| Revision as of 23:27, 15 September 2024 editThe Mountain of Eden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,599 edits →Darryl Cooper subsection: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:05, 4 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Tucker Carlson/Archive 19) (bot |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2019-05-16|oldid1=897423383}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2019-05-16|oldid1=897423383}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Carlson, Tucker|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Carlson, Tucker|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}} |
| Line 31: |
Line 31: |
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024 == |
|
== Carlson should be described as "far right" since sources describe him as such == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit extended-protected|Tucker Carlson|answered=yes}} |
|
As of now, the lead states that Carlson is "conservative" and " circulating far-right ideas". I think he should just (either instead of additionally) be described as "far right", sice this is what plenty of reliable sources use e.g. , , , The Independent ( and ), the , and . ] (]) 11:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Period after quote: |
| ⚫ |
:Why not also say he is a conservative? ] (]) 11:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::As I mentioned, either additionally or instead, and instead because not one of sources actually calls Carlson conservative. Two sources in the article, from 2009 and 2017, describe him as such, but it seems that this descriptor isn't used any more, as Carlson has drifted further to the right. That said, we can use both descriptors if there's consensus for that. ] (]) 12:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Re the suggestion "it seems that this descriptor isn't used any more": I googled "tucker carlson" "conservative" today and within the first page of hits got things dated 2023-2024 from . ] (]) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Both descriptors are fine then. ] (]) 21:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Except that conservative and far-right do not mean the same thing, at at least not in reality. In the world of mainstream establishment mouthpieces, anything that doesn't adhere to the narrow dictates of their peculiar brand of leftism is, in their mind, far-right. It's become an extremely overused and meaningless term and should be simply dropped from all Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 04:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Per , some of the sources you listed while credible, other editors have noted as either bias and/or opinion pieces. If you must include “far-right” why not say something along the lines of “The Wall Street Journal, describes Tucker as Far-Right.” Due to the fact that it’s all opinion. That’s just my view. Interesting point you brought up my friend! ] (]) 13:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not a single source I have listed above is an opinion piece. I don't know why you think that a WSJ descriptor should be attributed; as per the list you linked to, the WSJ is generally reliable and the notes do not mention attribution. ] (]) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for your reply! I was using the Wall Street Journal as an example. Each source you listed whom calls Tucker “far-right” is an opinion of the Author(s) of said article. It’s not a fact that he is or isn’t. We have to be in line with ] (]) 15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, those are no opinion pieces. They are news articles. ] (]) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please understand the difference between reporting of facts and opinions mixed into factual reports (and from a WT editorial on the topic ). That sources call him far-right might be encyclopedic but the problem with so much of this is we are telling vs showing. If nothing else, we can take a wait and see approach. Just because we have recent sources that are making these claims doesn't mean we should instantly change the article, especially when the term is a contentious label. If nothing else, it's poor writing style (see IMPARTIAL). ] (]) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::According whom is the label "contentious"? ] (]) 21:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Whether something is contentious or not depends on whether the sources are in disagreement about it, per ]'s {{tq|avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts}} and {{tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions}}; if high-quality eliable sources state something without any indication that it is controversial, and no other sources contest them, then it is not contentious and should be stated in the article voice. (This is a frequent problem people have when interpreting related policy, since everyone has their own "gut feeling" about what terms and words and descriptors they find controversial and in what context - but it's important that we rely on the sources, not on our gut feelings.) --] (]) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, that is not what LABEL says. From LABEL, "''Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, 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. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.''" Since our Far-Right topic says it's associated with Nazi's, yes, far-right is always a contentious label. ] (]) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yeah, but calling him a "conservative" is blatantly false as the guy is basically a right-wing populist and hasn't held conservative views for a long time. But I suppose if enough sources are using the word "conservative" incorrectly there's no sense in arguing. ] (]) 07:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Pretty much everything you said is correct, but do you have any evidence that {{tq|the sources are in disagreement about}} this characterization of Tucker? If not, then by your own logic, there's nothing controversial about it. ] (]) 12:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::See ]: "'''Far Right''' Also known as the extreme right, ultra right, or radical right, this term is most often used pejoratively to refer to politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the mainstream political right. ] made a similar comment in her book, ''Roads to Dominion'', p. 5. |
