Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Now for something completely different - no, wait, it's the same

So now, at least one editor who wishes to protect Tucker Carlson's reputation would like to see the edits that I added to Tucker Carlson Tonight be censored, or white-washed, or whatever term you prefer. I'm pinging the users in the previous discussion in order to ask that they weigh in there. It seems obvious to me that if this material is WP:DUE for the Tucker Carlson article, then even more detail is warranted at the article where the head writer was actually employed. But apparently that's not good enough for MetaTracker, who declared that the consensus reached here was, and I quote, "absolutely misguided".
In any case, pinging Guy, El_C, O3000, Volunteer Marek , Alcaios, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, please be aware of a similar discussion happening at Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Update – apparently, MetaTracker has had a change of heart after our vigorous discussion on that page, so it appears the rehashing of this issue on a different article is now moot. Thanks everyone. JimKaatFan (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson on face masks and social distancing: "no basis in science"

The editor MrErnie removed text[1] about Carlson's false claims that face masks and social distancing have no basis in science and were just "health theater". This is obviously DUE (he's literally pushing misinformation about an ongoing pandemic that has killed 138,000+ in the US) and covered by several RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I started a Fringe theory noticeboard discussion[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. If there is a controversy around obviously and provably false statements that a prominent public person has made over and over, Wikipedia notes that the statements are false, particularly if the citations and reliable sources say so. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is a falsehood.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor Snooganssnoogans routinely adds such NPOV and misconstrued text to many right wing / conservative BLPs. If you actually bother to read the sourcing, Carlson is specifically talking about wearing masks and social distancing in school, about which the source is a bit misleading. The source goes on to say that Carlson does in fact support wearing masks, as evidenced by his earlier comments. This is just another attempt to add negative / non NPOV compliant material.

This is exactly why this type of editing is so dangerous. You can't cherry pick things from a source but leave the other half out. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie is correct. The edit to the Wiki article and what Carlson actually said are not true to one another. That doens't mean Carlson's point was good but we should never put such obvious distortions of a BLP's actual statements into an article. Springee (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to be careful with sources here. Both sources cite a specific quote:

Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science. It’s kind of a bizarre health theater. Students will be kept six feet apart, everyone will have to wear a mask, class sizes will be limited

