Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 8

Aug 27 edit - inclusion of Rittenhouse material
I removed the Rittenhouse material with a comment that it was UNDUE. My argument is this article is not a laundry list of controversial things Carlson has said. His views on BLM as a topic is due for this topic but this particular instance isn't. Note that this is now about half of the BLM content and this has very little to do with Carlson himself. From a procedural POV, Ceoil, once the material was removed, best practice is WP:BRD. Arguably the material had consensus when you restored it by weight of numbers (2:1) but per ONUS you should have addressed my concerns prior to restoring the text. Once PackMechEng removed it a second time the next step should have been starting a discussion. Springee (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed again, this is blatantly undue. You put it well when you said this is not a laundry list of everything they have said on the subject. This does not give a clear insight on Carlson in general. This is also really odd that it is in the Black Lives Matter section as well since the second source does not even mention the group and the first one has one sentence on it. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed it is undue for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Carlson's notability is based almost entirely his broadcasted commentary. This may be something that is worth including in the article given the noteworthiness of the murders and Carlson's extraordinary comments (even for him) in which he appears to condone vigilante violence. It seems there's been quite a blowback. The extensive international coverage suggests this material may have to be included per WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 🖋 12:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why we have RECENT. How many times have we seen other inflammatory, or even out of context statements, that get a lot of sniping from the talking heads right after the fact but then fade away as the next news cycle happens?  If this ends up with staying power we should have a better idea in a few months.  Until then it's UNDUE to add it as yet another controversy section.  Also, until the facts become clearer we don't have good context to say Carlson's views of events were way out of line or just not well aligned with people on the other side of the political fence.  Springee (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Two minds over this I agree it might (but only might) be undue. But it has received a lot of coverage, and (given the crowd funding effort) is not over yet.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Rittenhouse case isn't over and it will get more coverage in the future. But this is about Carlson's comments and the talking heads that replied.  Again, we are supposed to summarize, not just list each item that upset the media rabble.  Springee (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just the media rabble, the victims relatives might be a bit pissed as well seeing him defend someone who shot and killed their relatives.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But that falls into the speculative. There may be other families who were deeply hurt by something Carlson said at some point.  Springee (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about defending what has been charged as murder. That is a bit different form just saying something offensive.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You assuming something will get more coverage in the future does not mean we throw WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT out the window. This is a WP:BLP so caution should be exercised. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, mostly undue for now - although a single sentence about the controversy for now seems fine. Does anyone still remember when Carlson caused controversy by criticizing some New York Times reporters by name on air? Or when he was accused of sexual harrasment? Those both happened one month ago. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that a sentence or two is due. There's tons of reliable sources that can be used for this. Lots of coverage. Ignoring it and scrubbing it from the article makes no sense. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Due or undue is determined by RS coverage, so we're far beyond that being in question. RS coverage tells us it's due, so a couple of sentences are in order. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots of sources have said things about TC. A Google news search for "Tucker Carlson" returned 3.5 million hits.  At some point we have to move from mentioned, to "mentioned after time has past".  Hence why per RECENT we should take a wait and see attitude.  Beyond that, how does this content make the reader of this article better informed.  What is the reader supposed to take away from this?  I think this is one of the big problems with these sort of "things X said that were shocking" lists.  This type of content is supporting evidence.  It's an example of something about Carlson but what?  If there isn't a topic sentence this supports why is it here?  We shouldn't put content in an article just because it resulted in a bunch of noise in the next 24 hrs.  We put it in because it will still be significant in 10 years.  This doesn't obviously rise to that level so we should take a wait and see attitude.  Springee (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've listed 10 sources above. Here are 10 more At this point, we're way PAST WP:DUE. - MrX 🖋 17:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MrX, please review RECENT. The idea is to prevent "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.".  