completely unequivocal, i.e. it can be read in only one way. As a journalist, I love it. It was specifically written to address your kind of doubts. My only concern is that you indeed seem to wish to apply the Sagan Standard. You would remove the whole issue from the article? On what logical basis? In any case, it appears you wish me to go and verify the documents after they have been verified. There is no logic in having to verify a fact after it has been verified. The Sagan Standard does not apply here, the Duck Standard does. In any case, I have marked up the key semantics here: The Kremlin [This is without doubt the Putin administration] sent a memo to state-run Russian media calling on outlets to use as much footage of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson sharing his controversial stances supporting Russia and criticizing the U.S. and NATO as possible, according to Russian government agency documents [Forbes okays attribution here. That the documents are from a Russian government agency is endorsed.] obtained [As in, not made up, but communicated in some fashion from Person A to Person B] by Mother Jones and published Sunday. Johncdraper (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

When the attribution is at the end of the sentence it's ambiguous if the attribution applies to only part or the entire sentence. If your interpretation is correct why can't you find additional sources that attribute it the same way? Springee (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

On your first point, you're going to have to show me how that works, semantically. My MA was in App Ling, so I'm willing to go to detailed analysis. Until you explain what you think the verbs etc. mean, preferably using [], my semantic analysis has to stand. On your second point, the document already has been authenticated, specifically by David Corn. Forbes is just going with that level of authentication and accepting the documents as authentic. I don't get why you insist on the Sagan Standard compared to the Duck Standard? If you can provide the logic, then I guess I will have to check additional sources. All WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? The last time I had to do that was to try to stop warmongering over at the Nagorno Karabakh Talk pages. Hey ho. So it goes. Johncdraper (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Add: MSNBC is covering the story similarly to Forbes: "The Kremlin sees Tucker Carlson’s commentary as “essential” in its Ukraine war messaging strategy according to a 12-page memo leaked from a Russian government agency to the Russian media, as reported in Mother Jones." The documents are treated as authentic, and 'as reported in' is correctly used. That is what I am looking for here. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lSgEJNW8B4. Johncdraper (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, jargon doesn't actually make your case any stronger (ducks or Carls). Second, if Forbes independently verified this document, vs just took MJ's word for it, where did they indicate as much. This is where your whole argument falls apart. You are trying to use a one sentence tangent as proof. All that tangent did was point back at the MJ story thus we shouldn't assume it means anything more than "MJ reported this..." So yet again we come back to the same issue. All the sourcing leads back to MJ. No sources have independently validated the origin of this document thus as conservative editors writing an encyclopedia vs a news story we err on the side of attribution. - Update due to MSNBC mention. Once again MSNBC is crediting MJ as their source for all the information. That is why they say "as reported by MJ". Do any sources independently corroborate the story? Springee (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My bad on the use of 'reported', unless it appeared in a previous version of the Forbes story. In any case, I totally agree with you: the Forbes story uses 'according to' here, as in 'as found in' Russian documents. The autenticity of the documents has been okayed by Forbes. No media outlet has questioned their authenticity. And, it tallies with the facts. Johncdraper (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Johncdraper, just a few comments about your recent edit [4]. Of the three sources you added, only the Guardian is considered generally reliable and it's just saying what MJ claims. Rolling Stone is considered not reliable for politics and Business Insider is no-consensus. Again it's just reporting what MJ said. BI and Rolling Stone should be removed for the above reasons. It doesn't hurt the content since they add no unique content. Second, the claim, " Carlson was the only Western media pundit the Kremlin adopted in this way" should be attributed to Mother Jones. The previous sentence was attributed but the attribution of this one is ambiguous. If you would like I can make those changes. Springee (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Johncdraper (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones on March 13 says an anonymous source, who had an unspecified source in the "Department of Information and Telecommunications Support" (which might mean Roskomnadzor but I'm not sure because I don't see where they give the name in Russian) (which is headquartered near the Kremlin though not in it), recommended using fragments of Mr Carlson's talking. We don't know what talks or when, the only good clue is the supposed quote "А как бы повели себя штаты, если бы такам ситуация сложилласъ в соседней Мексике или Канаде?" which Mother Jones translates as "And how would the US behave if such a situation developed in neighboring Mexico or Canada?" which might not be exactly what he said. On this basis, next day, without in-text attribution, Johncdraper adds in the lead "... and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, in the latter case leading him to find favour with the Kremlin". I agree with the reversion of that and would support total reversion of re-insertion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be bit a narrow point that is not a reflection of the articles text. Leads are supposed to broadly cover the main points, and this is just not going to cut. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Barring some (hypothetical) bombshell report of espionage, Carlson's alleged status as "important" to the Kremlin isn't really very notable let alone lead worthy. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree that Carlson being important to the Kremlin war effort is not important, though it could feasibly be newsworthy. However, Carlson being the sole Western media pundit not just important to, but rebroadcast by, the Kremlin changes clearly takes his reporting to another level, and an increasing number of WP:Reliable sources are covering his rise to global fame/infamy, depending on whether you support the Russian invasion. Not many Western media pundits have ever been personally adopted by the Kremlin, pre- or post-Soviet era. In fact, not very many at all. In fact, in 75 years, only one. Johncdraper (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, in the Russia section, we've got That month, according to Mother Jones, the Kremlin sent a memo to state-friendly media outlets saying it was "essential" to use video clips of Carlson "as much as possible". Mother Jones further stated Carlson was the only Western media pundit the Kremlin adopted in this way. I think even this is undue but am unsure how many others agree, since the main objections were about putting it in the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's DUE but I suspect, once we start looking at the article body, there are many other bits that are less due. I would support removal but I'm not overly concerned if it stays in. Springee (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any strong importance to the fact that the Kremlin wants to cite him (assuming the story about the memo is correct). Carlson is currently the top-rated cable news commentator in the United States, with about 4 million nightly viewers, which surely puts him among the most-watched political pundits anywhere in the Western world. If he were some obscure commentator that Vladimir Putin had seized on, then that would probably be notable. But given Carlson's overwhelming popularity, Putin's advocacy of Carlson's analysis doesn't necessarily say anything substantial about either Carlson or Putin. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Read THE SOURCES! It's the treasonous context that makes it notable. An American commentator who sides with America's foremost enemy in his attack on Ukraine? Did Trump doing the same thing so harden us that we've forgotten what's wrong with that picture? Trump was impeached for doing that, and that was notable. Again, THE SOURCES are telling us how wrong this is, and therefore how notable it is. Tucker is Putin's Tokyo Rose. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources that say that Carlson is a traitor? If there are indeed reliable sources that prove that Tucker Carlson is a traitor to his country, then surely that should go in the lead, not this little factoid about Putin's memo. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

