Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

The lead

GergisBaki, the lead isn't a place for every controversy about this BLP. Please self-revert. The shooting comment is already in the body of the article. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

OK I cut the comment out of the lede. GergisBaki (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
GergisBaki if you want to know more about this you can read this MOS:BLPLEAD. Happy editting!.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Racism allegations belong in lede

Regardless whether the allegations are right or wrong, they are constantly mentioned in reliable sources, and (whether one accepts the allegations that he is using his platform to promote racial hatred, or dismisses them as political correctness which Carlson is boldly rejecting) a key part of the OP's notability and public image. They should be mentioned in the lede. I added them but we should work together to find a neutral sounding version. GergisBaki (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hard to argue with. But, I'd keep it brief in the lead. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This section[1] needs to be summarized in the lede, but I have no specific suggestions as to how to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding this edit, I have several objections to the rewrite - first, characterizing his critics as "political opponents" isn't how the sources describe them and is WP:POV commentary, since it implicitly dismisses their comments as politically-motivated. Second, while the Iraq comments don't seem to be focused on in the article that I can see, the rest are detailed and need to be summarized in the lead; we can report that this is what those critics believe and how they explain their position without taking it as gospel. The argument that those critics are cherry-picking or playing guilt-by-association is irrelevant, since we're reporting their views rather than saying whether they're right or wrong - readers can decide that for themselves. (If you really think that they're being unfair, find a reliable source saying so and cite that, though I generally feel that sort of argument-by-proxy thing is a poor way to structure an article.) But the implicit argument that "people should not criticize him for this, therefore we cannot report that he is being criticized for this" doesn't make sense - these criticisms are major aspects of his bio, whether they should be or not. Finally (a problem in both versions) I don't see anything in the article that matches the last sentence. Also, both the lead and body should probably mention white nationalism (which is how his views are often characterized and which is more precise than just "racism"), but that will require a more substantial rewrite, since the body itself isn't talking about it much yet. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with reporting criticism, whether valid or not - but enumerating it in detail in the intro is out-of-place and non-neutral. Reading the intro, you wouldn't know that he has the 2nd-most-popular cable news show in the U.S., watched by almost 3 million people every episode. And the intro doesn't mention any of the positive things that have been said about him during his career. Yet somehow the views of his boycotters get pride-of-place. How many people have actually boycotted his show, or his advertisers? A few thousand, maybe? In the context of his career and life, they and their views are just not that important. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
A New York Times article today shows the El Paso shooter's manifesto was heavily influenced by and included statements from Carlson, among other Fox contributors. Indeed, the first two words in this front page, above-the-fold article are "Tucker Carlson". This would appear to be WP:DUE and, it would appear, lead worthy.[2] O3000 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't because we're not a newspaper. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Further, will you go to Warren's article and add the Dayton shooting to her lead considering that the shooter was a fan of hers? No, I don't think we should be doing any of that. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between "happened to be a fan of Warren" and "manifesto implies motivation was heavily influenced by Carlson." Coverage has repeatedly said that investigators have found no political motive for the Dayton shooter, whereas it has directly connected the El Paso shooter's motivations to his political views and, in particular, to Tucker Carlson. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "coverage" you're talking about, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this shooter had even heard of Tucker Carlson, let alone was influenced by him. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I supplied the cite. He repeatedly used his exact wording. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that article just says that they both used the words "invasion" and "replacement" when talking about immigration. Carlson is hardly the only person who's used either word, as even the article itself notes. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Carlson is mentioned 18 times in the article. O3000 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't want any 'boycott' content in the lede. As is usually the case, the Fox News boycotts usually blow over. BUT Carlson's anti-immigration views and racially charged rhetoric should be included in the lede. It's by far the type of content that attracts him the most attention. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore the shooter comment since the views of clinically insane people generally don't affect what goes into article intros. As for what gets him attention: let's not forget that he has an audience of three million, so the views of some commentators, though noteworthy, are not all that defines him. And let's also not ignore WP:RECENT here - he has had a roughly 25-year-long career, so criticism that has started in the last two years or so should not overwhelm the intro, as it seems to now. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