A number of low quality articles (BI, Huffpo, Variety, The Cut etc) making the latest fuss about something TC said is not DUE.  We can always add it later if it shows staying power.  Springee (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, please review WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN, and please stop telling editors to review essays and explanatory supplements that are not part of policy. - MrX 🖋 19:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with DUE. RECENT is an explanatory supplement to DUE.  The one links to the other.  Trying to apply the WELLKNOWN part of BLP into this case is a forced fit.  Carlson is well known for saying things that result in controversy.  However, that is not how this was added to the article.  If this were in a section saying "Carlson has a long history of making inflammatory comments" then this could be a supporting example.  If this were a section where we had RSs saying Carlson is a believer in "property rights over lives" (I'm inventing that one) then this would be a supporting statement.  Given the long list of inflammatory things Carlson says each year, why does this one rise to the top of the list?  Has he even lost advertisers because of it?  Springee (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because two people died and one was maimed. And because at least 20 sources took notice. In other words, WP:NPOV. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like perhaps you ought to review WP:RECENT, since you cite it a lot but don't seem to understand it. It does not condemn or even discourage the idea of covering breaking news; in fact, it is completely neutral on the topic, merely listing common arguments for and against it.  It is far more nuanced than the take you generally seem to present it as - nothing about it is "well, this is recent and controversial, so let's cite WP:RECENT."  Furthermore, the examples it gives focus on extreme bias - articles that are "bloated" with recent material.  It does not at all support the idea that an entire topic can ever be entirely excluded from an article solely on the basis that it is recent, merely that we have to be cautious with the text and relative weight we devote to topics to avoid the entire article being bloated with such things.  To cite it as an argument to exclude a sentence or two devoted to something that has attracted overwhelming coverage is simply misunderstanding it as a policy - do you actually, genuinely believe that Carlson's article is "bloated" with recent material to the point where it threatens to crowd out his history?  I am not seeing it.  Do you actually believe that this is at risk of becoming an article "overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens"? --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, my use and understanding is just fine. Trying to summarize my arguments as "this is recent and controversial, so let's cite RECENT" is to show that you haven't read my arguments.  Springee (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the time has come to add a "Controversial statements" section such that the numerous examples of Carlson's controversial statements that have thus far been excluded as UNDUE individually become DUE in aggregate. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BEBOLD. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me. There are plenty of sources summarizing the fact that he has a history of controversial statements itself as an important topic to understanding his biography, eg.  (from the last one, scroll down and note that it devotes a third of the text to his history of this sort of comment.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind Controversy sections. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's something to keep in mind, but it's not a rule, and if the nature of the subject is such that he's constantly embroiled in controversy because of his comments, then the article structure will have to find a way to accommodate that. - MrX 🖋 22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A section relating to his controversial statements and their impacts on Carlson is probably DUE. For instance, some of his previous controversial statements have resulting in a loss of advertisers from his show.  Additionally it is certainly due to stay he has repeatedly come under media scrutiny/criticism for statements.  A summarized list here could include things like this example.  Part of why this was UNDUE as added was it wasn't a single sentence reference as part of a larger topic.  Instead it was a stand alone paragraph that was half the BLM entry.  To be honest I'm not sure this really can reflect a position on BLM's political positions.  It does partially express an opinion about the rioting that has accompanied some of the BLM protests.  I think it would be a good idea if such a section were based around RSs talking specifically about how Carlson's controversial statements have impacted Carlson (loss of advertisers, harassment at his home, criticism in the press).  That would help provide a frame work to explain why this is part of his BLP.  This shouldn't be used as an excuse to dump a list of "controversial things Carlson has said" into the article, rather it is meant to provide better insight into Carlson and how these statements impact him.  