Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Racism Accusations

This article conflates racism with objections to changes in the US electorate caused by unfettered immigration. The US is not peopled sole by those with European ancestry. As recent immigrants, legal or illegal, tend to vote Democratic, it is undeniable that immigration changes the political landscape of the country. Carlson has repeatedly made this point. This article violates WP:POV. There are many sources with conclusions that differ from those cited here. For example, see:https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/14/the-left-claims-tucker-carlson-is-a-white-supremacist-for-quoting-their-plans-for-crushing-republican-voters-through-amnesty/ sbelknap (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and the federalist is not an wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This does seem to be an issue with articles like this. Call it a twice removed problem. The article subject says something. A number of opposed sources saying they don't like it but rarely do we see a reply to the replies. I don't think it's any secret that Democrats do better with citizens who immigrated to the US thus they disproportionately benefit in terms of voters. [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]]. In finding these articles I found others that disagreed with the position so this isn't something that should be considered clear cut. I think if we had a second wave of replies this might not look so one sided. The Federalist may be acceptable in this case since it may be OK to use it as an attributed opinion on this event which is inline with RSP. I think it would depend on the specific use. Springee (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Progressives seem to be more successful at embedding biased content into wikipedia as well. The current state of the Tucker Carlson article seems like a blatant violation of WP:BLP as well as being factually inaccurate. You can pull up on youtube clips where Tucker Carlson goes to get pains to explain that his objection is not a matter of race, but instead a matter of respecting the economic and cultural interests of American citizens. He has made the point that illegal immigration of low skill workers hurts African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans and benefits the ultrarich oligarchs, most of whom are of European ancestry. This article is the poster child for wikipedia unfairness. sbelknap (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Sbelknap - actually, we are supposed to choose sources from a NPOV, and cite those sources to support what we choose to include, and avoid becoming a mirror of news sources. See WP:NOTNEWS & WP:NEWSORG for further information. While The Federalist is not a RS for statements of fact, we can still use it to cite opinions using WP:INTEXT. We should also keep in mind MOS:RACIST - Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. When editors choose only those sources that align with their POV, and are excluding other opinions or factual information, then noncompliance with NPOV may very well be at issue. That can be resolved either by local consensus on the article TP, at WP:NPOVN, or by calling an WP:RfC. Our job as editors is to present all substantial views, and not promote, advocate for, or include only those views in RS we have chosen - NPOV applies to choosing the RS we cite. Furthermore, if those sources are in the echo chamber (reciting a single source newswire) then that material is considered as originating from a single source. Atsme 💬 📧 11:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. We should not report opinions form the primary source, ever. That especially applies to think-tanks, whjose entire aim is to promote specific opinions.

If you want to counter the large number of sources identifying this as a massive red flag, feel free to identify those reliable independent secondary sources that say Carlson's promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory was a legitimate point and not promoting a white supremacist / white nationalist trope. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with your sentiment about "opinions" and they come in all flavors - left, center and right. How those opinions are judged is where we differ because you tend to give more weight to opinions that align with your POV while discounting opinions that don't. I don't judge opinions the same way I do statements of fact. Having 10 different publications repeat an opinion that was initially published by the AP, or Bloomberg, or WaPo or NYTimes doesn't give that opinion any extra weight - context matters when considering the reliability of a source. Aligning with one opinion over another doesn't make either opinion right or wrong - WP editors are not the judges of what opinions are right or wrong - that's OR. When dealing with opinions, we use in-text attribution. A single opinion that is politically opposite to what the echo chamber has published should not be discounted. In fact, in WP we have WP:WEIGHT - ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Some seem to think that when multiple sources publish the same view, be it in a sentence or a paragraph, it's the number of sources publishing it that give it weight rather than the prominence of that view in the source itself. They are overlooking the fact that WEIGHT is about the prominence of each viewpoint in the relative RS (which actually applies more to scientific opinion, and not so much politics). Some tend to completely overlook the following: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents - and to the latter, I'd say liberal views are as significant as conservative views (and vice versa) regardless of whether or not we agree with them, or that they were or were not published in the mainstream echo chamber. Editors are allowed more leeway with opinion pieces, and that also applies to today's opinion journalism. IOW, we don't suppress opposing views based on IDONTLIKEIT - we include all significant views, and let our readers decide. Atsme 💬 📧 22:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, your error is the usual one. Virtually all reality-based media covered Carlson's use of a white nationalist talking point, and most have also covered the fact that actual Nazis are huge fans of his work. There is a broad consensus that Carlson is advancing the cause of racism, and that the "great replacement" bullshit was a concrete example of that.

When something is this widely covered, the weight issue is adequately settled. One story in WaPo? Sure, we can wave that away. This is covered by media across the globe. Carlson has been elevated following the Jan 6 insurrection, and the few remaining honest brokers are being kicked out of Fox. This final complete radicalisation of the US' largest cable network is a huge internbational story and Carlson is at the centre of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, no it does not. It equates the Great Replacement conspiracy theory with racism. Because it is. It equates content that has been welcomed, across a series of segments, by Stormfront, VDARE and The Daily Stormer.

It does so, moreover, based on reliable independent secondary sources, which all reach the same conclusion. If Carlson is not genuinely a white supremacist, then he certainly plays one on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am trying hard to take these assertions seriously but this is difficult, as they are clearly contrafactual. According to the US Census bureau, about three-quarters of Americans are white. Thus, one-quarter of Americans are of some other race or are of mixed race. Immigration dilutes the political clout of those who are *currently* legal residents or citizens with those who are *not currently* legal residents or citizens. This dilution happens to citizens who are white, black, and asian people. Also, as most of the immigrants are Hispanic, and Hispanic is not a race, it is absurd to think of this as racist. One of Carlson's points is that immigration of low-skill immigrants disproportionately affects American citizens who are hispanic and American citizens who are black. The larger point is that the current American citizenry is being diluted by large-scale immigration of persons who are illegal aliens of whatever race. Race isn't the issue at all. (Whether or not one agrees with Carlson about the benefits/harms of immigration is a separate point.) sbelknap (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, weird how so very many people come up witht he same "counterfactual", including actual white supremacists. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

sbelknap, you added a neutrality-disputed tag to the top of this article, but you have not explained with a WP:RS or quoted any policies at WP:NPOV or WP:BLP about what the problem is or how we should fix it. Can you please exactly quote from WP:NPOV or WP:BLP what the violation is? Llll5032 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I believe I clearly explained what the problem is above, but I understand that you do not agree. Perhaps, it would help to take this bit by bit. The article says, "Critics have accused Carlson's show of promoting racism, a charge which he has denied. Interviewed by the Columbia Journalism Review in 2018, Carlson said, "I’m not a racist. I hate racism."" Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center has said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the U.S.]." Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol described Carlson's commentaries in 2018 as "close now to racism" and "ethno-nationalism of some kind, let's call it."