The Hill and BI are distorting the specific claim into something TC didn't say. As such they should be treated as commentary/opinion, not as reporting fact. Carlson didn't say "masks are not effective (or similar)". What Carlson actually said was that the measures the schools are implementing aren't based in science. That claim may still be wrong but it's grossly false for the Wikipedia article to claim, in wiki voice that Carlson said "X is not effective [implied for a general case]" when he actually said something more like "X, Y and Z haven't been shown to be effective in this specific case". The is above and beyond that we should never use "falsely" with respect to a claim being made unless we know the intent of the person making the claim was to mislead. Ultimately the sources do not support the statement in Wikipedia and as a BLP we need to make sure such "falsely claimed" material is robust for inclusion I am removing the material. Springee (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That is because schools do not have as different set of physical laws to the rest of the planet, or the human race.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Where I live students are not required to wear masks in schools (and yes, they returned to classes almost 2 months ago, where there has not been much evidence of a rapid re-spread even with no mask restriction). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Was that before the spread had been controlled, or whilst 100's were still dying every day?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's happening right now, today. Students are in school without masks. I live in Germany by the way. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So no then, not 100's of deaths a day.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To bring this back around, the problem seems to be in the sources themselves. I'd be happy to reconsider if there were better, clearer coverage of the comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, based only on the actual quote provided by the cited articles and not the rest of what Carlson said to provide context I think Carlson's statement is wrong. However, if the sources are misconstruing what Carlson said we should throw out those sources. The material on COVID-19 is all RECENT. It would be better if we just waited a while before adding these sort of "sound bites" which aren't really a summary of his reporting on positions on the subject. Springee (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have they have misquoted him?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the quote provided by them and quoted by me above is not literally what Carlson said. The problem is how they used the quote. Suppose I say "there is no evidence that A, B and C together are effective at preventing X in this specific environment". Now if someone says, "Springee said there is no evidence A is effective [no context of the specific environment]" then they are selectively quoting what I said by stripping out the words that bound/limit my statement. Both of the articles have attention grabbing claims that "Carlson said masks don't work". It is clear that isn't what his actual statement says. At that point we have to assume the article is no longer impartial in their presentation of facts and thus shouldn't be used to make a negative claim about a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence they did this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, just read the article. The very first sentence of the BI article is, "Fox News host Tucker Carlson has claimed, contrary to multiple scientific studies, that there is no scientific evidence to support wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus." That is the complete paragraph. Carlson did not make that claim in the quoted text and it's misleading to claim otherwise. BI's summary is not true to what Carlson said. Springee (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't get to decide that we disagree with a source and then delete sourced content. Imagine if we let the Scientologist do that. If you don't like what the sources we have now say, find better sources. In particular, look at the entry for Business Insider at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we show the source is wrong we certainly can dismiss it. WP:RSP is yellow for BI. This is a great example of why it should be. They have created a strawman out of what Carlson actually said. That doesn't mean Carlson is right but we shouldn't accept such distortions of the person's actual claims, especially when used to state Carlson lied in a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hill's article is from their editorial content and wouldn't normally be suitable for inclusion. Business Insider is no stellar source. The ONUS is on the editors seeking inclusion to find the better sourcing. Anyways, as editors we have a duty to point out issues with the sourcing. That they misrepresent Carlson's statement as applying to ALL corona restrictions (despite the same sourcing saying he supports widespread mask usage) is their problem that shouldn't be replicated here. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So point out one thing he did not say they claim he did, show they are in error, not just you think they are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See my comment above about the first sentence from the BI article. Carlson did not say, "...there is no scientific evidence to support wearing masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus." (or at least not in the provided quote) Springee (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, they we alter it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that you concede, at least, that your idiosyncratic personal reading of Carlson's statements is not reflected in any secondary sources. For the record, The Hill is green on WP:RS/P and this is not labeled as opinion (they have a separate category for that; this is in their health / well-being section); as such, your personal gut feeling that it's wrong and your WP:IDONTLIKEIT take on it as a source isn't sufficient reason to disregard it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, with all due respect, the material should not have been restored to the article. There is an active discussion about the problems with the sourcing and no consensus has been reached for inclusion. This is a contentious claim about a BLP subject and thus the material should be left out until consensus for inclusion exists. The sources are problematic for a contentious claim. BI starts by creating a clear strawman of Carlson's claims. Misleading the reader disqualifies that article as reliable. Per RSP BI is yellow and needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Since it isn't a RS it can't be used to establish WEIGHT for inclusion of this material. The Hill is from their opinion/commentary section and again misrepresents what Carlson said. So again we can't treat that as a RS and it can't be used to establish weight for inclusion. Now at best you have the Newsweek article. Per RSP this is a yellow source [[3]]. Again we have the issue that Newsweek is claiming a flip flop position by comparing Carlson's statements regarding the use of masks under two different cases. So again this isn't quality reporting and the source is iffy. This is a contentious BLP claim made by low quality sources that include false claims/strawmen as part of their article. It should be removed. Springee (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then edit it to remove the claims that you believe shouldn't be there and, if possible, replace the sources with higher quality sources. Or delete the paragraph with an edit summary along the lines of "unreliable sources, under discussion on talk page." That would be a valid reason for removal. What you wrote in your edit summary was essentially that through WP:OR you disagree with the two sources and think it's OK to delete sourced material on that basis. No. That's not OK. Again I ask, and I would very much appreciate an answer, what if we allowed the Scientologists to do some WP:OR, conclude that they disagree with the some sources and delete sourced material on that basis? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, per WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards". As editors we are allowed to discuss why specific source articles are wrong or should not be used. Lets us your Scientology example. For argument sake, the NY Times and several other generally reliable sources claim Scientology was started by John Doe after a drug binge weekend on Mars. Would we accept that claim or would we as a group decide that a weekend bender on Mars is inconsistent with the fact that people haven't been to Mars? The rest of the NYT article might be 100% spot on but how would we treat the article if it had a clear error like that? I would hope that we would throw it out. What we wouldn't be allowed to do is include it but then add our own commentary that we don't think a trip to Mars is possible at this time. If the Scientologists made a logical claim why a particular source was wrong we should listen and if they are right fix the problem. We should never include claims from a source that fall flat under even minor review of the evidence presented by the source. Springee (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You deleted material in an article. Nobody ever said you couldn't use OR in a talk page discussion. We all do that. You are perfectly free to explain why you disagree with a source and with that argument seek consensus on an article talk page for removal. what you can't do is just decide that you disagree with a source and then delete sourced content. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