Springee (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Carlson is on TV every day and says controversial things every day that are seen by informed observers as racist, nativist, irrational, stupid, uninformed, etc. We don't have to list everything he has said but merely explain how he is perceived and provide a few noteworthy examples. We shouldn't try to prove the general perception of him. TFD (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should try to prove the general perception of him, but this is different to listing everything he has ever said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not exhaustively list every controversial things he says. We should only list noteworthy examples that have received extensive coverage, like this one. - MrX 🖋 11:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The RS coverage is substantial enough to warrant a mention. Experts see the rhetoric as extremely dangerous. It'll no doubt be covered in academic publications about media, politics and extremism in the Trump era. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone says stupid things every day over a decades long career, how do we determine which ones to include? Consider the article on Adolph Hitler. It doesn't mention every speech he made. It just gives summarizes what he talked about. TFD (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That really hits on one of my concerns here. There is such a long list of things Carlson has said that pissed off at least a few of the media talking/writing heads. How do we separate the truly significant from what become, yesterday's news? I think Masem has a good suggestion in that, with stuff like this, we wait a month or so before adding. If this content still makes sense in a few months, go for it. It's just too early to judge at this point. Springee (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternately, Recentism suggests rewrites after some time, for concision and balance. Llll5032 (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From just a few lines later, Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Springee (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And one line afterward: Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Llll5032 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just have to ask, how is this material I removed related to his views on BLM? The sources do not seem to make that connection. Is there a better wording or location this material should go to and if so why? Also how does it differ, as TFD notes, from all the other crap he says that also gets coverage? PackMecEng (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously because a the context of the Kenosha unrest, and there are indeed sources that tie it to BLM. It doesn't matter though, because we the content should be included somewhere per WP:DUEWEIGHT because the coverage is both extensive and directly relevant to Carlson's career which is the only reason he has a Wikipedia biography. - MrX 🖋 11:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Synth and ILIKEIT arguments are not quite enough. The material added based on the sources used do not belong in the BLM section and do not show his views or give insight into him either. You also failed to address any of the other concerns listed by me and above. At this point your only argument for this material is yeah well I got some sources that came out recently and that is no where near enough. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Controversy sections suggests such a section, "with subsection titles indicating what these are about." And "Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources." Llll5032 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding if this material is DUE []. Please offer your take here. Springee (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As somebody following Carlson since he was friends with Christopher Hitchens, who once had high hopes but now is totally disillusioned, I don't think Ceoil  (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really what is happening here. Just routine removal of undue trivia that does not expand the subject. Also there is no criticism section and the section it was in does not make sense for the content. In fact it is more looking like a run of the mill coat rack type situation. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but no. It seems that consensus, reflected by on-wiki voices here, and by the overwhelming weight of international of press coverage, indicates that his recent condoning of murder, which is how he came to promonince on FOX, lets not forget, is not ok, or at least....symptomatic of hs long term race bating approach, which I "feel" makes it now worth a mention, backed up I might add my multiple similar RS, that take a similar overview of his "career" trajectory.  Ceoil  (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of original research there. But I am glad you decided to come to talk instead of blindly reverting again. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No its not; its reflection of RS consensus. To argue its not, is frankly absurd.  Ceoil  (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, I hope you realise you are supporting whistles towards vigilante lynchings here. Ceoil  (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay now you are just straight up spewing BS nonsense. I think we are done here, wtf. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, the accusation of murder may be a BLP violation. So far there is not a consensus as to murder vs self defense and it seems this is yet another thing to have a left right divide [].  Also to which press coverage are you referring, that of the shooting or of Carlson's comments?  Hypothetical here, what if we end up with a not guilty verdict?  Also, per the material here [] it seems there is a lot of split opinions on this with many sources saying that the shootings were self defense.  I'm not going to suggest this SP Youtube lawyer's analysis pass RS but he certainly presents a case for an acquittal on the most serious charges while suggesting that the possessing a firearm charges will probably stick[].  