His actions have caused him to be called Putin's Tokyo Rose. (all RS for this type of content). Attribute as appropriate. -- Valjean (talk)

References

No Tokyo Rose: I don't think we should include the "Tokyo Rose" meme/insults. It's childish name calling on the parts of pundits. We are supposed to summarize, not repeat the school yard insults. Springee (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't minimize "Putin's memo". When is the last time an American correspondent has been singled out because they echoed the enemy's party line like this? When is the last time a U.S. President has sided with the enemy over his own intelligence agencies? Never. These are very notable and parallel situations, and for similar reasons. This is tied to Trump's Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Trump, Carlson, and other right-wingers love Putin and hate Zelenskyy for the same reasons: Putin helped Trump's election and Zelenskyy refused to do it, and Trump was impeached for that extortion attempt. They are trying to exact revenge on Ukraine. Now Zelenskyy is defeating Putin, just as he defeated Trump.

These things are all tied together. Look up the definition of Aiding and abetting the enemy when it aids an act of war by enemy military (GRU), as the Russian election interference was. It was an act of cyber warfare, and Trump and his campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated with, and aided and abetted it because Trump expected to benefit from it, and he did. The Mueller Report describes this. Carlson is part and parcel of all this. -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for lead inclusion at this time, but I find his prominence and influence to be more of an argument for inclusion rather than against. Why would anyone care what some obscure person says? soibangla (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's views are equally relevant to an article about Tucker Carlson no matter how popular or unpopular his show is (provided these views are covered in reliable sources, etc.). The question is how relevant Vladimir Putin's view of him is. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter that he is among a tiny number of media figures who speaks in support of America's historical geopolitical nemesis as it brutally invades a nascent Western democracy, in contrast to nearly unanimous opposition from everyone else in Western democracies, and our nemesis frequently features him as a propaganda figure? This has become perhaps the most defining aspect of the man's entire life. soibangla (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. It seems every time there is an outcry about a position he takes it's the "most defining aspect of the man's entire life." Sure, you might be right but we need some historical perspective to decide. Look at how many other topics have been added to this article that are never talked of again after the news cycle passes. Springee (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am kind of with everyone else here. I don't see this as lead worthy yet and probably not for the body either. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It certainly belongs in the body, indeed it should be expanded. soibangla (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I too think mention in the body is enough for now. If more is made of this, then it might rise to become lead worthy. -- Valjean (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• If it's going to be expanded more in the body, it shouldn't be expanded by much. This likely is just borderline WP:RECENTISM, if not recentism itself. This probably won't be in the news much longer. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So far, it seems to me that the people who think it should be in the body do not have consensus. Does anyone dispute that? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is not about body inclusion. soibangla (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It started about inclusion in the lead but several editors raised concerns about inclusion in the body so the scope of the discussion has expanded. Springee (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Include in body, not lead for now. Mother Jones and the several other sources that report on their findings are enough to establish due weight as part of the overall narrative about Russia. If we include something like this in the lede, it should be about his overall pro-Putin viewpoint, not this specific bit. However, this is worth revisiting in the future if it starts popping up in top-tier "these are Carlson's views on Russia" pieces that give deeper analysis beyond the current news cycle. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Include in body, not lead. It's too early for mention in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• IDK At the current status of the body, the answer is probably include briefly. However, it seems like much of his commentary section may just be WP:RECENTISM, which means in an ideal article this 2 day news story wouldn't be included. So idk whether this is appropriate in the body or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a two-day story. Russian state television has been featuring Такер Карлсон for many months.[5] soibangla (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Is Russan state television an RS? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is not the article, it's the Talk page. Do you dispute the evidence? I can provide lots more. soibangla (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  RT is not a RS. It's a state-controlled propaganda machine. Mentions in RS that document what it says and does are what we use. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding your reversion of Valjean's contribution, I'd like to remind editors that this discussion is about lead inclusion, not body inclusion, we should avoid scope creep and remain focused on the topic at hand to prevent this discussion from going off the rails into a trainwreck. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not in lead, weak not in body Since we are casting !votes to summarize what we have said above I'll do the same. This is a detail related to Carlson's statements with respect to Russia. It's not even his statements, rather a reply to his statements. As such it clearly isn't due in the lead. As for the body, again, this isn't tell us about Carlson's take other than he may be a clear outlier, even among other right/conservative commentators. However, Carlson doesn't control what Russia does with his reporting and this is essentially a detail that is supported by one claimed source reported by Mother Jones (the other sources are simply citing MJs while trying to harvest their own clicks). I'm weak opposed because, while I'm not sure it's due, the overall response to Carlson's Russian/Ukraine POV is due and 1-2 sentences covering the replies can include this content. Additionally, as I said above, even if I feel this is undue given the bloated size of this article, there is likely other content that has aged poorly that could be removed first. Springee (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not in lead, not in body As described above: biased source shows via some anonymous person part of a memo with unknown circulation, and technically not from the Kremlin, that doesn't actually show what Mr Carlson's views are (googling for that supposed quote failed). Undue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