In this paragraph, political opponents of Carlson make an assertion which is countered only by Carlson's own words. These assertions provide no specifics, the charge of "promoting racism" or "mainstreaming…white nationalism" is vague and subjective, and there is no counter from secondary sources, although these do exist. More importantly, this seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:BLP. Accusing somebody of racism or white nationalism is an extremely serious assertion. I propose that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety. sbelknap (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:GRAPEVINE This paragraph is poorly sourced and does not meet verifiability standards. sbelknap (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sbelknap but I don't see how these well-sourced quotations violate WP:GRAPEVINE. Also I think it conforms to WP:BLPBALANCE. I agree that we should include other WP:RSP sources if they have different assessments, but we must not WP:CHERRYPICK from lower-quality sources, because that would violate WP:BLPBALANCE. Can you explain with a quote from WP:BLP how the wording violates WP:BLP? Llll5032 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

These quotations are vague claims made by political enemies of Carlson, reflecting formed conclusions but without citing specific statements made by Carlson. In my view, this is because there have been no such specific racist statements by Carlson nor by his guests. These are thus not verifiable and are of poor quality. There is no denying that these various progressives disagree with Carlson. Yet, doesn't it seem distinctly odd that not even one of these critics musters a specific statement by Carlson that is verifiably racist? The reason for this is that Carlson is not racist in his immigration views, he objects to the volume of immigration (legal and illegal) and to the harmful effects that low-skill immigrants, regardless of race, have on the economic prospects of low-skill American citizens, regardless of race. sbelknap (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, VDARE is not an "enemy" of Carlson. They called it "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired". The Daily Stormer is not a political enemy of Carlson. They like his white supremacist talking points too. Stormfront are not political opponents: they have called him "literally our greatest ally". David Duke thought Carlson should have been the former guy's VP.

Carlson may claim he's not pushing white supremacism, but the white supremacists absolutely think he is, and so do the reality-based media.

References

Guy (help! - typo?) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the wording could certainly be improved by removing the WP:MANDY nonsense - after all, Fox's defense in a libel case is that you can't take Carlson seriously, so we should follow their advice there.

But let's just talk about the sources. ‘Antisemitic, racist and toxic’: Tucker Carlson faces calls to resign after promoting white supremacist ‘replacement’ theory. Notice how the characterisation of his content is not couched as opinion: the great replacement conspiracy theory is white supremacist, and he is promoting it. We can have a spirited discussion about whether he's doing that for clicks or because he's genuinely a white supremacist, but it's very clear that both media commentators and white supremacists think his content is white supremacism.

So really the only question we have to answer is whether to present Tucker Carlson as a far-right talking head whose show is full of white supremacist talking points, or as a white supremacist talking head. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not at all what Carlson has said. In fact, each time he covers this issue, he painstakingly makes clear that he is objecting to immigration as a means of dilution of the political power of current American citizens. It simply is not a racial issue at all, in his telling. sbelknap (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, isn't it odd how both white supremacists and liberals both, pretty much universally, conclude that yes, that is exactly what he's said. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing like that has happened. There is no specific, verifiable assertion that Carlson has said racist things or promoted racism or white nationalism. There are some cherry-picked quotes from various progressives in this article. That is not "pretty much universally."sbelknap (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, nothing like what? VDARE the Daily Stormer and Stormfront praising his segments? It absolutely has. VDARE called it "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired". Carlson's show had previously been praised by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and Stormfront have called him "literally our greatest ally". Guy (help! - typo?) 17:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, the argument you are making is not logically sound. During the run up to the US involvement in Vietnam those opposed to involvement could be broadly classified into two camps (and I'm using hyperbolic language to make the point), this "commie beatniks who hated their country and were too chicken to stand up and fight for it" and the "pragmatic patriots who knew what it was to fight in WW2 and Korea and who assessed this situation and saw it as an unwinnable war that we were inheriting from the French". On the other side you had those who wanted intervention. The interventionists found it very handy to suggest that those who wanted to avoid the conflict for pragmatic reasons were actually just commie beatnik druggies who didn't love their country. We should not confuse the support one might get from racists as reciprocal. However, if one wishes to suppress a message it is often handy to tar that message as something undesirable (commie beatnik, racist etc) rather than actually addressing the substance of the message. Springee (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy This is an instance of the association fallacy. You can learn more about this informal fallacy at Association fallacy, and more about similar logical errors at Informal fallacy.sbelknap (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, it is not a fallacy to cocnlude that someone who pushes whiute supremacist talking points, to the point of being hailed by actual Nazis as "literally our greatest ally", is advancing the cause of white supremacy.

Guy Perhaps when you have had a chance to read the wikipedia article on association fallacy you will have a different opinion. There is no evidence that Carlson has pushed white supremacist talking points. This article does not provide even a single example of Carlson doing that. Instead, there is a flurry of argumentum ad hominem both in the Tucker Carlson article and on this talk page. sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I know what the association fallacy is. I also know that it's completely irrelevant here. It's not us who are drawing the conclusion, it's reliable independent secondary sources, on the one hand, and literal Nazis (as also reported in reliable independent secondary sources) on the other. When both agree that Carlson is white supremacism's greatest champion on TV, it's very hard to argue that we should suppress that because we personally think that it's fallacious to report it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