Since, as best I can tell, all involved where Caucasian why the comment about race baiting? Springee (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Springee, I don't see how repeating his own words might contravene BLP; its an interesting take but lets see how others on this page view that claim. Ceoil  (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When did Rittenhouse say he "murdered" anyone? You have accused him of "unlawful, premeditated homicide", not "killing someone".  Springee (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry should have been clearer; the RS say he "incited" rather "committed", unlawful murder. Ceoil  (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You said "condoning of murder". That accuses Rittenhouse of committing "murder" and Carlson of "condoning of murder".  That's two BLP violations.  None of this really matters in with respect to this question.  The question here isn't what Rittenhouse did, only if this particular comment and the associated criticism is DUE for inclusion in the article and if so in what form.  Certainly some might agree that it's DUE in some form but not the one that was removed on the 27th.  Springee (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Springee, either technically (in wiki parlnce), or using any [detached] yard stick of reason, its not a violation; I am advocating repeating what Carlson actually said, in his own words, and what a reasonable person (or almost every RS) might conclude from it. I'm not sure why you are so confused about all this, it seems cut and dry to me. But we can go over again if its to complicated for you. Ceoil  (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

First, please indicate that you edited your comment after I replied to it (the comment time stamped 03:44). It wasn't a huge edit but if you are going to suggest I misunderstood something it's best to make sure what I replied to is what people will read. Second, regardless of what you later said you meant, what you said above (time stamp 02:57), what I said was a BLP violation, was (paraphrased) "Carlson condoned Rittenhouse's act of murder". Thus far Rittenhouse has not (to the best of my knowledge) confessed to or been convicted of murder. Thus we do not call him a murder. Second, Carlson isn't condoning murder. As Carlson sees it, Rittenhouse acted in self defense. Saying you support someone's (for argument sake) self defense actions is not saying you condone murder. That is why I said your post is a BLP violation. Springee (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the text. The stonewalling here does not mean there is no consensus to post it. -- Calidum  16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Should article include Carlson's statement on Rittenhouse
RfC withdrawn by nominator in favor of more neutral wording

Should the Black Lives Matter (2020) section include the following statement?
 * During the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Carlson defended 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who had shot and killed two demonstrators, claiming self-defense. Carlson said that Rittenhouse "maintained order" when no one else would.

JimKaatFan (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Votes - withdrawn RfC

 * Yes. Statement was covered in many reliable sources. It's accurate, factual, gets to the point, and is well-sourced. Only reason to exclude it is to whitewash Carlson's record of making outrageous statements. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ish its clearly been reported on, and defending a killer is rather significant. But its only of many gittish things he has said. So on balance it might just pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per extensive coverage as noted in the above section. The whole discussion above is an example of moving the goalposts. First it was "no one is covering it." Then it was, "so what if people are covering it, it's still undue." Then the typical cry BLP defense. -- Calidum  16:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We go through this same game each time Carlson says something that gets people in a stir. Remember, this is meant to be a summary of Carlson, not a play by play. What is significant is that many of his comments over the years have been controversial and sometimes resulted in things like loss of advertisers on his various programs. What isn't significant is every individual controversial claim. Yes, this comment was quoted by a number of talking heads but in what context? How does this comment tell readers more about Carlson? What topic sentence/summary sentence does this comment support? We have a some sources that suggest this was a controversial thing to say. We have other sources that quote it as a backdrop for articles about Rittenhouse or the shootings. As backdrop it doesn't do much to suggest it needs to be in an article about Carlson the person. Also, per RECENT, we see a lot of discussion about this but a Google News search for "Trucker Carlson" returns 1.5 million hits. Carlson has become a popular point of focus for "look how crazy Fox" or "look how crazy the right" type comments from the other side of the isle. Finally, remember, this isn't about his show, this is a BLP about Carlson himself. If this comment has an impact on the show that is a separate discussion. This article is bloated with "controversy" data points and it makes for a poor article if all we do is quote, absent any context, every single one line sentence someone has felt was controversial. If this were included as part of some larger summary statement it could be DUE but certainly not as a stand alone paragraph in the BLM paragraph (is even a