MJ is a fully green source, attributed as well, and body inclusion is not the topic of this discussion, despite efforts by some to make it so. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

MJ is a biased source and the evidence they present hasn't been corroborated by any other sources. Sources simply repeating that MJ's claimed X is not the same as other sources found the same memo. Springee (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you've got your biased and uncorroborated wrong there. MJ is WP:Perennial reliable. The facts it presents are generally accurate. The spin it maye put on them is biased. Now, as for "not corroborated by any other sources", you're wrong about that. Multiple WP:Perennial sources have carried and endorsed the story. To date, noone has proven the story to be inaccurate in any regard. Johncdraper (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

First, bias sources can be RSP reliable. Second, generally reliable doesn't mean specifically reliable in a particular case. However, what I was arguing was that MJ is biased in how they present the facts they have and they often will present only one side of a story. Regardless, no other sources have said they have seen this memo. The other sources simply report that MJ reported the memo exists. Peter Gulutzan's dive into the details of the memo further suggests it's significance may have been overplayed by MJ. So, yes, MJ is clearly biased and thus far no other sources have independently corroborated the story. - As an example of Mother Jones bias and consider this Me Too article that helped sink a person's career. MJ comes out with an article that basically parrots the claims of 3rd party accusers [6]. An independent investigator hired by the university finds the accusations are without merit and in many cases the people who were claimed to have been victims deny it[7]. The MJ story came out in 2017 at the height of "they must be believed" MeToo. The report exonerating the person came out a year later but MJ never updated the story. Yes, biased source. Springee (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Include in body, inlude in lede. Johncdraper (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Undue for lead - Needs more general treatment of Carlson's positioning, reactions to condemnation, and relationship to Trump's political stances. And still a developing story, now Bill O'Reilly chimes in. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Original Mother Jones article "Leaked Kremlin Memo to Russian Media: It Is “Essential” to Feature Tucker Carlson -- The Russian government has pressed outlets to highlight the Fox host’s Putin-helping broadcasts.": "... the Kremlin sent out talking points ..." "... themes the Kremlin wanted Russian media to spread ..." "... new set of Kremlin talking points ..." "... the Kremlin’s recent encouragement ...". Later Mother Jones article Bill O’Reilly Defends Tucker Carlson—and Makes One Big, Embarrassing Mistake: "The article did not say that the memo was leaked by the Kremlin." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So it was leaked by a media outlet that received it? soibangla (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. But it seems that by repeatedly saying Kremlin they caused a guy to think the point was their allegation about activities of the Kremlin. The repetitions have affected Wikipedia too, look at the title of this thread, and the current contents of this (Tucker Carlson) article: "... the Kremlin sent a memo ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just on this, it is standard to use 'The Kremlin' as a byword for the Russian administration, just as Downing Stret (or No. 10 Downing Street) refers to the Johnson administration. And, given the Kremlin now tightly controls all media via its media ministry, the use of the Kremlin here is both accurate and standard usage. Johncdraper (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just on that, if some unknown person in Ofcom might have written a memo, it would not be "standard" to say it came from "No. 10 Downing Street". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be if it were a policy memo outlining a policy that was then endorsed and ordered to be implemented by No. 10. Johncdraper (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And when that's not the case, an article repeatedly saying Downing Street would rightly be regarded as dubious. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They repeatedly mention Kremlin because that's where the memo originated. "Leaked Kremlin memo" means "Kremlin leaked memo" only to those who aren't reading carefully, or are being deceitful. They didn't "caused a guy to think," the guy just got it wrong. soibangla (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not in lead, wait for body - This currently not lead-worthy as it does not belong in a short summary of Carlson's overall biography. Given it's growth in coverage, it may be body-inclusion worthy but I'd honestly wait a couple weeks to see if this is still being talked about before adding it. It seems like just a flash scandal to me and would not remotely pass the 10-year test. Will anyone remember this by the US midterms? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I might agree with you if this were an isolated incident, but it's yet another element of an extensive pattern and results of his behavior. It is one more incident away from being leadworthy. And again, this topic is not about body inclusion and editors should open a new topic if they insist that it be. soibangla (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The topic is about including the material, the fact that it got moved is apparently important to you but not to me, since undue is undue regardless of location, and the body was being discussed at an early point, including by you. I didn't declare that since the topic heading says "Kremlin's most favoured US commentator" then nothing that didn't contain those words could be allowed, perhaps you could show a similar level of tolerance. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The topic is about including the material in the lead, not hijacked to include the whole article, a fairly common tactic to misdirect and muddy the waters in order to completely exclude content. body was being discussed at an early point, including by you in response to an editor who questioned whether it belonged in the article at all. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing coming out of the Kremlin or that's connected to Russian propaganda is trustworthy - it's UNDUE. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As a primary source, certainly not. But we're using a reliable secondary source. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Do any non-Russian RS verify the Kremlin's claims? Or do they only attribute the statement to the Kremlin? If the latter, I'd say it's best to keep it out as it might be (likely is) untrue. But if RS have said that yes, indeed, Carlson is their preferred commentator then there'd be a stronger cae for inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