None of these sources nor the editors on this talk page can point to any specific example of Carlson supporting white supremacy. There is only opinion and no factual basis for that opinion. Here at wikipedia, we distinguish between opinion and fact. We can agree that the quotes are correct when there is a reliable source. However, that only establishes that somebody expressed an opinion, it does not establish the fact. To do that, there must be a pointer to some evidence of some kind. In looking through the sources for these claims, I have found no factual basis for the opinions expressed about racism or white supremacy. If you have some source that presents evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, the article could be improved by removing the libelous, unfounded assertions about a living person. sbelknap (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the problem is that you have personally concluded that promoting the "great rpelacement" conspiracy theory is not white supremacism, but large numbers of reliable sources have reported that it is, and so have large numbers of actual white supremacists. When your personal conclusion differs from both the reality-based media and the people whose views you claim are not being promoted, then it's past time to consider the possibility that it's you, not everyone else, who is wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The only question at this point is whether Carlson is actually a white supremacist, or whether he merely plays one on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As noted above by Springee, there is a twice-removed problem. Some enemy of Carlson makes a vague assertion of racism without any specific evidence yet somehow this bad argument is considered OK for inclusion in wikipedia articles because the source is on the list of reliable sources. Strong counter-arguments are made to these ridiculous assertions of racism, yet these strong refutations are not presented in a source that is on the list of reliable sources. The original ill-constructed argument is strongly refuted yet the original weak arguer never replies to the strong refutation. See, for example: https://jrnyquist.blog/2020/10/14/in-defense-of-tucker-carlson/ sbelknap (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap are you arguing that WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:PSTS should not apply here? Both advise that we go by secondary sources, not our own interpretations of primary sources. Llll5032 (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we follow the guidance provided by wikipedia on articles of this type, including but not limited to WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:PSTS. Specifically, in WP:RS, we have WP:NEWSORG which states that "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." and "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The current draft of the Tucker Carlson article includes much editorial commentary that is presented as fact. Removing this editorial content, much of it written by enemies of Tucker Carlson, would considerably improve the article, in my view. sbelknap (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, unfortunately this is often how Wiki articles turn out. We can see rational arguments why the view of a bunch of outrange articles from one side of the political fence might not be giving a vocal critic from the other side a fair hearing. But as others are saying, we need RSs to put that into the article. I can understand the concern about how much emphasis is put on yet another outrange of the week. This article might have a NPOV issue but if everything in it is sourced to RS the its not due to a sourcing issue. Instead you might look at how much weight is devoted to various aspects/topics and if any particular one is getting too much emphasis. I personally think some of this could be reorganized into "views" which would attempt to actually explain Carlson's views on subjects (ie, his actual views, not the hyperbole or related reaction) and another full section on the actual hyperbolic rhetoric and associated reactions. Springee (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I agree that Carlson's hyperbole could be addressed -- I think in the "Rhetorical style" section, and also if a WP:RS calls a specific quote from this article hyperbole. Llll5032 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, as a data point, we have the (successful) argument advanced in court by Fox News that no reaosnable person could take what Carlson says seriously. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes Fox's court defense is probably the best single data point on hyperbole -- thanks Guy. Llll5032 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee and Guy, I added a sentence about hyperbole to the Rhetoric section, as a start. I couldn't find WP:RS analysis of his hyperbole except for the McDougal lawsuit, but it could be added if it emerges. I tried not to repeat much of the lawsuit phrasing in the Tucker Carslon Tonight section. Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Reorganizing to describe views seems to me like a worthy goal. What we have now are a series of straw man fallacies far removed from Carlson's views, each accompanied by vague yet harsh attacks. A reader might carefully peruse the article and when finished, have almost no idea what Carlson's views are, but have an excellent understanding of how his enemies mischaracterize and attack him. From WP:RSEDITORIAL, we have this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The Tucker Carlson article would be much improved by removing those reliable sources that are clearly editorial commentary, analysis, or opinion but are presented in the article as descriptions of facts. sbelknap (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, Sbelknap, I think you are misunderstanding WP:RSEDITORIAL here. The quotes and assessments in the paragraph you object to came from news articles. They are quoting people's opinions, but they are not opinion articles themselves. That is one reason why they are such reliable secondary sources, per WP:BLPBALANCE and per WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Consider the Heidi Beirich quote, “Tucker Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in this country, which is fear of immigrants, fear of Muslims, keeping them out and arguing that whites are under attack,” This quote first appeared in an Amanda Marcotte piece in Salon, then is quoted verbatim in this Aiden Pink piece in Forward, and now is being quoted in the Tucker Carlson wikipedia article. The source here is Heidi Beirich and it is clearly her opinion, with no supporting evidence. Filtering this quote through Salon and then Forward does not change the nature of the quote into news. The quote itself is still opinion. It is evident that Forward accurately quoted the Salon article and it is possible that Salon accurately quoted Heidi Beirich, but none of this quoting changes Heidi Beirich's opinion into fact. WP:RSEDITORIAL obviously applies "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The contention that filtering a direct quote through a news article somehow converts opinion into fact is absurd. sbelknap (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If that's so, Sbelknap, why do you think WP:BLPBALANCE ("Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources") allows criticism in biographies at all? Under what circumstances would critical statements ever be allowed? 05:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Under the circumstance where editors follow the guidance that wikipedia provides. As per WP:RS editors are advised to distinguish between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Here is the relevant WP guidance again: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." sbelknap (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"described by various writers", so yes we do sort of attribute it, as we do not say it is a fact. What we do not want is a list of all the people who have called him a racist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG recently made an argument on length that I might steal. Call it the Hooke factor. Look at the length of the article on Robert Hooke and look at the list of things Hooke contributed to the world. Now look at the length of this article and all the details included in it. Hooke's page is ~75kb while Carlson is 2.4x longer at ~180k. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most editors would feel Carlson is less significant than Hooke. Springee (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

True, but then we need to decide what is significant about Carlson, and that seems to be his deliberate courting of conteoversy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point Slatersteven. His job is to be a very controversial and influential political host and commentator. The WP:RS all say this, and this article must describe the major controversies to be WP:NPOV. Llll5032 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

By attributing the Heidi Beirich quote to a news article in Forward, the wikipedia article is presenting this information as fact. The original quote of Ms. Beirich in the Salon editorial by Ms. Marcotte remains an opinion. No facts are presented that support Ms. Beirich's opinion. WP:RS also advises, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The Forward article presents no facts that would support Ms. Beirich's opinion. Ms. Beirich also speaks in the context of her position at the Southern Poverty Law Center; according to [[6]], "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list." What we have here is an extremely serious accusation that Carlson is "mainstreaming white nationalism" quoting a questionably reliable source. No facts of any kind are presented. This specific quote does not belong in this article. Lets apply the Hooke criteria by removing this clearly inappropriate content. sbelknap (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean this "Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center has said...", in other words, we attribute it, to her.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and more generally the quotes could be attributed to the person and their affiliation; that would clarify what is opinion and what is fact. Although this claim by Ms. Beirich borders on libel and no supporting evidence is provided. Therefore, for that particular quote, I'd favor removing it entirely. sbelknap (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

How is "Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center" not saying who she is or what her affiliation is? have you actually read our article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the article could be improved by removing this paragraph, as this quote from Ms. Beirich is not buttressed by any facts in Forward nor in Salon. The guidance recommends assessing information from articles on a case-by-case basis. In this case, a possibly libelous opinion without any supporting facts is not particularly informative as to Tucker Carlson's views on immigration. sbelknap (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, it doesn't need to be. SPLC is a noted authority on extremism, reliable sources have noted that SPLC made this claim, and that's it. It's not for us to second-guess the sources here. Rejecting an attributed opinion notes in reliable independent secondary sources because you disagree with the basis on which the opinion was drawn, is the very definition of OR. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You are far away from the guidance in WP:RS, which distinguishes between opinion and fact. Please review WP:RS and you can see for yourself. There was no factual basis provided for the opinion. There was only opinion. Thus, we agree that we have a reliable source for the *opinion*. However this source does not meet the criteria in WP:RS for a reliable source on the facts. Neither Ms. Beirich nor the authors of the two articles that quote her provide any facts that buttress this opinion. sbelknap (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap, nope. It's a notable opinion (as demonstrated by its mention in literally dozens of reliable sources), from a noted authority on hate speech, and we're citing it, with attribution, from the secondary sources not from the original. That is a textbook example of how Wikipedia represents significant opinions. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sbelknap If you need more background on how we use secondary sources, please read WP:SECONDARY. Also the section it is in, WP:PSTS, on the differences between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. (edited) Llll5032 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts to the talk pages. sbelknap (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Llll5032 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove the neutrality tag as we discuss? Llll5032 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the neutrality tag is to attract interested editors who may help to improve the article. So far, the article is still very far away from a NPOV. I'd prefer to keep the neutrality tag for now. Lets rapidly work to make progress on consensus, though.sbelknap (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above, yes. As we do in fact say what they want us to say, we attribute the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, yes, per WP:1AM. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Llll5032 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Outdoor mask 26 April content