BLM thing or commentary about the widespread rioting we've seen in 2020?). Springee (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is substantial RS coverage about Carlson's comments, indicating their importance. Furthermore, experts see this particular rhetoric as extremely dangerous (prominent talking heads sanctioning vigilante violence, possibly murder). It'll no doubt be covered in academic publications about media, politics and extremism in the Trump era. As for Springee's "How does this comment tell readers more about Carlson?", the comment clearly indicates to any sensible person that Carlson is an extremist and that engages in incendiary rhetoric. It may tell readers a lot about him, helping to distinguish him from, say, Judy Woodruff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You just made an argument for why the content, as suggested shouldn't be added. Essentially you are arguing what I've argued, this is a supporting example for a section on the controversial things Carlson says.  Something like a topic paragraph saying "Carlson says things that are considered controversial.  This has resulted in the following impacts to himself, his employer, his sponsors etc.  Critics say such rhetoric is problematic for X, Y and Z."  After that would be supporting examples with statements and reactions.  What we have above is a stand alone "soundbite" that lacks context and doesn't tell the reader what to make of it or what others made of it.  That is why, as is, it shouldn't be included.  Springee (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles on Wikipedia are built piece by piece. Requiring that every single addition of content be part of a major thematic overhaul with countless other items that fit the same theme is not something that is done on this encyclopedia and strikes me as the latest hurdle that has been erected in order to whitewash the page of any controversy when all other justifications have fallen flat. I also strongly suspect that such overhauls will inevitably be blocked anyway with whatever new hurdle can be found. If one checks the talk page archives on this article, you have opposed pretty much every single piece of content that in some fleshes out that Tucker Carlson is an incendiary and controversial figure who pushes extremist rhetoric. If you got your way, a reader would be unable to tell that there's a difference between a media figure like Tucker Carlson and someone like Gwen Ifill. It's just whitewashing and a disservice to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the bad faith "whitewashing" accusations and well as the claims that "such overhauls" would be blocked unless you are saying you would oppose such changes. It is certainly an established part of good articles that they have some form of structure where individual facts support a higher level point.  That doesn't require getting all the information together first and in this case, well the top level RSs should already be there based on your own comments.  The "scarlet letter" list of sins sort of articles have long been criticized at NPOVN and BLPN.  Springee (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be bad faith if you just showed up here once and argued against including a quote from Carlson. But here's the facts: you argue against including this type of material every time, you edit war over it, and at this point, given the volume of material you've attempted (often successfully) to keep off this article (and everything you've argued against can be perceived as negatively highlighting Carlson), it's not bad faith 'at all to question your record. It's not rooted in Wikipedia policy, it's rooted in defending Tucker Carlson. Any reasonable person can see that, looking at your edit history. So no, charging Snooganssnoogans with a bad faith attack is not a valid defense. I think other editors deserve some answers at this point. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, can you link to some of the "scarlet letter" criticisms at NPOVN and BLPN? I have an open mind on that, just want to see where you are coming from. Llll5032 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will give it a shot. As these are discussions I've read over the years I don't recall every time.  Most I found with a few key word searches (scarlet letter, laundry list).  For these search for "scarlet" to find the exact text [][][][][]<-I opened that one with a different question.  A particular admin talks about the "Scarlet Letter" effect with BLPs in particular.  This is the desire to put all the bad stuff in them to convince readers the subject is a bad person.  Moving on to the "laundry" key word... in this case an admin with whom I frequently disagree puts it bluntly [], "This is a perennial problem with biographies of shitty people. It's difficult for any reality-based article to look like anything other than a hit piece. The solution is usually to focus on quality of sourcing and ensuring that it's written in narrative style, not a laundry list of the shitty things the person did. "  I'm sure my limited key word search didn't hit all the discussions I was trying to recall and I wasn't involved with all of the ones I listed.  That's one of the problem's with Wikipedia.  We discuss a lot but often forget where those discussions occurred!  