He has risen considerably in the last few years. Besides being ridiculed on Crossfire by Jon Stewart and starting the Daily Caller, what were his claims to fame? And I have no idea why you're saying he has a big audience? What is the relevance of that? If anything, it indicates that what he does today (with his huge audience) is more meaningful than being a fairly unknown media guy a few years ago. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Claims to fame: he's written two books (one a bestseller), many columns, and appeared for thousands of hours on TV. Those are all mentioned in the intro to some extent, but there's nothing about the content of any of them, save for his switch from libertarian to nationalist, and of course a few controversial statements. He's said many things about foreign policy, wars, the last five or so presidents, and more recently tech monopolies, the status of men, and lots of other things. So some balance is needed. And the fact that he has a large audience I think means that his less-controversial statements are notable as well. It also undercuts the most egregious part of the current intro: the statement that he's popular among white supremacists. If he was some obscure broadcaster with a heavy white supremacist following, that would be one thing, but given that he has 3 million viewers, the fact that there are some white supremacists among them hardly seems important. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The New York Times article isn’t just a news story. This is a front page article in a highly respected source about the underpinnings of a mass shooting with 22 dead and 24 injured that has its own article. The story touches on major issues including gun control, the US Congress, Trump, Fox, media censorship, immigration, racism all of which have their own articles here. Tucker Carlson, the subject of this article, is mentioned 18 times including the first two words of the article. Carlson has been focusing on themes related to racism for a lengthy period of time. Some semblance of this belongs in the lead. O3000 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't just a news story. In fact, it's not a news story at all - just a half-baked analysis that tries to tie Tucker Carlson and other conservative commentators to the El Paso shooting through the flimsiest of threads. The article doesn't actually say that the shooter was influenced by Carlson and the others mentioned, or even that he knew who they were - as far as I know, there's no evidence for either of those. It says only that he "echoed" their statements in his writings in his use of the words "invasion" and "replacement". That's literally it - the shooter used two words that they also have used. This is a pointless attempt at innuendo that I don't think should be mentioned anywhere, let alone in the introduction. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to ask. Did you actually read the article? There is vastly more than the use of two words. And if you think the article is a "a half-baked analysis" and "pointless attempt at innuendo", you are welcome to take the New York Times to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I did read the article. What was it beyond those two words? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
He's mentioned 18 times with numerous quotes. Do you think a Pulitzer prize winning reporter just repeated himself over and over? O3000 (talk)
Yes, numerous quotes, all involving Carlson saying the words "invasion" and/or "replacement". And all proving nothing about any influence on the El Paso shooter. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
We are not here to "prove" anything. We are here to create articles based upon RS. Here's another:[3] O3000 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Great - you've now found two articles that kinda-sorta imply that Carlson and others influenced the El Paso shooter without actually saying it. Which means that there are exactly zero reliable sources so far who directly claim that Carlson played any role in the matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
And all I said was that we should include this in some manner, obviously as per how the RS document. RS show that the manifesto was influenced, not the shooting itself. I never said we should claim Carlson was behind the shooting. Clearly we are not going to agree. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither article says the manifesto was influenced either. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, we aren't going to agree. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead controversy (again)