My removal was proper per WP:BLP and WP:NOCON. The contentious material is disputed. There isn't consensus for inclusion based on policy issues so the material should be kept out of the article until consensus exists. In both cases the removed material contained "falsely" which is a disputed term due to the fact that it can imply intent per it's definition. Additionally, the sources used are both weak for a contentious claim about a BLP. BI is yellow and The Hill "Changing America" is an editorial section per Washington Post. That means neither source is substantial enough to establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Additionally if a source is shown to be wrong or misrepresent the facts at hand editors can discount it. So on all these grounds I rightly removed the material. To be honest, as one person said, this is a medical claim so we can't actually trust either The Hill or BI to reliably be able to refute Carlson's claims (even if I think Carlson is probably wrong). If either source specifically interviewed an expert and the expert said here is why Carlson is wrong that would mean more. This is the sort of weak sourcing we shouldn't be using in a BLP article. Springee (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, consensus is required for inclusion, not removal. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I just rewrote the paragraph somewhat, here. I think a big part of the problem is that Carlson wasn't clear what exactly lacked a basis in science. Does he think wearing masks only makes sense for adults? Or is that they would have to wear masks all day? Or is his issue more with the mandated six-foot separation? (As far as I know, there is indeed no scientific basis for a length of six feet specifically.) Until he clarifies this, I think it's better to just indicate what he said, and what others have said in response, instead of trying to create a narrative around the whole thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That is much better. I'm still uncomfortable with the sources for the reasons above but that at least is an impartial presentation of the information in those sources. Springee (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Korny's version is much better. I wasn't able to find any sources better than those already brought here, which I think makes Politifact the best source so far. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the sources don't support the text inserted into the article, we should omit them. Carlson is on the record as saying that masks work, as the sources point out. TFD (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump is on record as being a member of the Democratic party and Joe Biden is on record as supporting and voting for the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. That doesn't mean that those are their current positions. From one of the sources:

"Tucker Carlson has claimed that measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus such as masks 'have no basis in science,' despite having previously stated that 'everyone knows' they work."

Do you have a source that says anything other than that Carlson held one position on masks in the past and now has hulds opposite position? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the sources provide their reference quote. The reference quote doesn't support the conclusion the sources are trying to reach, ie that Carlson has changed his general POV on the effectiveness of masks. I think seatbelts are a darn good idea and we should where them while driving a car. I think it's pointless to buckle up when moving the car from one side of the drive way to the other. The second statement doesn't negate the validity of the first. Carlson's later statement had a lot of qualifiers that weren't included in the earlier statements. The problem with these sources, and the reason why these sources should remain yellow, is they are presenting a set of facts and reaching a questionable conclusion. Springee (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy how can you post that quote without saying Carlson was specifically referencing schools? There is no evidence that Carlson has changed his view that overall usage of masks is not necessary. Do you have any data that says COVID is spreading rapidly amongst schoolchildren who aren't wearing masks? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that you have repeated this interpretation numerous times and the sources currently presented clearly disagree (including The Hill, which has a consensus as a generally high-quality source), could you present the WP:SECONDARY sources you feel accurately state that Carlson was specifically referencing schools? I spent a while searching and could not find any secondary sources backing up your reading, which means we have to go with the interpretation of his comments in the sources we have, rather than the personal WP:OR you've performed on Carlson's comments in an effort to second-guess them. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

How about this one: a Politifact fact check on another statement Carlson made in the same monologue, which is that the coronavirus "poses virtually zero threat" to students and most teachers, because of their age ranges. (I don't think this sort of secondary interpretation is necessary, but I suppose it doesn't hurt.) By the way, I take back what I said before, that Carlson wasn't clear in his monologue about why he didn't believe in mandatory masks and social distancing in schools: I should have read to the end, where he does make it clear that it's because the disease really only poses a mortal risk to older people. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, generally reliable does not mean reliable in every case. If The Hill suggests Carlson said something that Carlson's specific quote doesn't support we don't treat the source as reliable. Furthermore, a question regarding if the "Changing America" subsection meets the same standards as the rest of "The Hill" has been raised. The WP says the "Changing America" is an "editorial channel" The Hill launched last fall.[[4]] So this story is currently based on two sources that are questionable in terms of reliability. This isn't a question of if Carlson's opinion is correct. We have school aged children in my extended family who will be dealing with these restrictions this fall. I hate the restrictions for them but I support the school's implementation. I see the school as between a rock and a hard place. That doesn't mean we throw away proper editing guidelines/policies relating to neutrality, impartiality, BLP and sourcing just because we dislike the message. Springee (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the video of the statements

For those questioning what precisely was said, here is the video of the statements: [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Better than a 22-second excerpt, here is the original Tucker Carlson piece, both video and text. He is claiming that it's safer for kids to go to school (without the usual precautions, e.g. masks, distancing, etc., pointing to Germany and Denmark as examples) than for them to be kept home. It aired on July 7 and was posted to the website on July 8. As Korny linked above, Politifact fact checked it as "mostly false". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it UNDUE to mention?