Springee (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You just said, in so many words, that Tucker Carlson is a shitty person. If you had said that directly, it would have been a wonderful defense against accusations of whitewashing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Partly yes (changed vote). In the context of the Black Lives Matter section, this controversy will pass a 10-year test (WP:10YT). But "defended" isn't a word that the cited RS use. The verb should match the RS. And any words inside quotation marks should be Carlson's exact words. Llll5032 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a misquote. Apparently Mr Carlson actually said "How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would". Wikipedia would be attributing the deciding to Mr Carlson, when in fact he's saying someone else decided it. By the way "maintained order" shouldn't have been inside quote marks even if this was acceptable, because those weren't Mr Carlson's exact words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a flat-out falsehood. Check the sources - nothing in them conflicts with the text as proposed. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Huh, I've watched the original. Peter is correct that the quote is flawed because it isn't his exact words, and problematic because it is misleading. (I've expanded on this in the comments section) S Philbrick (Talk)  19:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Carlson did not say Rittenhouse acted in self-defense or maintained order. He said that a court would decide if he acted in self-defense and that Rittenhouse believed he was maintaining order. TFD (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The sentence proposed is a misquote and BLP Violation. Sources cited don't present what Carlson said that way.  --Kyohyi (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the CBS News link above: "Are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder?" Carlson said during his show on Wednesday night. "How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?" -- Calidum  18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Carlson said that Rittenhouse "maintained order" when no one else would." is not an accurate summary of "How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?". One would be a statement of action as in what they did, the other is a statement of what their beliefs might be.  --Kyohyi (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Better fit for an article detailing reactions to Rittenhouse. We can't begin to list every reaction Tucker has to whatever is in the news that week when his show is structured in a way where he's doing that constantly. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Springee and TFD. This is both undue, and an inaccurate presentation of what was said. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Especially as written, per TFD. I would prefer also to wait a few months and see if it still seems like an important story. It is likely another flash in the pan. We should note in the article that Carlson is controversial, and give some examples, but it does not seem clear at this point that this is among the more notable examples. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes But please include the whole quote ("How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?"). Make it clear that it is an attempt at a rhetorical question. UNDUE doesn't apply, in my opinion, because the article is relatively short. Im The IP  (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments - Withdrawn RfC

 * Comment It is probably helpful if editors are clear if they support the exact proposed edit vs if they thing the material is due in some other context. As I said above, it may be due in context of "Carlson's comments are frequently seen as controversial... [examples follow] but that isn't how it's being proposed here.  Springee (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to cast doubt on the validity of the votes that are voting "yes"? And is it coincidence that you always, 100% of the time, are against adding any material to this article that even slightly highlights a negative perception of Carlson? I think it's worth exploring at this point; it's been going on for a long time, and we're way past WP:AGF at this point. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can start by showing an edit of yours adding any materiel that creates a positive perception of Carlson ? I haven't been following this for very long, so perhaps I am wrong about this, but it seems to me you're the mirror image of what you state above. Trying to reconnect (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I agree with this observation. As I hope my comment below makes clear, I am opposed to the edit as currently constructed (and fixing it is more than minor wordsmithing). I'm on the fence whether an accurate portrayal deserves inclusion but leaning no, as this tempest in a teapot, if correctly summarized, is an exceedingly minor event in his life and probably doesn't deserve detailed discussion. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Current proposed edit is unacceptable (I'll be happy to weigh in again if an edit matching the facts is proposed.)
 * The proposed edits suggests that Carlson was "claiming self-defense". If you listen to what Carlson actually said at the 2:03 you will hear:
 * (Carlson) "So what does that amount to? We're unsure—a court will decide whether what you just saw qualifies as self-defense...
 * He clearly did not defend the actions as self-defense, he clearly states that this conclusion is up to a court to decide.
 * As others have pointed out, stating that Carlson defended Rittenhouse is too strong a statement. People who listen to the piece can make up their own minds, but we are not supposed to make them up for them. Neither of the two sourced articles claims that Carlson defended Rittenhouse. One of the articles includes a quote from Brian Tyler Cohen, "You all just paid for Tucker Carlson to defend a murderer on air," but that's not the conclusion of the source, and the court itself is problematic because Rittenhouse hasn't been found guilty of murder.