Re-starting the discussion about comments by Tucker Carlson added to the lead section by GergisBaki. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with AnUnnamedUser. The information being added over and over again by GergisBaki is appropriate for the article. First of all it does not belong in the lead section. Second it is undue weight on a small, small, small number of Carlson's viewers. Third, GergisBanki's argument that we should ignore whether is it guilt by association because it is not our job as editors is simply not correct. That is the exact type of thing we need to discuss and evaluate. I agree with AnUnnamedUser. Fourth, GergisBanki's bold edits have been reverted. He needs to work on the talk page and provide a rationale for his addition, which at this time GergisBaki has not done.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry for the editing my friends and I will accept the block in stride. I am still fairly new here. But I recognize the policy of edit warring and also the rationale behind it; what I did was inappropriate. I hope we can work to improve this page productively together in the future. GergisBaki (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed the newly added material to the lead per WP:BRD. --Malerooster (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Nobody, as I understand it, is arguing that the entire paragraph is inappropriate, and there's a clear consensus to include in some form above. This discussion is about the exact wording, about what details to include, and especially about references to support by white nationalists and neo-Nazis, which have already been removed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you don't understand. There is no consensus for including this in the lead. This is also BRD. --Malerooster (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I see at least four people arguing it should be included in some form, about two people arguing for changes or improvements, and one or two at best arguing for exclusion of the entire paragraph. People have raised specific objections (which have as far as I can tell currently been addressed), but almost nobody is arguing to exclude the whole section. You can't just come into a discussion about improving a section and out-of-the-blue demand it be removed by citing WP:BRD, that's not how BRD works. If you have objections to the paragraph, you have to raise them and then answer the implicit consensus for inclusion in some form in the discussion above, or convince the people who think their issues with it can be addressed that the whole thing needs to go. But, more generally, meta-arguments about consensus and WP:BRD aren't useful - if you object to the entire paragraph, you need to explain why rather than revert-warring to keep it out and trying to deny a consensus for inclusion in some form that (prior to your edit) seemed reasonably well-established. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus for adding this "material" to the lead. 57 editors have now said it doesn't belong in the lead. I know that this is not a vote but just get a clear consensus for addition which there clearly isn't. How about an RFC or ask the BLP board for more eyes. And yes, BRD is completely reasonable here, this section was boldly added to the lead just a few days ago. Revert it and discuss. --Malerooster (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think an RFC makes sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the person who wants to add this "material" to the lead should craft it? --Malerooster (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)\
There are virtually no objections to the entire paragraph (you still haven't articulated yours, and everyone else is focused on one part that was already removed.) So it's unclear what an RFC would ask - do you feel there should be no coverage of criticism of Tucker belongs in the lead? If so, why? Do you think it's WP:UNDUE? Would more sourcing convince you? Do you object to the wording or tone? Do you feel it should be balanced out with other things? You have refused to articulate why you're revert-warring to remove it from the lead, and there's only one comment proposing taking it out entirely, so I can't actually answer your objections or create an WP:RFC over them. I count a single objection to the entire paragraph, four people indicating it should be there in some form, and a few people objecting to smaller details. That's not something that would justify deleting it entirely the way you are. And, more generally, you seem to be misunderstanding WP:BRD; you are the one who has objected to the paragraph, which means that if you want to invoke WP:BRD you have to actually discuss it - that is, articulate what you object to about it so those objections can be addressed. Reverting an addition and saying "WP:BRD" and nothing else isn't actually following WP:BRD. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