I have to ask why we are mentioning this in the first place? Carlson is a TV pundit... and TV pundits say stupid things ALL THE TIME. It is routine for them to do so. So what makes this particular statement significant enough to highlight? This was hardly the first time that something Carlson said became the “outrage of the day”... nor will it be the last. Saying things that cause brief outrage is his JOB.

Remember that this ISN’T an article about Covid, or the effectiveness of masks, or keeping school children safe. It is a BIOGRAPHICAL article about Tucker Carlson. The focus should be on his life and career. When deciding whether to mention something he said, we need to assess the particular statement in terms of whether it had much (or any) impact on Tucker Carlson’s life or career (and we need to discuss what that impact was).

For an extreme example - If he said something that caused cancellation of his show, THAT would certainly qualify as being significant to his career. We can (and should) highlight the statement and discuss it’s effect. Cause and effect are important in biographical writing.

So... in this case, what was the effect on Carleson’s life or career? If it had no effect, I see no reason to mention it (and if we don’t mention it, we don’t need to worry about how to describe it). Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

there are 1,413 reason why this is due, just today. We need to call out corona virus misinformation whenever and wherever it happens.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:RGW. Wikipedia is not a pundit fact checker, it's an encyclopedia. We're not trying to do PolitiFact's job, we're trying to do Britannica's. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes and in this case I would invoke wp:iar, we are not talking here about peoples feelings, we are talking about people dying due to this kind of misinformation. This is not Nessie or ghosts, this actually means something.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's called "righting great wrongs", not "righting minor wrongs", because nobody gets worked up over the minor wrongs. Sleep soundly, Slater: nobody is going to die based on whether or not we include this Tucker Carlson quote in his Wikipedia biography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how many of you have invoked IAR over some triviality that in truth affects no one? Now we are the forefront of fighting misinformation that IS costing lives. Maybe not Carlson himself, but all of them, all those who have tried to down play this or played with the truth. MAybe no one will die if we do not point out what Carlson said was false, maybe. Or maybe one person who come here see we say its false and take note, maybe. If we have any real significance this is it, our ability to save lives through pointing out misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what people mean when they say "Wikipedia is a lifesaver!" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And just to expand on this a bit: your suggestion is that there is a person out there, who: (1) otherwise would wear a mask, but (2) who stops wearing a mask because Tucker Carlson told them to, but before they did that (3) would fact-check Tucker Carlson's claim about masks (4) by checking Wikipedia (5) and specifically Tucker Carlson's biography and not a COVID article and then (6) would ignore what Tucker Carlson said and continue to wear a mask because Tucker Carlson's Wikipedia biography said that Carlson was wrong, (7) thereby saving their life. That sounds a touch improbable to me. Call me crazy, but I don't think we're saving people's lives by writing Tucker Carlson's Wikipedia biography. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No I do not misunderstand, in normal circumstances (I.E. not during a global pandemic) I would not say it. And no what I am saying "A person who does not know or has listened to some BS might change their mind if they see called out as BS". Can you say with 100% certainty I am wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--Malerooster (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's UNDUE. That we are having trouble finding more than a few sources is the proof that it's undue. Clearly, this little tidbit is being overshadowed by the other recent scandal with the racist writer. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE The sources are lower quality given this is an attempt to state something contentious about a BLP subject. BI is a yellow source and this is hardly a business topic. The Hill Changing America specifically described as an editorial section of The Hill. So both sources are poor in terms of WEIGHT and reliability. We can see the reliability issue in how the sources present what Carlson actually said (regardless of the validity of Carlson's actual point). Several editors have disputed the material which, for a BLP means it should be out until there is a consensus for inclusion. Finally, the point about being a TV pundit is good. Carlson is a prominent pundit. Many sources will mention his comments and try/successfully pick them apart. In this case the article should be a summary, not a play by play at this level of detail. Springee (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It should definitely be added to the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article. Since, as Slatersteven says, Tucker's bullshit endangers lives, that is the place where those lives could be saved because those who fight COVID misinformation need Tucker to be on their misinformation poison cabinet list together with all the other bullshitters.

