Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 19

Debate over whether Tucker Carlson is a “conspiracy theorist”
Ever since Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox News as a result of knowingly lying to his audience, which was a large factor in the 787 million dollar settlement Fox had to pay for spreading known misinformation, Tucker Carlson has had free range to be his own boss and say what he wants without the fear of repercussion. Tucker Carlson has continued to spread countless conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false, in which he continues to spread as if they weren’t proven false, as this is how he makes his living. People like Alex Jones and Mark Dice are correctly described as “conspiracy theorists” in their wikipedia bio’s. There is absolutely no reason to dispute whether Tucker Carlson is considered a “conspiracy theorist” or not at this point in his career, whether you are partisan to his opinion or not. There are more than enough credible sources to confirm that. There is no debate to be had whether Tucker Carlson is a conspiracy theorist as he no longer has to preface his conspiracies as “just asking questions” on Fox News. Anyone reverting him being classified as a “conspiracy theorist” is doing so because of partisan political views and denial Dwest25 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please offer the sources that describe Tucker Carlson as a conspiracy theorist. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dwest25, that final sentence of yours is wp:casting aspersions and not wp:assuming good faith. It's also demonstrably untrue; large numbers of experienced and well-intentioned editors here regularly protect from BLP violations the articles about people they despise or hold in contempt, and the reason they do it is that Wikipedia follows the sources.
 * You're inexperienced here, so people are trying to be patient as you learn how we work, but our patience won't last forever. Making accusations of editing outside of policy in aid of personal political views without actual evidence that's what's happening is something that can get you blocked from editing. Continuing to do it after being warned is considered wp:disruptive, also a blockable offense. Stop now. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where have I made my personal political views known? Acknowledging the fact that Tucker Carlson IS without a shadow of a doubt a conspiracy theorist and providing sources to support that claim doesn’t mean I’m on either political side, regardless of whether it implies it or not. Dwest25 (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dwest25, I don't think I said anything about you making your personal political views known, and honestly from a policy standpoint no one cares what your personal political views are. What I said is you've accused other people of politically-motivated editing. You wrote Anyone reverting him being classified as a “conspiracy theorist” is doing so because of partisan political views and denial. (Emphasis mine). And that is casting aspersion and assuming bad faith, which is not okay here. Valereee (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, in layman’s terms, according to you Tucker Carlson isn’t a conspiracy theorist and shouldn’t be labeled as such? Dwest25 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dwest25, we don't care what I think. I'm not even editing here, just adminning. What I would advise is that you find reliable sources calling him that and use those sources to try to persuade other editors here. Valereee (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what we think; what matters is if that label is widely used (per MOS:LABEL) in articles that can be individually verified as reliable and not WP:RSOPINION or WP:HEADLINE. The majority of articles that label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist are non-academic and are likely to be heavily partisan, lacking objective neutrality. Inclusion of a label either in wiki-voice or via attribution without a significant number of WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources that are objectively neutral is a violation of BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be "neutral". They have to be "reliable" as per our evaluations of reliability. The majority of articles that label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist are non-academic and are likely to be heavily partisan. You said, It doesn't matter what we think. That appears to be your personal evaluation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * O3, can you clarify that what you mean is that the statement "The majority of articles that label Carlson as a conspiracy theorist are non-academic and are likely to be heavily partisan" is the personal evaluation you're talking about, not "It doesn't matter what we think; what matters is if that label is widely used", which is the policy KCM was referring to? Just trying to help parse this for newer editors. Valereee (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Facts matter. In fact, reporting the facts and the truth is as paramount as it’s ever been in the history of mankind RIGHT NOW as we speak - in a time where dangerous debunked conspiracy theories, misinformation and propaganda is at the tips of peoples fingers 24/7 365.
 * Refer to Alex Jones and Mark Dice’s wikipedia pages. What makes them “conspiracy theorists” and not Tucker Carlson? Tucker Carlson has irrefutably promoted more false conspiracy theories than the both of them combined. He just has a much larger platform to do it. Where is the difference between Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones/Mark Dice? What am I missing? Dwest25 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly how many of these separate discussions about the same topic, are going to be opened on this BLP's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

POV and false neutrality
Regardless of what one might think of Carlson, he is increasingly described in numerous good WP:RS as a "Russian propagandist" and "conspiracy theorist". Notably, many RS also make a point of explicitly stating that Carlson "is not a journalist". The article should reflect this, and not try to claim that Carlson is a "conservative commentator" or any other euphemism that depict him as more respectable or thrustworthy than how RS describe him. Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Commentator and Journalist are not synonyms. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this has been discussed extensively in the past but if reliable sources are now explicitly saying that he's not a journalist, we can certainly update the article to reflect that. Could you provide a few examples that we can work from? –dlthewave ☎ 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * True, but I see very few RS describing him as "commentator" either. The two terms dominating in RS seem to be "propagandist" and "conspiracy theorist". As it's our task to reflect RS, I would suggest using those terms in the first sentence. I will add some references here in the disscussion.

Plane crash source
I think I found an offically verified record for the plane crash which Tucker Carlson was on. The record also contains a lot of detailed information about the flight. The information Tucker gave matches all the information in the record. As I am currently unable to edit the article, I ask someone who can to add this source to the relevant section (third paragraph under "Career"). Thanks. CyberOne25 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Citation needed" can be solved easily
In the section "Vladimir Putin interview" there is a "Citation needed"-Template. The bbc.com/news/world-europe-68223148 source after the following sentence does give the needed citation: "outspoken defender of Mr Putin since the war began". This is literally in the text, at least in the 20240222164654 Internet Archive version. You may delete this Talk thread after solving the "Citation needed" in the Wikipedia article. --2003:6:33AE:3D51:B446:1EC7:749:9951 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)