|
|
:::The term is used because unlike other ideological groups, such as liberals and conservatives, they do not have a shared self-description. For example, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada calls himself a liberal, while no one calls themself far right. |
|
|
:::Therefore, we should be cautious in using the term and make sure if it is used it is to enlighten readers rather than shame the subjects of articles. |
|
|
:::Descriptions of political positions by journalists should be seen as analysis and therefore not rs. Journalists are experts in telling us what happened today, but they are not political scientists, sociologists or historians. |
|
|
:::I don't see the problem with conservative. While most experts agree that American conservatism is misnamed, it was the term adopted by the radical right in the U.S. in the 1950s. I don't see a big difference between Carlson and the Birchers, McCarthyists and other extremists who first called themselves conservatives. ] (]) 14:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The implication with ] is that it covers ] and ]. Is Carlson a ]? Does he support ]? Because ultranationalists generally do. ] (]) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Determining whether or not Carlson meets the criteria for the far right is synthesis. What matters is whether experts have come to the same conclusion. MAGA supporters blame the Democratic Party for violence by BLM demonstrators. Americans historically have portrayed their opponents in extreme terms, which is ironic considering how little difference there is except in such as issues as which bathrooms transgendered students should use. ] (]) 19:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"Americans historically have portrayed their opponents in extreme terms" Far from unique to Americans. What you describe is ]: "] or ] directed against any individual or group, for the purpose of ], ] and/or ]." Anyway, the ultranationalist type has some common features across continents. The typical "we are going to regain our past greatness" bullshit. : |
|
|
::::::*"], summing up the doctrine in practical terms, "in its most extreme or developed forms, ultra-nationalism resembles ], marked by a xenophobic disdain of other nations, support for ] political arrangements verging on ], and a mythical emphasis on the 'organic unity' between a charismatic leader, an organizationally amorphous movement-type party, and the nation"." .. |
|
|
::::::*"] has stated that ultranationalism is essentially founded on ] in a way that finds supposed legitimacy "through deeply mythicized narratives of past cultural or political periods of historical greatness or of old scores to settle against alleged enemies"." |
|
| ⚫ |
::::::] (]) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Actually describing opponents in extreme terms is largely unique to Americans. For example, the Founding Fathers insulted each other as royalists and jacobins. But over in France, where there actually were royalists and jacobins. Similarly, there actually are communists, fascists, socialists in legislatures outside the U.S. |
|
|
:::::::It doesn't matter whether you believe Carlson meets Griffin's definition of ultra-nationalism but whether experts do. However, it is doubtful. As pointed out in a paper from the Carnegie foundation, , American nationalism is qualitatively different from nationalism elsewhere. It "is defined not by notions of ethnic superiority, but by a belief in the supremacy of U.S. democratic ideals." We would expect for example a U.S. nationalist to denounce Putin as un-American. Biden supporters. who meet the definition of American nationalists, denounce Carlson for LACK of patriotism. |
|
|
:::::::The problem comes IMHO in trying to explain the politics of the U.S. in the 2020s by referring to the politics of Italy in the 1920s. ] (]) 19:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{quote|Actually describing opponents in extreme terms is largely unique to Americans.}} |
|
|
::::::::If you sincerely believe this, perhaps take some time to familiarize yourself with the views of one ] or ]. Or do you think there is nothing "extreme" about labeling your opponents as ]s? ] (]) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If the example you come up with is HItler and Mussolini, then it must be pretty unusual. But the reality is that Hitler and Mussolini's most hated opponents were in fact Bolsheviks. The official name of the Russian Communist Party at the time was the All Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). |
|
|
:::::::::Note also that the Communists referred to Hitler and Mussolini as fascists. |
|
|
:::::::::Calling people communists or fascists (or royals and jacobins) when that in fact is what they are is not describing them in extreme terms. It's only extreme when those terms are used against opponents who are not fascists and communists. That's why describing opponents in extreme terms is largely peculiar to the U.S. It's because there are no actual communists or fascists in the political mainstream. ] (]) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Tucker Carlson is better described as a "far-right conspiracy theorist" than as a conservative political commentator. As the third paragraph shows, Carlson has pushed, among other things, the far-right, racist conspiracy theory of the Great Replacement. The fact that there is even a debate about calling him conservative, as if he was in the same political camp as Mitt Romney of John McCain, only shows the extent to which racist and anti-democratic ideas of the far right have been mainstreamed into conservative discourse. Describing Carlson as conservative is *not* a politically neutral move but has the consequence of normalizing his extreme positions. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162211070060 ) ] (]) 07:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Given that expertise plays a role in the discussion, I should probably add that I have a PhD in political science and work on Trumpism, populism, etc., and among political scientists it is not debated whether people pushing the Great Replacement narrative are part of the far right. Just because it is being mainstreamed by people like Carlson does not make it less extreme. |