7, count them, 7 have said no for this in the lead. If you want to go against that consensus, fine, do a RFC. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC) ps, you are the one who is clueless about BRD. This was boldly added days ago. It has been removed. We are now discussing it. --Malerooster (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I count only a single person objecting to the entire paragraph. Stop edit-warring to remove it and actually give your explanation for why you think it shouldn't be there; when you try to invoke WP:BRD, you have to discuss - explain your actual objection. You have not done so, and only one other editor, by my reading, has said anything that could remotely be construed as objecting to the entire paragraph, while four editors have expressed unreserved support for inclusion and a few others have requested wording tweaks or objected to specific aspects of it (which were resolved.) By my reading, there was some discussion over the paragraph, some people objected to one specific sentence (which was removed), and there was a general consensus to include after that - until you arrived, misread the consensus by interpreting every objection to that sentence to an objection to the entire paragraph, and started edit-warring to try and remove it (without even attempting to engage in discussion, as far as I can tell, outside of asserting a consensus that you manifestly do not have.) The other editors that you are clearly counting as opposing inclusion merely opposed specific parts which they edited appropriately; this is what most of the discussion above refers to. Until you arrived and started revert-warring it out without trying to explain why, it seems as though we'd reached a general consensus on how it should read. If you disagree, point me to the specific diffs where you think people opinioned that the entire paragraph should be removed, because I am not seeing it. Seriously - stop, read the discussion, and try to find those diffs for me, because I feel you skimmed the discussion and misinterpreted it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't help if you cant count even though iam a sped teacher. Multiple people above have objected to inclusion in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, most of the discussion is about the "guilt-by-association" connection to white nationalism specifically (here). I'm not seeing very many people objecting to the entire section, and the comments focusing on that specific aspect implicitly accepted the rest as WP:DUE. If you have an objection to the entire paragraph, you'll have to vocalize it rather than arguing that it lacks consensus - suggestions for improvements and tweaks aren't a justification to violate WP:PRESERVE by removing it wholesale after the issues people raised with it have been addressed. I count myself, GergisBaki, O3000, and Snooganssnoogans supporting inclusion in some form; Korny agreeing controversy should be present but objecting to the specific "guilt by association" details (which were removed) and wanting more about his achievements to balance it out; CharlesShirley and Joseph agreeing to remove that specific aspect; and only SharabSalam clearly arguing that all parts should be removed. (You yourself have not indicated an opinion, which might help? Despite invoking WP:BRD, you're not participating in discussions. You need to make it clear if you have objections to the content rather than just what you see as the process. You need to actually participate in discussions - as WP:EDITCONSENSUS says, consensus is assumed unless there's a reason to doubt it, and right now only one other person has expressed the view that the entire paragraph should be removed.) Regardless of whether we count you or not, that adds up to a clear consensus to include in some form, with the caveat that some people might want to tweak the wording further. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion and this is a matter of common sense, all of Tucker Carlson controversies should not be in the lead because they are RECENT. They will not stay notable for a long period of time like ten years.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Several of these date back around two years, which is well beyond WP:RECENTISM, and most of them have pretty good sustained coverage over that time period. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Public image