Also, we should strip down this article to the barest necessities with the same justification Springee uses: it's a BLP, and if we call it contentious using some flimsy reason, it becomes contentious and has to be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find WP:RS and WP:NPOV so limiting. If it gets significant coverage by RSs perhaps adding to the Misinformation page will be DUE. It isn't with the current sourcing. Springee (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

DUE - With the massive amount of reliable sources reporting it, it's completely appropriate to include it. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What massive amount? We have two sources, one is an editorial section, the other is BI which is a marginal source. Springee (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Take a look. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you proved the point. The only sources that are talking about it are a few marginal sources. Springee (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, google search results are personalized, so when I click on that link I don't necessarily see the same results that you see. It's better to post the sources. If it's really a massive amount of reliable sources, it should be easy to do one of those [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] refbombs. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider, Newsweek, Daily Beast, MSNBC, Washington Post, ABC Fact Check, The Hill, Newser, Salon, and there's more but man if that's not enough I don't know what standard you're looking to meet. It is should be included for all the reasons already discussed above. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Levivich's comment about pundits and responses to pundits is strong. There are plenty of things that Carlson says that others are going to respond to and there is no reason to include every one (please review WP:RECENT). Anyway, let's review the sources. Remember to make this DUE in this article we really need robust sourcing, not click baitish outrage articles. The MSNBC link is to a commentary show, it's version of Carlson's program but on MSNBC. The Daily Beast is biased opinionated source. Well look, they went after Carlson but not to explore his claim but rather just to stoke the right vs left outrage. Note that the DB article is a short blurb and doesn't try to investigate if Carlson is really changing his tune or if Carlson is actually saying the school case is different than the general case. Again, not a good source. The Washington Post article makes it clear you didn't bother to do your homework. It wasn't about Carlson's mask claims, it was about the writer who resigned. THe ABC.net.au story again wasn't about Carlson's mask claim in question. It did say he was wrong for saying kids aren't at risk but that doesn't help with weight for the material in question. Salon again is a heavy opinion/commentary site and only obliquely addresses the specific content here. Not a good link to establish weight. Who is Newser and are they useful for establishing weight? All they are doing is citing Newsweek which is a source that has already been addressed.

So after all that you just a few outrage blurbs about the thing Carlson said this week. And in a few weeks we will wash, rinse and repeat. That Carlson says things that are controversial or cause the minor talking heads to spin, that should be part of this BLP. The details of each example? No. Especially when the sourcing is weak as it is in this case. Springee (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, The Washington Post doesn't mention this. BI, Newsweek, DB, Newser, Salon, and MSNBC are all substandard sources for this. MSNBC is a brief mention, as is ABC AU. The Hill is RS, but this is from The Hill's new Changing America channel, and I'm not sure how much that counts for DUE (or really how unbiased it is given it's stated purpose). But thanks for posting the sources. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll just dump some sources [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. Would you like more?Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See my concern with the low quality of those sources above as well as Levivich's concern about this whole topic being overly detailed for a high level BLP. Springee (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So what is wrong with News week and the Washington Times sources excatly?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with: they're both yellow at RSP, and we're discussing a controversial statement in a BLP. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ohh so now its too much information.

The Washington Times? Come on. Newsweek, Salon, The Daily Beast, are all substandard, especially for a controversial statement about a BLP. MSNBC, too, plus it's a brief mention at the end of an article about something else. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've removed the material as we have a clear no consensus situation. The Korny O'Near version of the material at least was more impartial in its presentation but there is clearly no consensus for inclusion at this time. Springee (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is the right move. Please establish consensus here before reinserting. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think its time for an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you create one please allow editors to review the question before it goes live. There are several issues mixed together here. Springee (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is simple, do we mention this, what else is there?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Part of the debate has been related to the use of the word "false". Other parts of the debate relate to sources that misrepresent Carlson's actual statements. Anyway, if we decide for inclusion that doesn't mean we agree on the specific text. Alternatively if we reject a specific text does that mean no inclusion of just not as suggested. Springee (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The main objection seems to be its undue, and ant option must be based on policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been several interleaved issues. For instance it should be clear that "include" doesn't support a particular text, only general inclusion. Thus "include" generally does not mean we have consensus for using the word "falsely". With a consensus to include we next need to have a consensus text (note that we have several versions that have been in the article. Springee (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is I have not seen any alternative text.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(delisted) RFC on face masks

A. Is it undue to mention Carlson's recent comments about face masks.

B. If we should include, Should we say "In July 2020, Carlson criticized public health efforts to halt the spread of the coronavirus. Carlson falsely claimed "Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science" leading to claims he had said there is no scientific evidence (and contradicting earlier support) for the use of masks and social distancing. "

C. If we should include, Should we say "In July 2020, Carlson was criticised for saying "Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science" leading to claims he had said there is no scientific evidence (and contradicting earlier support) for the use of masks and social distancing."