|
|
::https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13548565221091983 |
|
|
::https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13684302211028293 ] (]) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::None of these research papers appear to have been peer reviewed or critiqued, so I do not believe their use to support an argument is valid. Additionally, even if they were, their abstracts clearly indicate that the Great Replacement narrative has been coopted by more mainstream conservatives. Are you suggesting that because Carlson has promulgated some of these talking points it makes him "far-right", or are you arguing the opposite? |
|
|
:::{{tq|the paper shows that the conspiracy theory is a flexible political discourse that can be used strategically by both far-right and mainstream right-wing actors.}}<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13548565221091983</ref> |
|
|
:::{{tq|First, such ideas are no longer limited to the outer fringes of the public discourse, as the proponents of this conspiracy can now be found in mainstream politics, the media, and the general public.}}<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13684302211028293</ref> ] (]) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Why do you say "coopted"? Why not just face the fact that formerly moderate right-wing conservatives have become radicalized by Trump and far-right media and moved far to the right? Radical, and rather rapid, changes to the right-wing media landscape have changed the ] of political discourse, and the far-right has become the face of the formerly moderate right-wing. It hardly exists anymore. The far-right has become the mainstream for them because there are hardly any right-wing sources left that are anywhere near the center. They have abandoned that sphere to please Trump and keep their audience. If someone like Carlson is pushing far-right ideas, narratives, and conspiracy theories (and they are), then they are now far-right and should be described as such. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 15:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's ]. In reality, Republicans have long played the race card, villianized minorites, interfered in democratic processes and intervened in numerous countries abroad. And who do you think appointed Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court? |
|
|
:::::John LIndsay, Lowell Weicker, John Anderson, and LIncoln Chafee left the party long ago. ] (]) 00:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here are some recent academic sources I found on Jstor: |
|
|
:* Babcock, ''Virginia Environmental Law Journal'', 2020, Vol. 38, No. 2 (2020), pp. 207-231: {{tq|Tucker Carlson, '''a conservative journalist''' and political commentator on Fox News, explained...}} |
|
|
:* Kleinfeld, ''Carnegie Endowment for International Peace'', 2023: {{tq|In 2021, '''conservative media personality''' Tucker Carlson broadcast his show from Budapest for a week...}} |
|
|
:* Chavez, ''A Field Guide to White Supremacy'', University of California Press, 2021: {{tq|Ehrenreich’s observations from a left-liberal perspective were echoed '''from the conservative political Right by Tucker Carlson''', the Fox News television program host.}} |
|
|
:* Askonas, The New Atlantis , Summer 2022, No. 69, (Summer 2022), pp. 3-35: {{tq|'''The conservative host''' tried valiantly, jousting like he was untouched. But as the segment wore on, his voice kept going higher, he sounded desperate. “I think you’re a good comedian,” he told Stewart. “I think your lectures are boring.” But by the end of the segment, you could see the wheels turning in his head. His name was Tucker Carlson.}} |
|
|
:My quick search did not reveal such a source that calls him "far-right". |
|
|
:] (]) 21:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are correct. Tucker is absolutely not "far-right". If he's far-right by today's terminology, then half of America is far-right and most of America was far-right just a decade ago. This article is misinformative. ] (]) 03:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
:::Or half of Americans are far-right? ] (]) 08:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Are you suggesting that only half the American population are ], ], and in support of ]? I was under the impression that Americans are highly ].] (]) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Nope. I'm suggesting that Tucker isn't far-right at all. He's an ordinary American with a family who wants a safe country, the ability to protect himself and NOT having the government always telling him what to do. These days, the only people who are moving closer and closer towards authoritarianism are Democrats (in this country, liberals in general). It's no longer a far-right (or even moderate right) ideology as it was during The Third Reich. All over the western world, liberal governments are slowly stripping their citizens of rights. ] (]) 00:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I should point out that the reason for my "half the American population" reference is that what Democrats deem "far-right" in 2024 was mainstream a decade ago. It isn't the right that changed. Democrats made a very, very hard shift to the left since the Obama admin. ] (]) 00:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Misplaced Pages talk pages are not an appropriate place to post your political rants. We're here to discuss the article, not if Tucker Carlson's politics are right or wrong. ] (]) 10:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He expressed his disappointment with the Republican nominee for the ], ], and the ] he signed in 2006 as ], which contained an ], saying, "out of 315 million Americans, the Republican Party managed to find the one guy who couldn't run on ]". |