Is the Public image section really necessary? The page has an entire section dedicated to Carlson wearing a bow-tie... I suggest removing it but wanted to get feedback before I ruffle any feathers. Meatsgains(talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably not DUE but thanks to CT's John Stewart interview years back I will always associate TC with a bow tie. However, we really should stick with more substantial stuff. Springee (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed - I'll go ahead and remove it and those who oppose can discuss here. Meatsgains(talk) 01:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it should stay, and I don't know why this section has been so controversial. The bowtie was a part of Carlson's persona, just as, say, Tom Wolfe's white suit was a part of his, and got some media coverage; and I think Carlson's wearing of it, and his decision to stop wearing it, sheds light on his personality. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

Please change "homophobic slurs" to "homophobic slur". The source mentions exactly one slur: “Well I like you too, and I mean that,” Carlson replies. “You always say, ‘I mean that in a non-f-- way,’ but I actually mean it in a completely f----t way." 87.179.43.63 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

IP, the citation says, "In a separate posting, Media Matters published a conversation between Bubba the Love Sponge and Carlson from 2006, in which both use homophobic slurs". --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Malerooster, I am aware, I think when they say "homophobic slurs" they are talking about Love Sponge and Carlson, not Carlson alone. So in summary, the two are using homo-phobic slurs, but Carlson is only using one slur. A transcript of the conversation seems to back this up. --84.177.85.108 (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm with the IP here - I'm only seeing a single slur by Carlson. Meatsgains(talk) 14:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Material removed as "unsourced"

‎Wallyfromdilbert, you removed material here [[4]] and here [[5]] based on the statement that the sources didn't support the material in the article. A review of the sources shows they support the claims being made. That is why I restored the content. Is there another reason why it should be removed? Springee (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee, regarding this edit, I believe your restoration of that content is a violation of BLP. Specifically:
  • What sources mention an investigation of the Smash Racism DC group or that a police investigation has linked that group to other activities?
  • What sources mention that family members other than his wife were at the home?
  • What sources mention "death" threats?
  • What sources mention a "verbal attack" on Carlson's daughter or link that event to Smash Racism DC?
Thanks. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

How does this violate BLP? These aren't accusations against Carlson. They don't degrade the subject of the article. Per ONUS, can you show the content isn't supported?