I wanted to get community input on this recent addition to the article [[7]]. The addition says Carlson is telling viewers to harass people wearing masks outside. My concern is this appears to be taking something Carlson said out of context. The DB article, while highlighting the harassment statement, does provide a larger context for Carlson's statements. As the judge in the deformation case said, Carlson's comments are rhetorical hyperbole. It is not reasonable to take Carlson's statement, when presented in context, to mean Carlson is encouraging viewers to literally harass people wearing masks in public. However, that is what the edit is suggesting he meant. Perhaps there is a way to fix this else I would suggest removing this as both UNDUE and not a clear summary of Carlson's position on COVID etc. Springee (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I half agree, lets just quote what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed around the wording to more closely resemble the framing in the Guardian source instead. In general you shouldn't be using the wording Daily Beast does for controversial statements about living people as per the advice at WP:RSP. I think it's fine as it is now though, we probably don't need to make this article even more of a dump of Tucker quotes than it already is. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am less sure about this, given how many it could affect, and the fact it does appear to almost be a call for intimidation. This is not the usual Carlon gobing off.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it's true, we can't really say it without great sourcing for it. That it's harassing/intimidating/whatever to call CPS on people is probably not an unreasonable thing to think, but it's not really our job to make that connection in wikivoice if it's just something Daily Beast said. Maybe we could add it as an opinion attributed to someone? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, but he did suggest calling child services on them, which is a pretty significant thing to do to anyone. This is why I think this is relevant, that and the fact it is not only Covid misinformation, but goes beyond that. It is a suggestion that wearing as a mask is morally and (possible) legally) wrong, making to harming your child.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is of course a very significant thing to have the CPS called on you, but what are you suggesting the article should say? We could include opinions quoted in the Guardian piece like Elizabeth Spiers, a progressive pollster and journalism professor at New York University, wrote... Calling CPS is something that should be done for legit reasons... It’s traumatizing for children, and it can result in children being separated from their parents, with attribution, and that should be fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is questioning the value of masks outside COVID misinformation? The DB article tries to make the case that Carlson is flip flopping on masks. I think that might be a stretch since there is a difference between mask effectiveness when used indoors vs outdoors. Still, that isn't the part of the article which was added to Wikipedia. This is one where I think the context of the comments needs to be clearly included or the comments need to be left out. My feeling is leave it out of this section since we have to read between the lines to understand his position on COVID and masks. At the same time this is a clear example of using rhetorical hyperbole to try to make a point (unsuccessfully in my view). This would be a clear example of when the use of hyperbole is likely detrimental because the message gets drowned out by the negative reaction to the snipped quote. However, that is my analysis and I don't see a RS making (or even discussing) this. Springee (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am suggesting we say what we are saying, he suggested calling the cops. Its the the fact he is calling they may not work outside, its the fact he is trying to imply its child cruelty.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Should we summarize the total message (not endorse it, just summarize for the sake of context)? I have to admit, I found this particular monolog somewhat hard to follow. Still, we could say this was stated as part of a monolog arguing against the use of masks in outdoor settings and include the Pew virtue signaling context. Again, I'm having trouble trying to summarize his arguments since it seems to be a bit along the line of "liberals bad, outdoor masks aren't effective, liberals harassing you if they say wear a mask so herass them back"? Regardless, he didn't just say these things in a vacuum so we should not present them in a vacuum. In the bigger picture of things I think this content is probably UNDUE, yet another case of Carlson says something that gets some people in a lather. Springee (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the content. We can't build encyclopedia entries like this, otherwise it would be a long list of On X date, Tucker Said Y, on and on and on. That particular blurb isn't any more notable or due than any of a thousand other things he has said on his television show. We have to get out of this mindset. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• We do not quote him directly. We do not quote what the Daily Beast says he said. If credible heavyweight sources cover this, then we report what they say about what he said, but we don't include primary sources, especially primary opinion sources from hyper-partisan websites. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

LIke the Guardian you mean? Or the Independent [[8]]?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, neither is hyper-partisan. Daily Beast, Daily Kos, Fox and the like are hyper-partisan. The Grauniad is a reliable source with an editorial POV. The Times and The Daily Telegraph also have an editorial POV but are accepted as RS. If we blow away the dross, we're left with a solid consensus among reliable mainstream reality-based sources that Carlson is promoting white nationalism. Again. And that's the way to get rid of the "but Breitbart says..." bullshit, IMO. Keep to solid mainstream sources. The external consensus for inclusion of the anti-mask bullshit is less clear. For me, the fact that Fauci reesponded directly probably clinches it, but it's not a given. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And no it does not appear to just be this issue of calling the police [[9]] but encouraging people to directly confront mask wearers to make it (in his words) "roughly as socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator,". This is about stopping people wearing makes, and that is dangerous.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to include this as a paragraph where Carlson is now advocating against outdoor mask use and is being criticized for the position and/or presentation. A few days ago The Atlantic ran an article that advocates dropping outdoor mask mandates[[10]]. Under the rhetoric there is a common message between Carlson's monolog and the Atlantic article. Springee (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, as it is part of a pattern.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had a good source really looking at Carlson's rhetorical style/methods/appeals. It seems that his pattern is say something that may not actually be an extreme position (do outdoor masks make sense) but wrap it up in inflammatory rhetoric. The result appears to be his comments trend on social media. I see a parallel to what Trump did going into 2016. I'm sure lots of people talked about that but I don't think Carlson's behavior gets the same attention. Lacking such a source I'm not sure how to cover it since we run into the issue that we are just listing the outrage of the week. Springee (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The CDC released new guidance that said vaccinated people do not need to wear a mask outdoors, in line with the thrust of Carlson's comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not according to RS. Nor do I recall the CDC saying it is OK to never wear a mask outdoors for anyone, which is what Carlson is saying, confront anyone in a mask.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlson used rhetoric to make the point that it is silly to wear a mask outdoors, which is the message endorsed by the CDC today. Per the CDC chart, even unvaccinated people need take no preventative measures when outdoors. See this chart for more information. Many RS are writing about this today, so I'm not sure which RS you are talking about that do not agree with the CDC messaging. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read that chart more closely. It definitely does not say "even unvaccinated people need take no preventative measures when outdoors." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The chart literally says "Prevention measures not needed" as what the maskless symbol means placed by "Walk, run, or bike outdoors with members of your household" and "Attend a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends." It's a very straightforward chart, but my comment should have included "for certain activities outdoors." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie The chart you posted says it's safe to be maskless when "walking, jogging or biking, or dining with friends at outdoor restaurants", not when people are in public with strangers, or when kids are in Walmart (where Carlson encourages harassment of parents). W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 02:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, he called upon people to do something, that is the point here. It was inflammatory language.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It was clearly and obviously rhetorical hyperbole, which is a common thing used on Carlson's show (as well as the opinion shows on the other networks). Time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, we've seen that hundreds or thousands of times Trump, Carlson, Whoever... was just joking. Please never post that again. It has no basis in policy and if even one editor bothers to reply, it wastes everybody's time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, sooner or later when all you do is insane conspiracist "rhetorical hyperbole", people conclude that you're an insane conspiracist. Carlson appears to have reached that horizon. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, here is RS describing the new CDC guidance that it is ok for people to be maskless outdoors. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, but since Carlson was exhorting people to harass anyone who does wear a mask, that's irrelevant. Thanks for playing, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the part where we say that the CDC says 2 and older should wear masks when outside is out of date. Here is a WP article that both mentions Carlson's rant as well as the CDC guidelines noting that many outdoor activities don't benefit from masks even without a vaccine. [[11]] Springee (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some additional articles that contextualize the hyperbole aspects of Carlson's presentation (without forgiving or excusing it)[[12]][[13]]. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've read the three articles, but it appears their guidelines still recommend masking when around with strangers? Also, the positioning of the CDC sentence makes it look like the decision to loosen masking is a consequence of Carlson's rant, but it clearly is not, as it was in the works even before the monologue. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 03:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't seem to draw a connection between the CDC guideline change and Carlson's comments; WaPo simply mentions both in the same article. If we're going to include it then we should have a clear explanation of why it's relevant. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree this sentence may be WP:SYNTH ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source") but I edited it to make it shorter and more WP:IMPARTIAL for now. Llll5032 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And its still getting coverage [[14]], and Dr Fauci has wadded in [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

New! Improved! Now with secondary sources!