D. If we should include, Should we leave out "leading to claims he had said there is no scientific evidence (and contradicting earlier support) for the use of masks and social distancing.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DUE. Should say: regarding school re-openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, he falsely claimed that wearing masks and social distancing "have no basis of any kind in science. It's like a kind of bizarre health theater." Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
yes, and I like Sofllavender's proposed wording, which preserves the "bizarre health theater" phrasing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: more later but this is exactly the sort of overly complex and overly prescriptive RfC that I wanted to avoid. Slatersteven should have proposed the question before starting the RfC so we could at least have agreement there. Now we have a new mess and the important discussion points above are lost here. This should be closed as malformed so a new, agreed RfC can be opened. Springee (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Then make a suggestion, do not make me try and second guess what you think you are objecing to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to but I'm on my phone right now. Give me 24hr. Springee (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DUE. I support Softlavender's proposed wording (our text needs to make very clear that it's "false" that there is no scientific basis for face masks and social distancing). Aside from the sufficient RS coverage of his remarks, another factor that shows how it's DUE is that he's prime-time host on the most popular news network who commands a considerable following and who has the president's ear, and he's spreading misinformation about an on-going and surging pandemic that has claimed 138K+ lives. This is rhetoric with real-time lethal implications during an unprecedented and unique crisis. That Carlson happened to be a primetime host on the most popular news network during this crisis and that he happened to push misinformation about the crisis clearly has long-term encyclopedic value. What did this figure do during the short window when he was at the peak of his influence (2016–?)? Well, among other things, he pushed misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
UNDUE to mention this. Carlson has stated that people should wear masks and has been promoting awareness about the virus since the very beginning. His comments above are specifically referencing schoolchildren, which the sources distort. Additionally, there have been no sources presented in this RFC supporting any suggesting wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you say it is due if we included the full context, that he said people should wear masks and that this was specifically referring to school kids if that is what is supported by the RSs? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? the sources are all in the tread above but OK, lets have them again.

Sources [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The first of those says Mr. Carlson, who earlier this year on his program said that “of course” masks work at combating the contagious respiratory disease, criticized schools planning to make them mandatory when classes resume.. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It also quotes him as saying “Many schools that do plan to reopen will do so under a series of restrictions that have no basis of any kind in science. It’s kind of a bizarre health theater. Students will be kept six feet apart, everyone will have to wear a mask, class sizes will be limited, in some schools there will be scheduled bathroom breaks, et cetera, et cetera,”", which is the material we are discussing. No one has so far suggested alternative wording to the above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That thread may be archived before the RFC concludes. If consensus is reached to include this material I would support Softlavender's wording, specifying that this was in the context of schools reopening. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad RfC. First it asks whether it's "undue" to mention Mr Carlson's recent comments, then it asks "If yes" i.e. if it is undue then should we mention them such-and-such a way, which would only be possible if the answer to the first question was "no". Anyway the quoting would have to be not just due but compatible with WP:RS and WP:V and WP:BLP, so the RfC question is not neutral enough. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Opps, sorry that was a mistake on my part. Note these are not exclusive options, people can suggest alternatives (and have).Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DUE - per Softlavender. His wording seems pretty much straight to the point. Idealigic (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Idealigic, but with the full context of the schools reopening and that earlier on he said people should wear masks? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

E. Alternative wording "regarding school re-openings during the COVID-19 pandemic, he claimed that wearing masks and social distancing "have no basis of any kind in science. It's like a kind of bizarre health theater." having earlier stated that “of course” masks work at combating the contagious respiratory disease".Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad RFC, delisted - snap RfCs like this, by one side in an ongoing dispute without discussion or consensus about the question, are always a bad idea. I have removed the RfC tag from this one. It asks "is this undue?" then asks three "if included..." questions while never asking "should this be included" which is the core issue. It assumes if it's due then it should be included but doesn't address other concerns (like RS). Before an RfC is launched, the question should be proposed for open comment. The RfC question should be neutral and brief. And a threshold issue is "should the content be included", not how should the content be included. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So then do you agree we should ask if inclusion is undue?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No I think the question should be along the lines of "should [proposed content] be added", and the [proposed content] part should be discussed beforehand. (For example, above, proposals B, C and D above don't cite any sources, which is one reason none of them are valid options.) I don't want to speak for anyone else but how I'd !vote would depend on what content and what sources for that content are being proposed. IMO the best RFC questions are worded in such a way that if the RFC is successful, an editor could make a specific edit and everyone would agree that edit had consensus per the RFC. As phrased this RfC wouldn't have that result. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And if we take out option A and then list (again) the sources that would be OK?Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't for example include any option for "don't include", and I'm not sure where you're getting the three options B C and D from. They don't seem addressed at the issues in dispute. For example, none of the options includes context or summarized Carlson's position. I would suggest that you just propose one option for the RFC--whatever language you think is best--and leave it to others to propose any further possible formulations of language. See which formulations have the most support, and then just launch "the finalists" for a full blown RFC. Obviously one option should be "do not include". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best if we do not include until there is a consensus on what to include. This is of course assuming there is a consensus for that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying we should just ask should we include this, or should there be specific text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this, with no consensus for including. To be honest I'm not sure a full-blown RFC is necessary. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That is why we need the RFC, its a pretty even split, with accusations that arguments re not policy based. We need fresh eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So true, otherwise you can just end up going in circles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If the question is really about DUE/UNDUE weight, we need to include an option for omitting the entire thing... ie not mentioning Carlson’s comments on masks and opening schools AT ALL. This would be my option. As I outlined in one of the above discussions, a biographical article should not mention things that have no impact on the life or career of subject of the biography. It is a question of relevance. If the fact that that X once said “Y” has no consequence to X... then is it relevant? Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That is a good way of looking at things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead doesn't summarize the article