MJ is an RSP green source that got a scoop that cannot be independently corroborated by anyone. David Corn alone got the document. Alleged bias of MJ (translation: I don't like it) is not a sufficient basis to challenge this RSP green source. MJ is not making an extraordinary claim, even only when considering the content immediately preceding the MJ sentence. If another RSP green source such as, say, WSJ were to publish a similar exclusive scoop I doubt we'd get much pushback on it here. And there's more: Julia Davis specializes in monitoring Russian state media and she has documented Carlson's many appearances on Russian state TV for many months. Take a scroll through this thread[8] to see a sampling of her recent reports which, alas, cannot be used as an article source, yet I find it persuasive for a Talk article regarding inclusion. Clearly Russian state media just adores Carlson, so it's not the least bit surprising the Kremlin would send a memo to their friends asking them to feature him. I mean, what could be better propaganda than a popular American television host praising Russia and blaming his own country? It just doesn't get any better than that. soibangla (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lead. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union supported the civil rights movement in the U.S. and anti-colonial movements in the developing world. This of course lead to slurs by U.S. reactionaries against anyone who supported civil rights or opposed colonialism. but we don't begin articles about Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King or Betty Friedan with implied accusations that they were anti-American. TFD (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

TFD: Do you think it belongs in the body? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably, because it has received coverage beyond the original reporting. But the text must accurate reflect the facts reported, not say for example that Carlson is the Kremlin's most favored US commentator, and must cite Mother Jones in text, since the authenticity of the memo has not been confirmed.

Valjean, it is a BLP violation to accuse living people of crimes. Note too that Russia is not an enemy of the U.S. as defined in law.

TFD (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Too soon for the lede right now, but could be included in the future. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Quote used for innuendo example

TheTimesAreAChanging on March 19 added, after a sentence saying Charlotte Alter thought he was using [innuendo]]: For example, without endorsing a specific theory of voter fraud in the 2020 election, Carlson opined: "The people now telling us to stop asking questions about voting machines are the same ones who claim that our phones weren't listening to us".. I on March 21 reverted. Rauisuchian 17 minutes later re-inserted. The problems here are: (1) Missing context -- there's no direct link to where Mr Carlson made the statement (WP:RS/QUOTE would require that the source be shown, and if it were shown then Wikipedia readers would be able to judge whether it was reasonable in that context); (2) Wikivoicing -- it's Charlotte Alter's opinion that this is an example of innuendo, but the sentence is presenting it as fact that this is an example of innuendo. (3) undue -- even the previous sentence, where Charlotte Alter makes the accusation, makes one wonder why her idea is so important; (4) Lack of consensus -- WP:BLPUNDEL requires seeking and getting consensus for re-insertion, and Rauisichian didn't even seek. So I'll do it: is there consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Time is a RS, and Alter's story includes her interview answers from Carlson. I think it is one of the most in-depth sources in this article. Do you have reason to think she erred? Llll5032 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This quote was not from the interview, and nobody said erred. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Has any other source questioned Alter's interpretation of the quote? Llll5032 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Because part of your argument appears to be that the source's context lacks sufficient verification. Does it? Llll5032 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it lacks any at all, but that's not part of my argument because I expect a non-notable person's opinion would be ignored. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the disputed text until a consensus can be met. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• I support inclusion. This quote is verifiable and the source links it to his rhetorical style that's discussed in the article. I was originally concerned this could be a WP:SYNTH connection, but that does not appear to be the case. The WP:WEIGHT question is a bit more tricky because I doubt this is a commonly used quote in RS. However, it does provide a good demonstration for the rhetorical style being discussed, so I feel it's at the very least helpful to the reader. It's hard to bicker about the weight of one sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I respect that you brought up a discussion and will respond to the four points given in a second, with counterarguments. To provide context for the section, your initial edit summary was Out-of-context quote. Due to this being a relatively brief summary, followed by checking the citation's original paragraph and seeing the context, it appeared to be a misunderstanding of verification from the source, which to me, looks like an immediate verification from the in-text cite. This is why I stated in an edit summary The TIME article has a full paragraph that provides direct context [CTRL + F "falsehoods"], fitting exactly what is asserted in wikitext and its relation to the previous statement. Now, the wording of this was not to be overly blunt, but to summarize my argument as literally as possible in the edit summary. Now to respond to each point.

(1) Missing context -- there's no direct link to where Mr Carlson made the statement (WP:RS/QUOTE would require that the source be shown, and if it were shown then Wikipedia readers would be able to judge whether it was reasonable in that context) The cited TIME article (highlighted paragraph link) itself has a direct link, with the text "November segment", to a video on The Wrap with the Fox News clip of Tucker Carlson saying this quote, which is discussed in The Wrap commentary with transcript quote below the video. Which has much the same point as Charlotte Alter here and adds a bit of additional context, in fact The Wrap goes further, calling what Alter calls "innuendos" to be "accusations". Combined with the thesis of Charlotte Alter's paragraph, this appears to be as full context as possible for such a short set of 1-2 sentences, all I could suggest is to also cite The Wrap if that is a concern.

(2) Wikivoicing -- it's Charlotte Alter's opinion that this is an example of innuendo, but the sentence is presenting it as fact that this is an example of innuendo. The paragraph makes it relatively clear that this is Charlotte Alter's opinion, the only words that are potentially ambiguous might be the following "For example", but placement in the paragraph shows this is a summary of what Alter said, and an example related to that, after introducing the paragraph with Alter and continuing that recounting. It's debatable that this "For example" is placing Alter's opinion into wikivoice, but perhaps a few extra words could replace it such as "Alter's example was that", "[TIME/Alter] reported that", "For example, Alter said that" or something along those lines. Overall, "For example" is used plenty inside paraphrased attributions in a longer text where multiple-sentence contexts are expected.