If you want to include Gerson's commentary, you need to show that it's considered significant by reliable independent sources, so not undue, right? So:

Former George W. Bush adviser and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson criticized Carlson for "providing his audience with sophisticated rationales for their worst, most prejudicial instincts" and "reinterpret[ing] moral criticism of his bigotry as an attack by elites on his viewers". "This is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like." After the Anti-Defamation League called for Carlson's firing, Lachlan Murdoch defended Carlson's advocacy for the voting rights of white people, and his invocation of the Great Replacement Theory, in a segment that white supremacist website VDARE called "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired". Carlson's show had previously been praised by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, and Stormfront have called him "literally our greatest ally".

Secondary sources establishing significance and putting in context. Will that do? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Opinion pieces, like that Bloomberg article, are not reliable sources for statements of fact about other people. So, as written? No, this is worse than the original proposal. Edit: to be clear though, broadly speaking it's in the right direction. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. We don't need to find a way to get this particular quote into the article. I'm not OK with the guilt by association linking Carlson to any supremacist groups. Springee (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, people seem to want to, and I am just showing how. Not mining the internet for primary sourced opinion quotes that say what you want, but looking at what secondary sources say about that commentary. I am sure we'll be the last reality-based source on the internet to come out and acknowledge that Carlson is pushing neo-Nazi propaganda, and that's good, but it will happen, and when it does, I am here to make sure it is done properly. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Associated Press and Independent articles clearly satisfy WP:BLPBALANCE, and probably the Guardian and Buzzfeed News articles do too per WP:RSP. Crikey and Bloomberg Opinion probably fall short per WP:BLPBALANCE. We don't need to second-guess the content of what the WP:RSPs say, unless one clearly conflicts with another WP:RSP, or violates a Wikipedia policy that we can cite chapter and verse. Llll5032 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL applies here as well - use WP:INTEXT - but we also include all significant views. If one RS (per WP:RSCONTEXT) provides a different view/opinion, we use intext to include it. If the statement is a single "biased" allegation/claim in an article, then that is how we judge WEIGHT. If the entire article goes on and on about it, then we use editorial judgement to determine how much of that opinion is worthy of inclusion, but again we use INTEXT. I think a quote is plenty for both views because there is nothing scientific about biased accusations of racism or white supremacy, etc. It has actually become a talking point for progressives, and we don't consider political talking points as DUE much less having any weight on either side of the isle; common sense is required as is compliance with NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, BLP, GUILT and NPOV. See the WaPo piece, Not all ‘anti-racist’ ideas are good ones. The left isn’t being honest about this. about this very topic: Nothing is gained if the different parties in this debate call each other racists or invoke the specter of “white supremacy” to discredit their opponents. Atsme 💬 📧 13:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, we include significant views from reliable sources. Those all seem in agreement at this point: Carlson's show is explicitly racist. Being anti-anti-racist is being racist. As is, well, being racist. When David Duke, VDARE, Stormfront and The Daily Stormer are all applauding you from the sidelines, you're saying racist shit. If you don't want to be called a racist the solution is to stop saying racist shit not to come up with excuses about how advertisers deserting your racist show is cancel culture gone mad. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I'm responding to ping, and respectfully request that you not ping me back to this discussion because I'm done here. I think it's time for you to step away from your bully pulpit - you are not winning this particular argument, and it comes across like TE with a splash of bludgeoning. You've stated more than once, "opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one" - and that includes the opinions in the sources that align with your perspective. See To include it in a BLP or not. That is my position here as well. Americans do support legal immigration and it does not automatically indicate racism if, at the same time, they oppose illegal immigration. The main reason Americans don't support open borders, especially along the southern border in the US, is because there is a serious drug & human trafficking problem, not to mention concerns over the unvaccinated. Wanting closed borders to protect human lives doesn't make one a racist, and neither does reporting about it or showing approval for it as Biden did. I don't watch Carlson, but I have read some of the allegations against him, and what I'm seeing is that racial issues have become a partisan issue, and that is not good. The US isn't the UK or the EU so don't conflate US immigration policies with the EU's open border policies, or whatever they call it today. It is sad that the American left has politicized racism and created division not just among white Americans, but all Americans because they've used specific groups like BLM to push an agenda, and that has raised concerns within a significant number of Black communities: Americans across the country learned more about BLM not only as a social movement and political intervention but also as an ideological approach that can be characterized as intersectional. While “old guard” organizations appear to be open to some [of] these influences, it should be made clear that there are still internal divisions among Black political elites and the masses about the extent to which this new “radical,” intersectional agenda should be embraced (Hutson 2013). Keeping in mind both the potential shift in Black politics as well as resistance to change, it remains to be evaluated whether the ideas of the new movement are represented in the sentiments of average Black citizens. Move away from NOTNEWS & NEWSORG, adhere more closely to NPOV when choosing your sources, and stop targeting individual BLPs who don't align with your perspective. Racial issues are much too nuanced to paint a simple black & white picture and MOS:LABEL someone "racist" because so-and-so says he/she is racist based on a position they support on immigration, or the like. That is not our job. Happy editing - Atsme 💬 📧 ^{over and out!} 14:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, it's not a question of winning, it's a question of accurately reflecting the facts as reliable independent sources describe them, rather than as the right-wing media bubble wishes them to be. Carlson is promoting white supremacist talking points. This is noted by both mainstream sources and actual Nazis.

The idea that the left has "politicized racism" is a perfect example of the old adage that every attack by a conservative, is actually a confession. See also "Southern strategy". The GOP is using white nationalism to corral a constituency that its policy platform does not serve, because its actual policies (fundamentalist corporatism and unfettered exploitation of people and the planet) are historically unpopular.