This sources supports that TC wasn't home when the group targeted his home, the Smash Racism DC involvement, and that the group was "anti-fascist" [[6]] (I do agree it was incorrectly cited twice but that shouldn't result in a content change)
This source supports the verbal attack on his daughter and again Smash Racism DC. [[7]]
The last bit about the group attacking other people is also supported.
I agree "Death threats" isn't supported against Carlson though it was supported against others. I'm OK removing that.

Springee (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all living people, and not just the article subject. Also, as per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content", which means the burden is on you to justify including the content. As for the changes to the article content:
  • You reinserted that "The investigation also linked the group to cyber-bullying and anonymous death threats to some of Carlson's co-workers in Fox News' staff, as well as conservative public figures." I do not see that information supported by either of the sources cited in your restoration. Could you please provide a quote for where you think this is supported?
  • You also reinserted that Carlson's "family members" were subjected to the harassment at his house, when the Washington Post article you cited says that his wife was alone and that the "couple have four children, but none were home at the time".
  • You changed A man had called Carlson's daughter a "whore" at a restaurant to A member of the group verbally attacked Carlson's daughter at a restaurant when the Hill source you provide does not link the man to Smash Racism DC. The article mentions the Smash Racism DC protest as a separate event. Also, the article does not describe the event as a verbal attack, and so that would be editorializing. The full exchange between the man and Carlson's daughter: On their way back through the bar, a middle aged man stopped my daughter and asked if she was sitting with Tucker Carlson. My daughter had never seen the man before. She answered: 'That's my dad,' and pointed to me. The man responded, 'Are you Tucker's whore?' He then called her a 'f*** c***.'"
My edits to the article never said that Carlson was home when the Smash Racism DC protesters were there, that Smash Racism DC was not involved in the protest, or that the group was not an anti-fascist group, and so I'm not sure why you mentioned those issues. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, looking at the articles in more detail I generally agree with your edit but your method needs to be improved. First, I simply reverted your edit and that in large part because your edit summary didn't pass muster. The edits you made were more extensive than your simplistic edit summary. It's only when looking at the articles in detail that I agree. Rather than reverting without explanation (bad practice) you could have explained your POV in more detail here. Per NOCON the article should have stayed in the last stable form until consensus was achieved. Springee (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Next time before reverting a change, actually look at the changes you are making. Claiming that content is supported by the cited sources when it is not should not be something that happens. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Next time before you make a non-obvious change actually include more than a sentence fragment to justify your edit. Per CONSENSUS you needed to show that the current text was not supported by the citations, that was something that was only evident after careful review... a review which you failed to offer. Springee (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
That's incorrect. The last stable version was, by my reading, this one. The ones that cite The Blaze and talk about threats and harassment are new additions, so the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion (which they plainly lack.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I can agree with that. However, since the Blaze was in both versions I don't know why you would interject in this discussion. Either way, this is basically resolved. Springee (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The Blaze is absolutely not usable for this (they're an extremely partisan source without much of a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.) Without that, the sources generally don't use the term "threats" or "harassment" outside of quotes to Carlson himself, nor do they focus on Antifa (in fact, the recent rewrite seems to have been almost entirely based on the unusable Blaze source.) The "whore" bit was also plainly WP:SYNTH in context - what does that have to do with the protests? The source only mentions them in passing. I've reverted back to the last stable version for now, since these are clearly extremely controversial recent additions that lack obvious consensus. (Also, dropping it in the lead is absurd - it's barely even one paragraph. WP:DUE weight requires that things be weighed against other topics in the article, and this is plainly far below the accusations of racism against Tucker or the widely-covered boycotts in terms of importance, so including it in the lead is WP:UNDUE.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to push back on your edits to the article other than noting that the verbal abuse of Carlson's daughter would be appropriate material for the section even if not as extreme as the protesters at his home. Springee (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)::
The text and the sources related to the protest outside of Carlson's are relevant and should be included. Even Carlson's considerations about metric system were included in the article, which is arguably less relevant but still sufficient to be have a section on its own. Criminal actions which involved the intervention of authority and which affected his family and co-workers is relevant and should be detailed in a section as well as included in the lead. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The lead is not even remotely a viable consideration - compared to (for instance) the massive, extensive coverage of the boycotts against him, this is trivia and would be grossly WP:UNDUE there. Beyond that, the bulk of the changes were to change the WP:TONE of the coverage, almost entirely relying on The Blaze as a source in the process; obviously, The Blaze isn't a viable source for such fiery wording, being both extremely partisan and being a low-quality source at best. We have far higher-quality sources taking a more neutral tone, so there's absolutely no justification for ignoring them and relying on the more fiery language from a piece of low-quality partisan media. Your additions to this page were extremely WP:BOLD edits (especially the addition to the lead, which is flatly absurd and WP:UNDUE given the far more heavily-covered things that were recently removed from it), and it's clear at this point that they've failed to get the needed consensus. If you honestly think The Blaze is a usable source for something of this nature, you can take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you'd get anywhere - it's on WP:RS/P as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I maintain that this incident is relevant and should be both included in the lead and also detailed in a subsection of Personal life. Blaze Media's source can be obviated without the subsection and the text being changed in the slightest. It's remarkable that Wallyfromdilbert pushed for titling an entire section as «Abuse and harassment by Steven Crowder» in the Carlos Maza article whereas they now consider these incidents related to Tucker Carlson —that led even to criminal investigation by law enforcement— as WP:UNDUE both as for being included in the lead as well as for being described in a separate (sub)section, which they have erased (WP:POVPUSH). But I guess it's the «local climate of editor opinion». Ajñavidya (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Blaze Media was the source for calling it "death threats and harassment"; without that source we have to take a more neutral WP:TONE, as most of the reliable sources did. I can't speak to the other page, but it would depend on the language the sources used. And it is completely absurd to suggest that this could be WP:DUE for the lead when we're currently excluding the vastly more heavily-covered racial controversies or boycotts about Carlson; WP:DUE weight must be assessed relative to other things in the article, which means that once we exclude something we cannot give things of lesser notability higher prominence. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about the politically-motivated harassment?