(3) undue -- even the previous sentence, where Charlotte Alter makes the accusation, makes one wonder why her idea is so important; It matches the overall point in the rest of the paragraph, where all the cited journalists are making a similar point to Charlotte Alter, showing the notability of that opinion. Alter also directly cites another secondary source, The Wrap, that has a similar opinion to herself, so at least has one backup, and the reputation of TIME adds significance to the point. The statement fits into the section "Rhetorical style", which covers "close attention from writers and other public figures" and this is a small portion of it.

(4) Lack of consensus -- WP:BLPUNDEL requires seeking and getting consensus for re-insertion, and Rauisichian didn't even seek. I would disagree the content is related to BLPUNDEL due to its immediate verifiability and context in source, which appeared to me, addressed already, but I understand why you would start a discussion and we should seek consensus for the change. Additionally, I agree with the temporary revert.

• Support inclusion based on above reasons. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The initial edit summary was not mine, it was TheTimesAreAChanging's "I think this is a good example from the cited source.", and my reply was brief as is natural in edit summaries. As for your replies:

(1) Calling the link "direct" is a bit off since it only indirectly leads to a clip of Mr Carlson's talk, and the guideline that I mentioned doesn't say that's okay, it says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Why suppress the context?

(2) No, the paragraph does not make it clear. If you really thought that the attribution in an earlier sentence applies to later sentences in the paragraph, why aren't you saying that the rest of the paragaph about Rubin Report etc. must also be the opinion of Charlotte Alter because it's in the same paragraph?

(3) Re the idea that other journalists are making a similar point: I don't see the word innuendo, and if they're not saying it then you're wrong, or if they are saying it then the addition is undue because it's already been stated and re-stated. Re The Wrap, it's simply false that they suggest innuendo with respect to this quote, they suggest nothing at all. Re Charlotte Alter's opinion's importance: I haven't seen the evidence, does she have a PhD in innuendo studies or does a substantial proportion of the American population get up each morning wondering what she thinks of it?

(4) Re WP:BLPUNDEL: It says "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." It does not have an additional clause "... unless Rauisuchian decides it's verifiable and that's all that matters." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) Seems easy enough to sort out, we can simply add a second citation to this which includes the original segment. However, the currently-proposed version isn't out of line with the guideline which also says "If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original)." Note that the source we use does include a link to the full segment. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The original is Fox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have struck my remark re WP:BLPUNDEL, it does not help toward fixing the article text, sorry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Reliably sourced, properly attributed and provides support for the claim. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Needless to say, I also support inclusion. I sometimes agree with Peter Gulutzan and have no doubt that he is acting in good faith, but his arguments for removal are becoming increasingly tortured. I will not respond to all of them because Iamreallygoodatcheckers and Rauisuchian have made many of my points for me, perhaps more eloquently than I would have, but I must take exception to Peter Gulutzan's recent suggestion that attribution for the proposed text is unclear: "If you really thought that the attribution in an earlier sentence applies to later sentences in the paragraph, why aren't you saying that the rest of the paragaph [sic] about Rubin Report etc. must also be the opinion of Charlotte Alter because it's in the same paragraph?" For context, the current revision states:

Charlotte Alter of Time wrote in July 2021 that Carlson sometimes tells "outright falsehoods", but generally "avoids assertions that are factually disprovable, instead sticking to innuendo".[25] In September of that year, in an unrelated interview on The Rubin Report, Carlson said that, unlike TV newscasters who he said "systematically lie", he will only lie "if I'm really cornered or something", saying, "I lie. I really try not to. I try never to lie on TV. ... I don't like lying. I certainly do it, you know, out of weakness or whatever."[413][414]

My proposed revision added one sentence, reading as follows:

Charlotte Alter of Time wrote in July 2021 that Carlson sometimes tells "outright falsehoods", but generally "avoids assertions that are factually disprovable, instead sticking to innuendo". For example, without endorsing a specific theory of voter fraud in the 2020 election, Carlson opined: "The people now telling us to stop asking questions about voting machines are the same ones who claim that our phones weren't listening to us".[25] In September of that year, in an unrelated interview on The Rubin Report, Carlson said that, unlike TV newscasters who he said "systematically lie", he will only lie "if I'm really cornered or something", saying, "I lie. I really try not to. I try never to lie on TV. ... I don't like lying. I certainly do it, you know, out of weakness or whatever."[412][413]

In context, it is reasonable to think that readers should be able to distinguish between the views of Alter, Carlson's statement to Rubin, and the later analysis by Bump (which is also grouped in this paragraph); the somewhat unusual (and arguably unnecessary) use of "unrelated" to describe Carlson's interview with Rubin (why would anyone assume that Time and The Rubin Report are affiliated?) suggests, though I have not gone through the revision history, that editors have been bending over backwards to avoid any implication of WP:SYNTH and to ensure that this WP:BLP subject is treated fairly. Nevertheless, WP:SYNTH does not apply to virtually any arrangement of sources required to organize an encyclopedia article, nor to examples explicitly given by a source. While it would not be ideal (or make for particularly good writing), this objection could be addressed simply by dropping Alter's name twice in two sentences, if needed—but it still would not justify wholesale deletion. (That said, the intent of the transition language "for example" is to refer back to the "innuendo" mentioned in the previous sentence.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have strong feelings about inclusion but if included a link to the original Carlson source of the quote should be included. It looks like Peter Gulutzan has provided it. Springee (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion In order to include opinions, we need to prove weight. That requires secondary sources that reported her opinion. Anyway, the quote is unnecessary. Certainly if someone has a history of lying to you, it is reason not to believe them. That part of Carlson's argument is sound. Where it breaks down is that he does not mention that no credible evidence has been presented for election fraud and the courts have rejected every complaint brought by Trump for lack of credible evidence. TFD (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. To be fair, the statement was made 23 Nov, 2020, less than a month after the election. What was known vs disproved at that point in time may have made that a more credible claim at the time. Certainly the courts hadn't rejected all claims at that time. Springee (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Alter is a secondary source on the subject of Carlson. There is no requirement to exclusively use tertiary sources. In addition, we are discussing whether to include an additional sentence from the source, not inclusion of the source itself, which is long-standing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

While Alter is a secondary source for facts, she is a primary source for her own opinions. Bear in mind what Due and undue weight says: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It doesn't say that any opinion expressed anywhere can or should be included.