 * The second sentence with the quote "maintained order" is multiply problematic. As others have pointed out it's not even an accurate quote. If we must have a quote, we should include a longer quote: "How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?" among other things, this would correct the misimpression left by the headlines of both articles which left the impression that Carlson was asserting that that the goal of the action was to "maintain order". Perhaps it was, but Carlson isn't leaping to that conclusion, he is hypothesizing that Rittenhouse might have felt this way. It's not the same thing.
 * Both of these sources do a poor job of covering this issue, which is especially astounding given that they managed to quote what was said. It be nice if we could find a source who treated this issue honestly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Carlson defended Rittenhouse, according to a wealth of reliable sources
There's too many to list here. But I'll start.
 * The Guardian
 * Washington Post
 * Newsweek
 * USA Today
 * Mercury News
 * MarketWatch
 * Vanity Fair
 * The Independent
 * Chicago Sun-Times

Additionally, common sense tells you he was defending Rittenhouse when you watch the clip. Do we go by what reliable sources say when it matches what we see and hear? Of course we do. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Carlson's comment about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's will
According to the Washington Post Mr. Carlson declared a day after Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of cancer: "It’s hard to believe, and I’m going to choose not to believe that she said that, because I don’t think that people on their deathbeds are thinking about who’s president. You hope not — that’s a pretty limited way to think as you die." Wouldn't that say a ton about the character of a man if he (is not intoxicated and despite this) calls the account of her granddaughter about her will doubtful and "chooses" not to accept/believe it and even qualifies that it would be ... to think about that? And that on the day after she has died. So i cannot help to be frank: I've watched his show quite some time and regret every minute. --Sunsarestars (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right: like all the US right-wingers, he sees the world of facts as a sort of supermarket where he buys only those facts he needs for his purposes. But:
 * Are you proposing to add that to the article? If no, you are in the wrong place. If yes, "Wouldn't that say a ton about the character of a man" is now how to decide such things. Instead, the amount of reliable sources commenting on it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not comparable to doubting / denying Climate Change. It's a reminder of: Beware, don't ever let politics steal your heart." --Sunsarestars (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello? Are you listening? Is this about improving the article or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Who would've expected this was a slippery slope, include one quote by Carlson and we'll have an outpouring of about 500 more to follow. This article ain't gonna hold up by the end of the year at this rate, God help us when 2024 rolls around and we-know-what happens. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just introduce an upper limit of quotes. If the number is reached and somebody wants to add another, one of the old ones has to go. That way, any new entry has to top another one.
 * At the moment it's about 50. The Bader Ginsburg quote is just a minor reality denial and can beat none of them. Trump does five of those any day. Piffle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

wp:IMPARTIAL tone used in the introduction of BLM material
The BLM section's opening sentence is problematic. "...Carlson attempted to stoke fears about the intentions of Black Lives Matter protestors, ..." The current version has been around for a bit over a month. Prior to 6 August the sentence had been stable stating, "Carlson blamed the Black Lives Matter movement for the looting and rioting that followed the police killing of George Floyd" The problem with the current version is "attempted to stoke fears" fails impartial and is not an accurate summary of any of the supporting citations. Per IMPARTIAL the Wikitext should stated the facts without "picking sides". Stating that Carlson is attempting to stoke fears suggests a motive beyond stating his POV on the subject. It suggests an attempt to mislead for ulterior or nefarious ends. To avoid issues of impartial I used language that mirrored that of the NYT (one of the sources), "Carlson cast doubts on the intentions of Black Lives Matter...". , your reversion claiming "stable text" is questionable given the last stable text was the version before the 6 August edit. That edit was never discussed so it has limited SILENT consensus. The fact that changed the sentence in the past few days says the sentence has now been challenged. Can you justify why we should use the impartial text vs that which mirrors the NYT? Springee (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Absent any explanation why the impartial text was restored I've reverted back to the NTY based phrasing. Springee (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)