I just added a tag indicating the lead needs to be rewritten. This doesn't concern any specific claims/language, but simply that the lead should be a summary of the article. This lead, however, summarizes only a small part of the article (the "career" section). I've not been active editing this page, so I would presume someone else may be better able to draft a better addition than I could. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What's an example of a fact that should be in the lead but isn't? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a "Political views" section that takes up about half the page, with 6 level one subheadings and 8 level two subheadings, and none of it is in the lead. It's not a matter of specific facts necessarily, but I would expect that section to account for at least one decent sized paragraph. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I've attempted to clarify his political positions to the lead, please make any changes you wish. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

21 July Edit Doxing story

KidAd, is this really DUE for inclusion here? [[21]]. It does have at least minimal coverage since you have a Forbes and WP link but so much of this content seems to be not a summary of the subtopic but a place to dump a series of unrelated stories. As a way to think of this, if we were to write a lead paragraph for this section (something every section should have) what would we say? Do we have RSs that point to this incident as something significant to the summary of this show? The fact that these are stories released today means they should almost certainly be excluded per Wp:RECENT. I think this material should be removed but I would like the input of other users first. Springee (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to trimming the material or moving it to another area (if applicable). I do think it is relevant Carlson's biography, however. I'm surprised the page doesn't have a "controversies" section or subsection. If it did, material like this, information about Carlson's head writer, and material about advertiser withdrawals could all be found in the same place. KidAd (💬💬) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the main page for the show does have them. I personally think this section is too long given there is a main article on the subject. As such the content on this page should be a summary of the content from the main page. Depending on the length of the material here it is due to mention the shown has courted controversy related X,Y and Z. However, this level of detail is probably too much since it's more about the show than Carlson himself. It might be DUE on the show's page but per RECENT I would support including things like this for a least 6 months. The controversy section becomes as bloated as the McGee's closet and just as unstable. Springee (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. I wanted to trim down the quote (or omit it entirely) while still including pertinent information. I will pare down the language and find a better home for it. KidAd (💬💬) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this doxxxing accusation; especially considering several RS have noted the diversionary coincidence of the episode the day the sexual harassment lawsuit was filed against him.[22][23][24] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, looks like speculation to me. Wait and see if it actually happens. I am skeptical: doxxing is more the far right's thing than that of mainstream journalism. Guy (help!) 21:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I really doubt it would happen now. For argument sake assume it was true, what are the odds the NYT would do it now? It would validate Carlson's claims. Anyway, I see it as undue in context of the full biography.

@Springee: the lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News people (most notably Ed Henry) should not have been removed[25] under WP:BLPCRIME as it is a civil lawsuit and Carlson is definitely a public figure. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It accuses him of sexual misconduct. I think that should fall into the "not until proven guilty" bucket. Springee (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Areu is not credible. https://spectator.us/fox-news-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-cathy-areu-jennifer-eckhart/ NPalgan2 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

She may very well not be (I have no idea) but that is completely irrelevant to whether we should mention the existence of this lawsuit or not. Volunteer Marek 08:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to us to evaluate whether the accusations are true or not and BLPCRIME does not apply to a public figure. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" - Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