Even if you treat her comments as facts, Balancing aspects comes into play. That is, the facts reported must also reflect weight in reliable sources.

Finally, there is a problem of implicit synthesis. Providing a list of negative facts in an attempt to bring the reader to an implied conclusion is synthesis. You should state the assessment in reliable sources and provide a few examples, instead of creating a rapsheet.

TFD (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Providing a list of negative facts in an attempt to bring the reader to an implied conclusion is synthesis. - Not always. The facts would need to bend the reader toward an undue or unverified conclusion. That would need to be examined and documented from a specific string of facts with the purported conclusion. WP:SYNTH says If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. A mere list of facts or events does not in itself lead the reader to an undue inference. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not true. Synthesis can be good or bad or can reflect the conclusions in reliable sources. But here's the difference between polemical and encyclopedic writing. In the first, the author lists a set of facts (or alternative facts) in an attempt to persuade the reader of an implicit conclusion. In this case it is that Carlson routinely spreads false information. In the second, the author begins with a conclusion, then provides examples to prove it. If the conclusion itself is not universally accepted as a fact, they say that. For example, the article on Der Stürmer begins by saying it was "a significant part of Nazi propaganda, and was virulently antisemitic." It provides some representative examples. It doesn't provide a rap sheet and ask the reader to decide for themselves. For example, we don't see:

"On Thursday, June 1, 1934, the paper accused Hans Meyer, who was Jewish, of being a traitor to Germany. In Die Zeit, an reporter accused the article of promoting anti-Semitism."

It's not our role to persuade readers the paper was anti-Semitic. Our role is to explain expert opinion.

reason editors don't use a polemical style in articles about Nazis is that we don't feel any need to prove how horrible they were.

Another thing to consider is that polemical writing isn't effective. It's preaching to the choir. Rachel Maddow for example draws in a huge number of Resistance Democrats but the people you need to persuade won't listen to her.

TFD (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't stand her either. At any rate It's not clear what "good or bad" has to do with the issue at hand. I referred to an undue inference, which can be good bad or neither. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge with regret that the trend towards consensus for inclusion of the sentence is strong, if someone puts it back I won't re-revert. But maybe the pro-includers could at least consider a different sentence: "Charlotte Alter says that an example of innuendo is "The people now telling us to stop asking questions about voting machines are the same ones who claim that our phones weren't listening to us", which Tucker Carlson said in November 2020.[cite] citing Carlson. So at least that doesn't violate WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RS/QUOTE. Also, I didn't go into it before but am suggesting non-re-insertion of TheTimesAreAChanging's words "without endorsing a specific theory of voter fraud" since this source doesn't mention any theory of voter fraud. Of course, I make this suggestion reluctantly since no wording change can make it due. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. If the original source didn't say "without endorsing..." then we shouldn't either. I also support including the original source for the quote. Springee (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Without endorsing a specific theory of voter fraud" is a reasonable summary/paraphrase of Alter:

Did Biden win the election? I asked again. "He did win the election," Carlson said, his voice rising. "Do I think the election was fair? Obviously it wasn't." He ticked off a bunch of reasons he believed this: media bias, tech censorship of right-wing outlets, a shortage of voter-ID laws. I asked whether any of this resulted in determinative changes in vote counts, knowing that Donald Trump's own Department of Homeland Security and Attorney General found no evidence of widespread fraud. "Oh, I have no idea," Carlson said, in an aw-shucks kind of way. ... By this point, my head was spinning. This is Tuckerism in miniature: he sanitizes and legitimizes right-wing conspiratorial thinking, dodges when you try to nail him down on the specifics, then wraps it all in an argument about censorship and free speech. ... Carlson is often more careful than other right-wing hosts to avoid assertions that are factually disprovable, instead sticking to innuendo. While he never, for example, booked Trump's fiction-spewing lawyer Sidney Powell on his show when she was making the rounds on Fox News last year, he did raise questions that fueled conspiratorial suspicions of an unfair election. "The people now telling us to stop asking questions about voting machines are the same ones who claim that our phones weren't listening to us," he said in a November segment. "They lie."

Summaries can always be improved, but simply removing important context from the source would not be an improvement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Summarizing your long statement: the original source didn't say "without endorsing...". Do you reject 100% of my suggestion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think providing attribution for this would be fine, and a good compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that you would accept adding "Charlotte Alter says ...", but reject the rest of my suggestion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I support "Charlotte Alter says..." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I interpret that as yes you reject the rest, and so in effect did TheTimesAreAChanging, who re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Commentary section

I feel like the "commentary" section of this article seems a little biased. Does anyone agree? Could we come to an agreement on a way to represent all viewpoints more equally. Maybe we could leave the "comments" section only to direct things that he has said and have a different section about accusations against Mr. Carlson? Also we should probably leave that more open and not make it seem like the writer has come to a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston Archer Clark (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This thread is about TheTimesAreAChanging's edit despite guidelines. Did you intend to start a different thread about bias? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Slurs