It is not "political" to note that Black parents have to have The Talk with their kids about how to interact with police, and white parents don't. Black people are far more likely than white to be charged with a felony (and thus lose voting rights) for similar crimes. Sure, fixing the obvious injustice is political, but if you want to talk identity politics, start with the party where you basically cannot get on the ticket unless you are a white Christian. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is more than enough sourcing to establish due weight. AP, Independent and Buzzfeed are particularly strong secondary sources that provide factual coverage of what others are saying about Carlson. –dlthewave ☎ 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I got as far as your first two sources. They are both opinion pieces also, hence fail rs. I think we are approaching this wrong. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources, we should identify reliable sources and report what they say. Furthermore, if we quote Gerson, we should explicitly state his relevance to the article. Is he speaking for a wing of the party? TFD (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Could you explain why you think opinion pieces fail RS? That's not what the relevant guideline, WP:NEWSORG, says. –dlthewave ☎

Dlthewave, WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is an earlier discussion above that is still open, and I just iVoted there before I remembered there was yet another discussion here. I provided updated material from well-balanced RS in my comment above. Bottomline, opinions are not statements of fact, and like you said, everybody has one. There are plenty of politicized opinions that denigrate talking heads on cable & broadcast TV, both right and left leaning, and alot of it stems from advocacies, COI, and clickbait, the latter of which is how most online news sources survive. That is not what WP represents. We should not be cherrypicking criticisms to RGW or SOAPBOX or to denigrate opposing voices, especially when it is noncompliant with WP:GUILT, which it appears you are attempting to do now by using white supremacist approval. While the sources you have chosen above support your POV, that is not how we achieve NPOV. The fact that white supremacists like what Carlson said means nothing to this encyclopedia - they probably would agree with him if he said we need lower taxes. We're building an encyclopedia, not writing articles for ADL or SPLC. Atsme 💬 📧 13:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Gerson comment on Carlson’s rhetorical style

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

---

this content in the context of Carlson’s recent comments:

Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, wrote that Carlson's rhetorical style "is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like."

was reverted twice by the same editor within 24 hours on the basis that it is an opinion. I do not find that to be a valid rationale and suggest the edit be restored. And[16]. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I can think of an objection, why is this one mans views really relevant, he is a speech writer.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He was a presidential speechwriter. He knows something about crafting rhetoric to convey meaning to large audiences. Oh, and he’s a Republican. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Significant opinion published in a prominent reliable source. No valid reason for removal has been given; opinion pieces are acceptable sources and in fact just about everything in that section is sourced to one opinion piece or another. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –dlthewave ☎ 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source is an OpEd and as Slatersteven said, why is his opinion significant. We already have a long list of sources critical of Carlson's statements, why add one that is an OpEd? Dlthewave restored it without consensus (or commenting here) but I see that Willbb234 reverted that edit. Honestly, another reason to remove this is the material on this topic is getting really long. This is yet another outrange of the week sort of things related to Carlson's show. At some point we need to condense things and just say, this statement was viewed as X and criticized by XYZ. We don't need to quote the variations of outrange hurled from each bully pulpit. We are supposed to summarize, not provide every click baitie quote. Springee (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:WAPO, notable commentator, due weight, inclusion seems reasonable. Acousmana 15:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your views above the content should not have been restored prior to establishing consensus. Springee (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Acousmana 15:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The original addition was Bold, it was Reverted that means we are in the Discuss phase. It shouldn't have been restored. Springee (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't include a comment in an opinion piece unless it had received wider attention. Weight does not require us to report comments that have not been reported in reliable sources. (Opinion pieces don't count as reliable sources, wherever they are published.) TFD (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TFD here. Has this been widely covered by talking heads recently? Just curious. --Malerooster (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are considered reliable sources for attributed opinions. This case would be acceptable per WP:RSEDITORIAL. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are considered reliable in a SPS sort of way. However, it's not clear that this person's opinion is particularly notable. But really we need to zoom out and look at how this whole section is written. It relies way too much on specific "soundbite" or "shock value" quotes. If the important thing is to get Gerson's opinion into the article why aren't we just summarizing it vs deciding this specific quote, out of the entire OpEd article, is the one we need to include? The same question really applies to every quote related to the opinions/views of others on this subject. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the tabloid pages. That is why this section should be written as Carlson said [thing]. It was viewed as X by a number of sources [cites]. Calls for [action against Carlson] were issued by [those calling for action]. When we put so much emphasis on including attention grabbing quotes such as the one in question here we are moving from encyclopedic summary to "if it bleads it leads" quality journalism. Springee (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:SPS? It's entirely irrelevant to an op-ed published by the Washington Post. Springee, you've been around long enough that you can't possibly be making that argument in good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think my intended point was lost in this discussion. I was thinking of the part of SPS referring to material published by experts. You are saying this WP OpEd is reliable for the views of the person writing the OpEd. I agree. However, that begs the question, are their views DUE? Are they some sort of noted expert? So like a SPS, if the person is a noted expert on the subject then yes, perhaps the OpEd would be due. I don't think anyone has made that case thus far. If you don't understand the argument please don't jump to suggestions of bad faith. I think you and I have debated often enough and long enough [[17]] to at least assume the other editor isn't acting in bad faith even if we are unable to persuade the other. Springee (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The "expert" part of SPS is irrelevant here because it's not published by Gerson, it's published by the Washington Post. It's not self-published in any way, shape or form. The reputation of the publisher contributes to reliability and due weight, although I would consider a presidential speechwriter to be a prominent voice as well. –dlthewave ☎

Gerson's comments are noted by Poynter Institute, owner of PolitiFact[18] soibangla (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

But that article is also an opinion piece. The controversy over Carlson's use of the term "great replacement theory" has been reported on in actual news articles, including one which is used as a source of facts in the Poynter article.[19] News media, when it is working properly, reports relevant facts and opinions in a neutral manner. That doesn't mean necessarily that they give both sides equal weight, instead they let us know the weight of expert opinion. Columnist OTOH read news reports and add their commentary, based on their expertise and political views. TFD (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE opinion. Doesn't need to be in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - per Dlthewave. Gerson is a notable commentator providing a relevant and widely held opinion on the nature of Carlson's content. Handy History Handbook (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but only if reported in secondary sources (see [20]). An admirably succinct statement from a reliable source with no taint of "liberal bias", but still an opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - this is a succinct expert opinion reported by an RS and quite frankly I don't know why it's even contested. There seems to be mistaken (and quite bizarre) opinion going round that any piece marked "op-ed" or "opinion" cannot be used in a BLP article. I don't believe this has any basis in Wiki policy. If it does please produce this policy
• Oppose - Looks pretty undue and not a board statement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral. WP:SECONDARY sources have mentioned this commentary [21][22], but a green non-opinion WP:RSP has not yet. Llll5032 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It was published by a green source of the highest order, which surely counts for something. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The news articles are a green source, but are the opinion articles? Llll5032 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So...if the Gerson comment alone is deemed UNDUE, and the Hemmer comment alone is deemed UNDUE, would they be deemed DUE if included together? soibangla (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Part of that is because this section is ballooning. We simply don't need this level of play by play commentary on this issue. We are supposed to present a summary. These guys are basically just agreeing with the other opinions. So why include them in the actual text? This whole section is too long given the scope of the article and coverage of Carlson over the years. Springee (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

They will be WP:DUE if reliable secondary sources mention them: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We probably have WP:CONSENSUS that if the comments are included, they should be succinct and non-repetitive per MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them". Llll5032 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE, personal attack, BLP vio, not even close to acceptable criticism, and cited to an opinion piece. Our BLPs are not the place for columnists to get exposure for their trash talk. Who cares what he thinks about Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, or Sean Hannity? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Our job is to help build this encyclopedia, not try to tear it down by including indiscriminate BS opinions by somebody who doesn't know Carlson from Jack Schitt. Let's show some human dignity here, and stop wasting our valuable time having to discuss the inclusion of unhelpful material, not to mention that it contributes to the desensitization of a very serious global issue like racism. Atsme 💬 📧 03:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - BLP violation and personal attack from an untrustworthy person, also UNDUE. Gerson is a propagandist who was a big pusher of the illegal Iraq war based on lies about WMD. From Media Matters: The Washington Post has hired Michael Gerson who as President Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001-2005 crafted the false and misleading rhetoric the Bush administration used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- to be an op-ed columnist. The Post editorial board repeated without question some of that false and misleading rhetoric in its support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has passed up several opportunities to re-examine its support of the Bush administration's push for war. Yodabyte (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - suited to the topic, appropriate and well-framed. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:303A:E3B4:36F5:3C98 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:303A:E3B4:36F5:3C98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