In a thread on my talk page, User:Wallyfromdilbert has argued that consensus supports his recent edit, which removes the line "Carlson and his family have been the target of politically-motivated harassment" and makes other changes. His edit summary was "Undid revision 918126179 by Ajñavidya (talk) use the talk page to gain consensus". He states that his edit was supported by User:Springee, User:Aquillion and User:Volunteer Marek. Please discuss. I am not expecting to take any further admin action so I don't need to participate any more. As many of you know, WP:RFC is a good way of documenting agreement. When people do not seem to have enough patience for an RfC, a very clear talk page discussion can also be good. But when there is no RfC, it is not always clear the actual words that people are supporting. So here is your chance to all agree (or disagree) with Wallyfromdilbert on these exact words. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

My recent agreement with WFD was with respect to other content. I haven't offered an opinion on that sentence in the lead. Springee (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously I support that removal (as described in my post above) and the general revert to more neutral wording; as mentioned, the "death threats and harassment" wording is cited almost exclusively to The Blaze, which isn't usable as a source, and the incident is far lower-profile than many things that have been left out of the lead, so highlighting it would be WP:UNDUE. For the record, I'll note that Ajñavidya's additions are relatively recent addition - Ajñavidya first added it August 15; it was immediately reverted by Snooganssnoogans, but they've been revert-warring to put it in the lead ever since ([8][9][10][11][12]). WP:STATUSQUO would be leaving it out. For what it's worth, it's been removed by four different people (myself, Comatmebro, Wallyfromdilbert, and Snooganssnoogans; when they asked on talk, another user told Ajñavidya it didn't belong in the lead as well, which they ignored), while to my knowledge only Ajñavidya has been trying to insert it or arguing for its inclusion in the lead. Given the sweeping language and the fact that they've been reverted by four different editors and told it doesn't belong in the lead by a fifth, I think it's fair to call Ajñavidya's August 15 additions WP:BOLD, so the WP:ONUS is on Ajñavidya, not Wallyfromdilbert, to demonstrate consensus for the material they want to add, especially given that multiple editors have now explained to them at length why they think it's not acceptable. Note that the current wording, In 2018, a group of about 20 activists from Smash Racism D.C. protested outside Carlson's Washington, D.C., home.[132] Carlson's driveway was vandalized with a spray-painted anarchist symbol. Police responded within minutes and the protesters were dispersed.[133], was long-standing and stable before Ajñavidya's addition (this is not obvious because Ajñavidya didn't initially remove the existing text; if you check their first edit, you'll see the longstanding text was there further down.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was the user that originally expanded the discussed topic into a subsection and added it into the lead, and I'm in favor of keeping it that way. If Wallyfromdilbert stated that their removal of my edit was supported by Springee and Volunteer Marek, her/his claim is untrue: Springee actually reverted Wallyfromdilbert's removal [13] and Volunteer Marek reverted my edit probably due to Twinkle detecting my single-edit reversal as suspicious: [14]. I don't want to assume other users' stances so let them speak their own positions in the discussion, but the situation isn't how Wallyfromdilbert allegedly described. Out of the three users, only Aquillion did support Wallyfromdilbert unequivocally, describing the edits I've made as WP:BOLD and WP:ONUS. But I maintain that the material is important and relevant to this article since it involves serious harassment that extended to the person's relatives, co-workers and had criminal implications – and as such it deserves to be detailed in a separate section or subsection as well as included in the lead; even considering that TheBlaze source and the phrase «death threats» in the titling could be withdrawn, pondering on thatTheBlaze is not a reliable source according to WP:RSP. Aquillion also considers that my edit is undue: «[…] we're currently excluding the vastly more heavily-covered racial controversies or boycotts about Carlson; WP:DUE weight must be assessed relative to other things in the article, which means that once we exclude something we cannot give things of lesser notability higher prominence». So, Aquillion's stance apparently is that the detailed information about the harassment incidents shouldn't be included because controversies around the person's opinions aren't depicted with equal level of prominence. That is, in my opinion, an unjustified and fallacious stance; not only because controversies around someone's personal views are undue related to incidents such as harassment, but also because Wikipedia's policies are explicitly against this kind of equivalence. Giving overtly relevance to controversies in BLP isn't allowed by WP:CSECTION whereas the harassment incidents are not a controversy around the person but rather a situation in which he was a victim. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Currently the lead is, refreshingly, brief. I agree with Aquillion that if the lead doesn't mention so many of the controversies associated with Carlson's commentary then the harassment shouldn't be their either. This is not an endorsement of adding the commentary discussion to the lead. I think the lead is pretty good as is. Springee (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, Volunteer Marek was cited by me as having reverted Ajñavidya's changes. I never said they had expressed an opinion on the talk page, and I would not blame them for not wanting to waste their time disputing changes by one tendentious editor. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
And in fact I do support Wallyfromdilbert's changes. While the main problem is with the section, not the lede, I also agree with Aquillion and Springee regarding the lede itself. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tucker_Carlson/Archive_3&oldid=968546402"