Regarding this edit, is it really necessary to repeat slurs verbatim in an encyclopedia article?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The problem with quoting the words is the context in which they were used is lost. We can summarize rather than include the shock value quotes. What would George Carlin's biography look like with a similar standard of review? Springee (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sadly (given how one of those words is considered so offensive), yes we need to say exactly what he said. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. Wikipedia is not censored. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Censored isn't the issue. Wikipedia is also meant to be a summary. This content from over a decade back is hardly DUE in the overall article much less trying to use the shock words outside of their context (which appears to be humor). Springee (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I disagree with it and agree with Slatersteven. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is my opinion. It also appears to be TTAAC's opinion. Perhaps there is something to it. Remember these articles are meant to be summaries, not a laundry list of everything some reporter who may or many not like Carlson decides to highlight about them. Since we don't have the full context and how the words were used in context it's best to not include single word quotes out of context. Springee (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Words seem OK to me. Why be squemish about language? Nothing particularly remarkable about it. We could add more detailed context, but that would unduly emphasize these statements. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not being squeamish about the language, rather it's being factual about context. We are keeping the shock value words while being twice removed from the source that would explain their use. If we zoom out further we might ask why that content is even in this subtopic. Springee (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much shock value in the wording as it's currently in the article. Seems to reflect the WaPo source in weight and meaning. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The changes made didn't add any volume to the paragraph in question. It was a summary before, it was a summary when it was censored, and it's a summary now that it's not censored again. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, including the exact words without including the context in which they were used is a problem. It can create a misleading impression of the situation which is something we shouldn't do. Springee (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

For argument's sake, if we were to add more context, what context would you add in order to prevent a misleading impression?(ignoring for now the UNDUE and length issues). SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• This seems relevant and appropriate to include. The fact that the Washington Post, a top-tier reliable source, covered this in 2019 shows that it has long-term relevance and passes the 10-year test. The source does includes the original audio as well as Carlson's rebuttal. It's not "twice removed"; it's actually "once removed" which is exactly what we expect from an independent secondary source. We mention the name of the show and the year that it happened, so I'm not sure what other context is needed to understand the subject's use of these slurs. Since the reliable source didn't see fit to include further context, it would be WP:SYN for us to do so. Lastly, paraphrasing would only serve to further remove us from what was actually said. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Why? This was covered in 2019 because that's when someone found the tapes, not because it was relevant in 2019. If reliable sources don't feel it necessary to include full context perhaps we should ask if this is really DUE. It raises IMPARTIAL tone questions about this article. That the WashPo decided it was important to cover what amounts to bad mouthing of a competitor for something they said a decade earlier in a context that isn't clear, speaks poorly of the WashPo. Springee (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If WAPO found tapes of Buster Keaton cussing in 1954, I don't think they would report it as news in 2019. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Carlson has hosted the most popular opinion show on cable for a while now. There's a full industry of left leaning sources running daily hit pieces on him. I don't find a few naughty words he may have said 15 years ego to be notable enough to include in an encyclopedic biography. What does it add for readers to know he once said a bad word on a talk show most notable for certain activities of the host's wife and Hulk Hogan? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to actually refer to the cited source, Washington Post. Not a lefties rag. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove per WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. All media coverage of this issue dates to around March 10-12, 2019, when the tapes released. RECENTISM is a major problem in this article as a whole, and it's something we need to address on a broader scale in the commentary section. These comments are nearly sensational jabs on Carlson by media sources. This is no more than a news story, and inclusion of such content creates a negative, impartial tone. I was going back and forth on rather it was due or not, but it's best to err on the side of caution. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Support for Putin in the lead -- update?

Time to revisit this discusion with the events and perspective of the past month. Opinions? In the lead? SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this still looks very RECENT. Springee (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Include in body, include in lede - It's been a month. The incident in question is obviously going to be very significant in the near and long-term future. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that previously there was a strong consensus against inclusion in the lead. Springee (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Include in body, include in lede JimKaatFan (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful that your comments don't look like an attempt to !vote more than once. Springee (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Include in body, include in lede - I think most closers would see it's painfully obvious that I'm only voting once, while you seem to have a need to reply every time I leave a comment. Please be careful to not make it appear like you're trying to diminish my vote by always having the last word; that could give someone the mistaken impression that you're being WP:TENDENTIOUS. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It reminds me of the slurs that conservatives would use against liberals. If any of them supported civil rights or opposed wars, they were called Communist stooges. I don't think Wikipedia pages should be promoting this. TFD (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How does that relate to our editorial decision? SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

We are supposed to maintain a neutral tone, not parrot DNC or RNC talking points as facts. TFD (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Thats not the prevalent objection, RECENTISM. What is your basis for calling this cited RS content "RNC/DNC talking points?" SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't write "DNC/RNC," I wrote "DNC or RNC." TFD (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. In the English-speaking world, the slash is commonly used to mean "or". See the Google for details. SPECIFICO talk 08:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In Carlson's overall biography, I don't think his support of Putin would be in the abstract/lead/summary. I don't think it should be included. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Not in lead, not in body, for same reasons as before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsure at this time, its big, but will it last? Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose in the lead. It's too specific for the lead, which is supposed to be a broad summary. It's fine in the body section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Include in the lead. It's been a month and also there is still a war happening in Ukraine. His positioning on the matter should be clear from the introduction. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What's his positioning? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Putin views in times of war. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Like what? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

🍷 NikolaosFanaris (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but thanks for seeming to confirm my suspicions about the seriousness of this discussion. It jumped from "Putin likes Carlson" to "Carlson likes Putin" without a single piece of evidence being offered. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced that Carlson's pro-Putin agenda is biographically-defining enough for the opener. All of his positions are so extreme and controversial, it feels like we'd just be plucking one pebble from the pond here. Is is certainly worth coverage in the body, of course. ValarianB (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

47.204.54.141 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson has stated many times he has never been a Democrat. He has been a Republican since he was in college. The article falsely states he was a democrat for many years.