To add to article

To add to this article: whether or not, as of May 9, 2021, Tucker Carlson has received one or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Has he? Llll5032 (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think they were questioning not telling. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor WP:LEAD thing

"is an American paleoconservative ... has been called a nationalist and a paleoconservative" We don't have to mention PC twice, do we? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Second this, the paleoconservative doesn't need to be in the introduction. Quark1005 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think "paleoconservative" or "conservative" should stay in the first sentence per WP:ROLEBIO: "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources." But it could be changed in the later paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I edited this per your comments. --Malerooster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine section

The section is a bit unclear. It should start with a clarifying sentence that Carlson misrepresented the safety of vaccines. I added one such clarifier but it was immediately reverted by Malerooster with the trolling remark, "Wiki servers aren't big enough."[23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not a trolling remark, its true. Are we going to add to the article every day after his show is over? He is a talking head who says things for ratings, we don't need to cover every segment in his bio. --Malerooster (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a new statement he made though, it's just an introductory sentence to the rest of the paragraph? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Malerooster is probably correct on a WP:NOTNEWS basis but additionally the transcript shows that Mr Carlson repeatedly said the data source was flawed and so did his guest (Professor Martin Kulldorff from Harvard Medical School), so the first cited source at Agence France-Presse is giving opinion not fact. The other cited source (Forbes) does not say that Mr Carlson "misrepresented". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have been better to simply say, UNDUE. It also is better to call the comment trolling. I do think this reflects a problem with this article bloated. Honestly, we should think of things in terms of 1 in, 1 out. The article is too long so if we are going to keep packing in more detailed level content then what should be removed. As I said above, we really should be trying to provide summaries and then links to articles rather than including so many specific quotes/comments from specific articles/sources. His overall response to COVID is very much DUE. That on the second Tuesday of March he said X that got 10 sources to complain the next day (and never mention it again the week after) isn't due. Springee (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We could shorten or remove some quotations, per WP:QUOTEFARM: "Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text." Llll5032 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, way too much of the commentary section is at present just a dump of tucker quotes. Presumably it happens because those comments are controversial and using quotes avoids bickering about how to summarize the meaning behind those statements, but the rolling dump of "on last night's show Tucker said X" that slowly grows every week after Tucker says a new thing is definitely a problem. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyday update after show

Material is being added almost daily from the subject's show. Unless it has been covered ALOT and really is some big deal, it really doesn't belong in the bio. Maybe, big maybe, add it to the article about his show. This blow by blow material from his show is really too much. If a segment or topic is still big news in say 6 months, then bring it here for discussion to see if it rises to the level of inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of the additions are too long and should be shortened or combined over time. But most add valuable details. Per WP:RECENTISM (which suggests some balance), "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. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating months (or even years) later in the clean-up and maintenance of the page. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." Llll5032 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

My take from RECENTISM, is the material going to be notable over time? Hard to say in the present time, only time will tell. --Malerooster (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

More advice from WP:RECENTISM: "After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites?" (In my opinion, incremental rewrites will do.) Llll5032 (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is a big problem with this article. It also leads to a lot of disagreements because we have a plenty of examples of comments that are discussed by say 5-10 sources and at least one well known advocacy organization. For most BLP any one of these would be clearly due. However, with Carlson... well we quickly run into the suggested page limits. I think the correct way to solve a lot of this is via adopting a summary style. We can highlight incidents and discuss commonalities of the examples but not discuss everyone in detail. For instance we could say, "Carlson has been accused of X" then cite articles criticizing him for X without actually including 2-3 sentences for each example. Springee (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If we tolerate some long sections temporarily, sometimes they are more easily condensed after a week or a month... By the way, what are the suggested page limits? Llll5032 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:LENGTH. It suggests a limit of about 10,000 words and suggests that is about 50kb of data. Of course tables, captions etc can cause this to vary. Above 50kb and it is suggested editors consider breaking the page into sub pages (WP:SIZERULE). At around 100kb they say it's all but certainly too long (my words). This article is 185kb. Personally I think the correct answer in this case would be massive summarizing much of the play by play content in the article. Springee (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Springee, this article is 7,558 words now, so at least we are below the 10,000-word limit. For this article a lot of the data overage may be from references too. Llll5032 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Hemmer and Gerson comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for inclusion. Editors cited various policies against the proposal (WP:UNDUE, WP:LABEL, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:RSOPINION, etc), to varying levels of applicability. Where I think consensus fell apart was on two aspects: (a) whether the two individuals expressing the opinion were considered authoritative figures for said opinion (if not, then there was a general sentiment that it shouldn't be included, because Wikipedia shouldn't report every opinion to be published about a BLP); (b) some editors said they would've been more comfortable with inclusion if a reliable secondary source mentioned these comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose these comments in bold be included in the article:

In a letter to Greenblatt, Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch wrote, "A full review of the guest interview indicates that Mr. Carlson decried and rejected replacement theory" when he said, "White replacement theory? No, no, this is a voting rights question." Greenblatt responded in a letter that Carlson’s "attempt to at first dismiss this theory, while in the very next breath endorsing it under cover of 'a voting rights question,' does not give him free license to invoke a white supremacist trope. In fact, it’s worse, because he’s using a straw man – voting rights – to give an underhanded endorsement of white supremacist beliefs while ironically suggesting it’s not really white supremacism.” Historian of conservative media Nicole Hemmer wrote, "In the post-Trump era" Carlson "is among the leading voices working deliberately to mainstream a set of virulently racist anti-immigrant ideas."[24] Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush, wrote that Carlson's rhetorical style "is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like."[25]

soibangla (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support: as proposer. soibangla (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The above discussion shows a lot of good reasons not to include this content. Two primary reasons are 1, the section is already getting too long and this is turning into a dump everything including the kitchen sink into the topic question. Second, as was discussed above, the source for this opinion is an OpEd article. There is nothing to suggest Gerson's opinion should be considered notable. It is a highly contentious claim about a BLP subject and thus should only be included if the issues of weight are clearly in favor of inclusion. They are not. Springee (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

How should we source opinions, if not from opinion articles? –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If RS report on the opinions then that establishes weight. If the person is clearly a notable opinion (say the opinion of a Supreme Court justice on a legal question, a noted physicist on a question of physics, Larry Bird on a question of Basket Ball). It's not clear that either of these people are noted experts in the analysis of rhetoric nor can we assume they are offering an unbiased opinion vs the view of someone who was asked because they gave the answer someone was looking for. Springee (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. WP:BLPBALANCE says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Although Hemmer and Gerson are prominent, and Hemmer's book may be a WP:RS, both of these quotes are from their opinion articles, and I have not seen green WP:RSP secondary sources mentioning either quote yet. Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper that gives detailed excerpts of comments. Instead, it is supposed to summarize controversies. The reader doesn't know who Hemmer and Gerson are, so has not idea how valid their opinions are. Per weight, articles are supposed to explain how accepted their opinions are. This isn't mystery theater where we dump a whole lot of evidence in someone's lap and ask them to figure it out. TFD (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• The reader doesn't know who Hemmer and Gerson are The edit tells readers who they are: Hemmer is a subject matter expert and Gerson wrote for a president whose political base likely comprises a significant proportion of Carlson's viewers. soibangla (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As an expert, is Hemmer telling us what the consensus view of experts is or just her own? Is she a liberal or conservative and does her opinion reflect her political views? Is she writing for a peer-reviewed journal or a partisan op-ed in CNN?