|
{{reflist-talk}}<!--Please place new comments in this section above this template--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change to: |
|
== His father owned property in... == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He expressed his disappointment with the Republican nominee for the ], ], and the ] he signed in 2006 as ], which contained an ], saying, "out of 315 million Americans, the Republican Party managed to find the one guy who couldn't run on ]." ] (]) 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
There is a grammatical error in the sentence listing the locations of his father's properties. The land in Nevada and Vermont is described as "property" (and obviously is on the mainland) while the Maine and Nova Scotia properties are islands. The transition from the two mainland properties to the two island properties requires the word "and" between "Nevada" and "Vermont", thus distinguishing all four locations properly. |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] | ] 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is his signature. Maybe update the Template and add it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TuckerCarlsonSignature.svg <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Clearly this is very minor, but the extreme restrictions on this article dictate that I explain this edit. I expect anyone reverting the edit to explain why it should never have been made. ] (]) 20:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Darryl Cooper subsection == |
|
== Add Signature == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is his signature. Maybe update the Template and add it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TuckerCarlsonSignature.svg ] (]) 04:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Is the addition of the Coopoer section really due in this article. The section comes off as a bit of a coatrack since the sources are criticizing Cooper, not Carlson. The only criticism of Carlson seems to be that the sources feel he should have pushed back. Put another way, what makes this interview any different than many others where Carlson interviews a controversial person? ] (]) 16:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 30 November 2024 == |
|
:Mostly because of the sheer volume of criticism this particular interview received, which was compounded by the fact that it took place during a presidential election season in which one of the two major candidates (and his running mate) are closely allied to Carlson. |
|
|
:Indeed, in terms of the amount of negative attention it got, the Cooper interview is probably second only to Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin (which actually has its own article, not just its own section in Carlson’s article!) ] (]) 08:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Or maybe it's because people are eager to defend the Western imperial war machine? Therefore defaming Darryl Cooper, claiming he engaged in Holocaust denial. ] (]) 04:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I will add that Holocaust denial is rather more serious than just being historical revisionism, and may in fact be very due. ] (]) 09:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could somebody please add how Carlson is sometimes called "Fucker Carlson" for his far right views? The source link is https://x.com/JohnCleese/status/1387377907111284737 ] (]) 11:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
It's important to note that since this is Tucker Carlson's bio, not Darryl Cooper's bio, all the criticism needs to be about Carlson's hosting of Cooper, and not criticism of Cooper's points of view. ] (]) 19:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
:X is not an RS. ] (]) 11:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Apparently, simply requesting an edit is an attempt at vandalism now. Don't ask me why. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
::Who accused you of vandalism? ] (]) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
Is this type of language appropiate? --]] 21:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Tucker hates his mom == |
|
] closed as a redirect to this article, meaning there is a consensus to include something about the interview within this article. We just need to make sure the focus is on Tucker Carlson, and not on Darryl Cooper. ] (]) 22:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He describes her as a San Francisco Liberal which is significant given his hate of liberals and all of san francisco. |
|
:That closing doesn't decide consensus here. This looks like a rather trivial insurance given Carlson's long history. ] (]) 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Why do you think that condemnation by the White House and two dozen Members of Congress make it "trivial" matter? ] (]) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://sfstandard.com/2023/04/24/how-tucker-carlsons-sf-mother-became-a-stand-in-for-everything-he-despises/ ] (]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2024 == |
|
|
⚫ |
:So? ] (]) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{edit extended-protected|Tucker Carlson|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Remove the false claim that Darryl Cooper "endorsed Holocaust denial." I watched the original source material, and this is clearly a misrepresentation of what Darryl Cooper said. Furthermore, please remove footnote 228. The article is not even in English, and web browsers won't translate it, so I can't even see the the citation allegedly referenced here. ] (]) 04:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please read ]. ] (]) 08:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have replaced the foreign language reference with an English reference. But with so much notable cricism, it's impossible to remove the section on the controversy. ] (]) 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
He describes her as a San Francisco Liberal which is significant given his hate of liberals and all of san francisco.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Done 