 Not done: The source says he was a registered democrat so he could vote in the primaries. RudolfRed (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Carlson never supported same-sex marriage

In the "Gender and sexuality" section, the article currently says: In 2007 "he called Democratic primary contenders cowards for not pledging to legalize same sex marriage and stated that he would support that." I would like to point out that he was being sarcastic. As I have explained elsewhere:

Pat Buchanan appeared on the show [hosted by Carlson] and referred to two women in the [Democratic presidential] debate audience who had asked a formal question to the candidates: “Would you allow us to be married to each other?”

...
Carlson called it “my favorite moment in the whole thing…It is kind of a stumper. Why are the Democrats against gay marriage?” In context, of course, what Buchanan and Carlson liked about this interchange was simply that the Democratic candidates had been publicly questioned about their hypocrisy and cruelty. Carlson added: “What a bunch of cowards! I actually think — I‘m for marriage. I‘m just for marriage generally. I‘m for people making a lifelong commitment. Do you know what I mean? I‘m not against gay marriage, actually, and I‘m the most right-wing person I know. So why are they against it?” A. B. Stoddard chimed in: “It‘s very awkward for them.” Carlson said: “I just think it‘s absolutely the most hypocritical thing ever. The beauty of this debate — ” He was cut off, and then added: “Marriage has been a great thing for me, and I think it‘s a really civilizing force, and I think it would be a civilizing force for gay people too…If I can take that position, why the hell can‘t Hillary Clinton step out there and you know, have some cojones?”

Carlson was primarily using the topic to discredit the front-running Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton. He rhetorically asked why the Democrats opposed gay marriage because he was seizing the opportunity to suggest that Democrats are hypocrites who abandon their leftist positions when they run for president. He was only making polarizing comments (rather incoherently) and sowing dissent. Though he literally said it was “a great question,” he was being sarcastic, as he did not, to my knowledge, ask the same question of the Republicans in their presidential debates.

This is what I came here to say, when I saw the "Pronouns" discussion above and left a long comment. His Twitter bio today claiming he uses "they/them" pronouns (and went to Harvard and Yale, and won an Emmy) is similarly false and sarcastic. He has always opposed LGBT rights. Sometimes he says he supports them, and when he does, he is being sarcastic. (In the passage above, where I quoted my argument on my own blog on the Medium platform, I explained how sarcasm works. He was razzing Hillary Clinton.) He's made strong statements against same-sex marriage as recently as 2013, when he said he "I truly despise the Episcopal Church" for their support of same-sex marriage, and in 2017, when he said that support for same-sex marriage is an unacceptable level of political bias in a news organization. So, no, he did not state his support for same-sex marriage in 2007, except as sarcasm. I think he likes it when people pass around the rumor that he supports basic uncontroversial LGBT rights because it makes him sound like a moderate and wins him more audience. In fact, he does not and has never supported basic LGBT rights, and when he says he does, he is either joking or lying -- pick your preferred interpretation from one of those.

I would suggest changing the article to point out that his 2007 comment was apparently sarcastic. For context, we could add his 2013 and 2017 comments. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

How do we know his support for gay massage was not being sarcastic? We need RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The source we're using in the article is just a transcript of the show, so the status quo is lacking RS analysis. He doesn't clearly say he supports gay marriage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You are aware that your comment here is completely at odds with your comment about pronouns above, yes? You can't second-guess a reliable source here but then up there plead that we must take his social media bio as the Gospel Truth. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

refs

References

pronouns (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

according to tucker's twitter, they use they/theirs pronouns https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdayforegoism (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Already being discussed above. ValarianB (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Critical sources section deleted

I just posted a section about two independent reliable sources, a Fresh Air interview and a New York Times three-part series with new investigative and statistical analysis about Carlson and his show. Carlson has discussed the NYT series on his FNC show. The purpose of posting these reliable sources here was not to create a forum about them, but to call out the new facts for inclusion in the article. But before I could expand the section to do so, less than a minute after I posted it, it was immediately deleted. I still intend to propose specific changes to the article from those four new sources, but first I would like to ask a third party to restore the links to them before I do so, because I believe the deletion was inappropriate. 2600:387:C:6C34:0:0:0:8 (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed it because it appears as though you were just recommending to watch it. It wasn't related to the content of the article, which puts it in WP:NOTFORUM territory. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The NYT article has already been added to the article. Springee (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Heathertramp:, your recent edits border on the trivial and the indiscriminate, please slow down and discuss large-scale additions of new sections to WP:BLP articles. The lack of edit summaries is also concerning. Zaathras (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Could you please add that Tucker Carlson has been linked to US mass shootings, such as the recent 2022 Buffalo shooting where an 18 year old who believes in the conspiracy theory Replacement Theory (used in his manifesto) that Tucker Carlson has stated hundreds of times on Fox News shot 10 innocent black people shopping in a supermarket in May, 2022. HHudson22 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make edit request in "change X to Y" format, and please do not use edit requests for controversial changes or ones without consensus already established. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Link to Hunter Biden

Would it be appropriate to include info about Carlson and his wife asking Hunter Biden to write a letter of recommendation for their son to be accepted at Georgetown U. in 2014? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/look-time-tucker-carlson-asked-hunter-biden-favor/ YoPienso (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would we want to, what does this tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It shows his true stance on his actions and the opinions he utters: He says and does whatever promotes his family or career. YoPienso (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed it's mentioned obliquely in the second line of the "Alleged surveillance" subtopic. I was looking under his personal life. YoPienso (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)