If you think it is relevant to Gerstein's credibility that his president's supporters overlapped with Carlson's views, then the text should say that. It should also be clear whether this is a typical Republican view or if Gerson is merely expressing his own opinions.

The trouble is that the opinions are sourced to op-eds, which establish no weight, since they aren't reliable sources. If you used secondary sources, your text would read something like this: "Historians of conservative media see Calrson as promoting racist and nativist views. Most establishment Republicans agree with this assessment."

TFD (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Expert opinions published in top-tier reliable sources carry sufficient weight for inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm baffled as to why anybody would want to reject these expert opinions. Noteduck (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Too important not to be included. Sea Ane (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Include Hemmer, exclude Gerson. Hemmer is a scholar and expert on the subject of conservative media and politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TE & WP:NOTOPINION. Cherrypicking quotes from opinion articles (and from obviously biased authors) in order to call someone a "racist" is not how we should be writing BLPs. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This in-text-attributed commentary from relevant experts is due weight here. If there are countervailing views from similarly relevant experts or commentators, then perhaps those could be included, but our job is to summarize the relevant sources, and this summation seems appropriately phrased and proportionate. In fact, I find this necessary as this content gives an external view/context to the Murdoch-Greenblatt colloquy. Perhaps in the long run this could be phrased along the lines of what TFD proposes above, but there is no prohibition on using op-eds as sources for in-text-attributed opinion. Neutrality^talk 04:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose An "expert opinion" does not mean it should be included. What is an "expert opinion", anyway? The sources are OpEds and there should be something to demonstrate that these opinions should be included or that they are notable enough. Carlsen is a controversial figure so there's naturally people who have views like this and so there's nothing to say that these particular views somehow stand out for inclusion. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Criticism that comes from reputable sources and is presented in a balanced and neutral way should be included in the article. Not including critical opinions because they come from opinion articles seems like a funny argument. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Both statements are attributed (see WP:RSOPINION) and substantial (the point illustrated being that Tucker works to bring otherwise unpalatable views into the conservative mainstream). The idea that despite being published in separate, well-known reliable sources (again, see WP:RSOPINION) these must be fringe views worthy of being chucked out because they mention the word "racist" is flatly contradicted by even a brief glance at the article. Hemmer in particular is both an academic and subject-matter expert, and Gerson (for whom conservative rhetoric was his actual job) at the very least demonstrates that Hemmer's position is hardly unique. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• I hate primary-sourced opinion. Regardless of who the opinion is from or about. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I am not opposed to inclusion of comments about Carlson's role in mainstreaming white supremacy, but drawn from secondary sources, noting the primary commentary. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to see some secondary sources reporting on this to consider it WP:DUE, especially given how controversial those statements are. If we had sentence or two for every op-ed ever written about Tucker, this article would have quite literally hundreds and hundreds of paragraphs worth of material on those op-eds. There needs to be a reason to include these specific quotes over the thousands of similar opinions people have expressed about him. That reason would be coverage in reliable secondary sources, and so far that has not even attempted to be established yet. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support: as per PraiseVivec above. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This rfc is essentially the same as the question above and another thread below. I think it's legitimate to cite the attributed opinions of leading historians and commentators concerning the subject of a biographical Wikipedia article. This is a well-sourced and valid point of view that ought to be noted in the article. Handy History Handbook (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Include Nicole Hemmer’s comment and exclude Michael Gerson. She is a conservative expert on the subject matter and hence her opinion should be considered in this article. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - just because those 3 individuals see immigration as a racial issue, not everyone sees it that way. Unfortunately, racism has become a political talking point, in some cases a platform, for a growing number of white Democrats as I will demonstrate. There is an in-depth article about the politicizing of racism in Vox: Key to this view, as Adam Serwer wrote in the Atlantic in November 2017, is that we should see racism as a question of “institutional and political power” rather than being “about name-calling or rudeness.” That same author wrote an opinion piece in a WaPo article titled Not all ‘anti-racist’ ideas are good ones. The left isn’t being honest about this. There are numerous articles that cover it, but I'm of the mind that The NYTimes published the well-balanced approach without politicizatization. I am also concerned that some editors naturally tend to choose sources that align with their POV, and also tend to ignore the opposing views presented by those same sources. For example, WaPo published one of the most balanced articles I've seen from them in a long time. If we include criticism in a BLP, we should avoid noncompliance with value-laden labels per MOS:LABEL. We also need to include other substantial views which is what NPOV requires of us: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Atsme 💬 📧 12:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper reporting every opinion that emerges. I see there is a policy here on that point [26] A former speech writer is not an expert opinion and neither is the supposed historian who was a "research scholar with the Obama Presidency Oral History project at Columbia University". Both sources already have a political basis and slant and Wikipedia would need non partisan sources when it comes to political pundits like Carlson. In news sources you are going to find many sources saying political trash talking and Wikipedia is not the place to dump trash talking pieces. The standards should be higher and also racism is a very overused term because when Latino news organizations say racist things Like Jorge Ramos, no one calls them out on it as racist.216.2.69.77 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Volteer1. Additionally, there are already several opinion statements similar to this in the third and fourth paragraph in the section. SmolBrane (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Springee and Volteer. Violates WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and WP:LABEL, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all the above given reasons. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
• Hemmer is alright, Gersons opinion is not. Lets stick to the experts if we need to say this (having two opinions is definitely undue). Aircorn (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLP and WP:UNDUEYousef Raz (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a general statement of opinion, but the size of the commentary section is ridiculous. The specific section (the entire thing) could be trimmed to half its size and still communicate the same ideas. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support including Hemmer’s comment and Oppose including Gerson's per Snooganssnoogans, BristolTreeHouse and Aircorn. Generalrelative (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of Hemmer's comment (per her stature as an expert in the field), neutral on Gerson's. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - BLP violation, also violates WP:LABEL. Gerson was a big proponent of the illegal war in Iraq based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. From Media Matters: The Washington Post has hired Michael Gerson who as President Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001-2005 crafted the false and misleading rhetoric the Bush administration used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- to be an op-ed columnist. The Post editorial board repeated without question some of that false and misleading rhetoric in its support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and has passed up several opportunities to re-examine its support of the Bush administration's push for war. Yodabyte (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - what makes her opinion important enough to be in his bio? Just no. DoctorTexan (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Same thing that makes his bio important enough for her opinion to be in it: notability. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Requested a close at WP:CR.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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