However, it is for us to say that we don't put such accusations into the article until there is some measure of evidence to support them. The material the spectator brings up is certainly troubling. Again, BLPCRIME. The material was challenged and at this point consensus is arguably against inclusion, certainly not for which is the standard in this case. Springee (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What concensus? BLPCRIME doesn't apply here! Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. BLPCRIME doesn't apply, Carlson is a public figure, the information is well-sourced. I see no reason to not include it in the article. JimKaatFan (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is already being discussed at the BLP Noticeboards, I threw it out for them review also.[26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, please quote directly which part of WP:BLPCRIME is relevant here. Volunteer Marek 08:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, between this discussion and the discussion here [[27]] a consensus for inclusion hasn't been established. Per policy NOCON the material needs to stay out until a consensus is established. Springee (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is basically you and Mr.Ernie objecting on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds, which isn’t a legitimate reason for removal. You claimed that somehow your edits were justified by WP:BLPCRIME but when asked repeatedly to explain how exactly that policy was relevant, you have failed to respond. You can’t go running around screaming “no consensus” when you refuse to answer even basic points raised on talk. That looks like you’re just trying to stymie the discussion and stall the inclusion of what is obviously notable and encyclopedic content. Volunteer Marek 17:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you need to look at the BLPN discussion. NPalgan2 appears to also be skeptical of inclusion. That's three editors vs yourself, JimKaatFan and Morbidthoughts. That's on this talk page alone. A few more editors on both sides of the discussion on BLPN. So where is the consensus. So please list list all the editor for/against be fore restoring again. Springee (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean morbidthoughts, JimKaatFan, Volunteer Marek, JzG, and DimaDick. Further determining consensus is based on the underlying policies argued, and the assertion of BLPCRIME on a public figure is ridiculous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO believes there is no BLP violation, but his opinion on inclusion is unclear. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be sure to ping ALL editors from the BLPN discussion. Pinging just one is a violation of WP:VOTESTACKING. Springee (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not votestacking since the ping was to clarify the specific position. You go ping anyone you think is unclear also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

VS Masem, NPalgan2, Mr Ernie and myself. So by weight of numbers we are at no-consensus. I think Masem's argument here [[28]] is pretty clear. We are dealing with allegations, not proven facts. We should err on the side of protecting the BLP subjects rather than repeating minor news stories. It isn't at all clear this would pass the TENYEARTEST. If the story develops into something bigger we can always add things later. Remember, we have NOTIMELIMIT and waiting would help avoid issues of RECENT. Springee (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, we are dealing with allegations, but these are notable allegations. One famous person filed a lawsuit against another famous person regarding sexual harassment. It's notable and covered by many many reliable sources. And yes Masem has made an actual policy based argument here (he's wrong but at least he's made it - Masem basically has a very strict interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS in general, an approach which while respectable, has not found support among rest of the community). That's ONE person actually making an argument. You and Mr Ernie have just been screaming "no consensus!" WITHOUT providing any policy rationale. I guess now you're gonna jump on Mason's argument because you failed to make one of your own. That's still a minority though. Stop pretending there's no consensus - you do not have veto power here. Or arguments. Volunteer Marek 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I support his approach. Too much gets accepted it in Wikipedia just because it is "political" or likely to be possibly considered notable in the future instead of encyclopedic. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my agreement with Emir, Springee, Masem, and others. Wait and see how this turns out. Maybe it will end up belonging, but not yet. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're also on your third revert by the way, Springee. I don't believe coverage of being sued by one of a frequent guest for sexual harassment is a repeating minor news story with sources ranging from Vanity Fair to the Washington Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've requested page protection to stop the edit warring. There is no consensus for this material and you can't just keep adding it. Please have a glance at WP:ONUS before restoring. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

At the very least if this goes in the article we need a sentence like "Amber Athey wrote in The Spectator that she had found "many basic inaccuracies" in Athey's story. A lawyer for Areu told Athey that Areu had misremembered some aspects." https://spectator.us/fox-news-lawsuit-ed-henry-tucker-carlson-cathy-areu-jennifer-eckhart/ NPalgan2 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

So, that's kind of her entire lawsuit falling apart. Got the dates wrong, what she claims he said isn't represented by the facts, and got the number of appearances wrong after she claims she was limited? There is no way this belongs in the article, as the fact check runs 3 times longer than the allegations. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

[1] ttps://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/506456-tucker-carlson-wrongly-claims-coronavirus

[2] ttps://www.salon.com/2020/07/08/fox-news-hosts-downplay-surge-in-coronavirus-cases-dispute-science-on-masks-and-social-distancing/

[3] ttps://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-wrongly-claims-masks-distancing-have-no-basis-science-1516186

[4] ttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/8/tucker-carlson-rips-coronavirus-mitigation-steps-a/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]