Talk:Tim Pool/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archive 1

→

Tim Pool a conspiracy theorist?

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.

RfC withdrawn, and editors have agreed to open a reformatted discussion Nblund^talk 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please correct my formatting if needed

Certain sources 1 2 3 4 mention Tim Pool as a conspiracy theorist, either in passing or as part of a list of others. At least one source also includes a refutation from Pool, stating that he did not promote the conspiracy theory, although he did mention it and said he needed further evidence about it. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS States that " Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." We disagree on whether these sources, while traditionally considered reliable by WP, are reliable in this case, as I think we would agree here that common sense shows Pool did not actually promote the theory as really true. We also disagree on how notable for inclusion the sources are relative to Pool's biography. And we would like clarification as to whether it is appropriate per the special protections in WP:BLP to include accusations which are mentioned by the sources in passing and have been denied by the subject. We are also in need of clarification as to whether if we include a sentence stating that Pool has been accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, whether we should also state that he denies the charge (per one of the secondary sources and his own statements). B^e ⊢ C^ritical 18:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thus Far the 4 source cited refer to only two events, and three of the four sources dont explicitely refer to Tim himself, rather ettempt to use guilt by association and plausible denyiability to make it seems so. BLP guidelines assert that we need a clear and direct quote, but also tht we should caution, make sure we respect the law of the US and make sure that no part is contentious. Thus far, it seeems to me by reading older comments that describing Tim Pool as either "far right" or a "conspiracy theorist" is highly contentious. Would this be a normal page, not a biography, @greyfell argument would stand and yes, I believe a Critique section could be a good idea. Unelss the BLP changes, To add "conspiracy theorist" you need a clear quote, not an article that speaks about many people and on the way mention tim. It is not clear if they are framing tim as such or trying to make a point as to why conspiracy theorist are bad for society as they end up misleading indepent journalists, here is an example. It seems pretty clear to me that the political commentary psovided by tim (as a first source) act as a motivator for many interventions here. There is a clear effort to try to frame his character and use the most damageable attack possible. TRying to frame ANY journalist, or News Organisation, as conspiracy theorist, should always be highly contentious and hopefully a rigourous burden of proof review process should prevent this device to be used as a mean for provate companies competing against one each other to freely use Wikipedia asa black PR firm either to promote themselves or attack their opponents. Conspiracy theorist should be considered as a potential attack on ANY of those Article, including but not limited to Tim Pool and Subverse pages. Again, I repeat myself : Wikipedia should not be a place where we try to affect peoples lifes outside of wikipedia. LAstly, I would also admit that the amount of stuff in this article for someone who has done barely nothing but happen to like drones and cover news himself. I think the argument of Tim Pool<s notability is just as much stretched as the idea that he is either a conspiracy theorist or a russian asset (that one is a joke refering to the latest clinton comments. wanna speack about conspiracy theorist ? maybe it should be added to clinton bio. I wont go there and try because i think we should wait that she dies and have at least two source directly saying so, but that is my own treshold) So I would like to propose we close and remove the article completely. I am not convinced that the notabilty is there and it is bound to create a page that swings from being alomst a promo page to an almost tabloid article aimed at defaming someone, which tend to happen time to time on wikipedia, it takes a while before on some pages people realise that BLP guidelines exist and raise naturally the treshold of the burden of evidence being met for an edit to make its way to the article and remain there as hundred of annonymous viewers pass behind and review for their own. This is what is happening here. Many people follow tim news so attacking his brand here is unlikely to go unnoticed and remain. Since the rules are clear, they tend to apply. Other youtubers dont have this approach and let their personnal bio become littered with defamation, but thus far it doesnt as much damage the person as much as wikipedia itself. Remember that wikipedia depends on the public donation. Using it for political purpose is unlikely to have a positive outcoume for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thus far here is the 2 best sources on that point IMHO (Thx BE critical BTW) : https://deadline.com/2019/07/donald-trump-social-media-summit-elizabeth-warren-stable-genius-1202644883/ https://newrepublic.com/article/154467/trump-social-media-summit-assembles-gang-deplorables

and here are two direct quotes, that could be used, but I still think it is Highly contentious and do not meet the BLP guidelines.

From the New Republic : So did Tim Pool, a YouTube conspiracy theorist who has suggested that Seth Rich, the former DNC staffer whose 2016 murder remains unsolved, was collaborating with Wikileaks on anti–Hillary Clinton releases. Earlier this week, Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff revealed that conspiracy theory was created by Russian intelligence officers seeking to disrupt the 2016 presidential election and provide cover for their own election interference efforts

From the Deadline : Editors note: An earlier version of this article said Pool claimed that Seth Rich leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks; other publications, including Daily Beast, The New Republic and Medium, have also linked Pool to Rich conspiracy claims. But in in an email to Deadline, Pool denied making the WikiLeaks claim. In tweets today, he wrote that “Media now falsely claiming that by saying I didn’t *completely* believe Seth Rich leaked emails to Wikileaks I “helped push” the conspiracy theory.”

In other words All sources refer to 2 events. The Ilham Omar story is blatantly false as proove the StarTribune article which preceeds both tim and Media Matter and the claim that Tim Pool is a conspiracy theorist because he covered the Seth Rich Story (to which BLP Guidelines also apply, he is a recently deceased person) is contered by the editor's note of the deadline. In short, I haven't found yet one instance where Tim is reported as a conspiracy theorist and this claim not being crontradicted by other sources of equal or better quality.

Lastly, I would like to contend that the vandalism has started the 18th of october and seems to have something to do with the Fact tha Ms Clinton is probably gonna run, the fact that Tulsi is an active critique of her resume and the fact that tim unambiguously shared his preference about tulsi over any other candidate. I would suggest we extend the locked state of the article until the end of the US elections in 2020, but again just deleting the page completely would prevent wikipedia altogether to be used by either parties of this political struggle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Try harder, please - RFCs should be brief and neutral. They are intended to attract outside contributors to a specific issue. It's not realistic, or polite, to expect someone to read these comically lengthy walls-of-text before commenting. Further, this RFC poisons the well by implying that anyone who accepts the accuracy of multiple reliable sources lacks common sense, and this strikes me as bad faith. If you cannot make this short and neutral, this RFC is not going to accomplish anything. Do not filibuster, and do not disrupt a process just to prove a point. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. You should stop posting for a while, 50% of the whole texts here are your creation greyfell. please take a break and come back november third when editon is re-allowed or if you have found a new, better source, that could substanciate your claims that tim pool is a conspiracy theorsit and alt right. Policing the talk page wont get you freebees to say what you want in the article. It just demouunstrate your tendency to authoritarism. Thats your personnal choice, I dont know if I would like to behave this way personnally, I think it is sub optimal and potentially destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

More helpfull, I think you might appreciate a read. It is called rules for radicals from Saul Alinsky. Enlightening, a good read especially if you apply skepticism ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of Alinksy, and am not interested. Please review WP:NOTFORUM. My proposal was to add a single sentence, with attribution to NBC News. You are the one introducing "alt-right" into this, and that misrepresent the entire discussion. As has already been explained, you should stop using insults and inappropriate personal speculation. If you think my behavior is inappropriate, take it to a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't mean to poison the well, and if I genuinely did I apologize. But just as anyone with common sense reading conspiracy theories knows what to do with them, the validity of the opinions in these pieces do not pass the test. This is just the kind of thing that the authors of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS were probably thinking of when they asked us to question otherwise reliable sources. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this RfC is too lengthy and also lacks clarity. Try to condense it to one concise, intelligible question that offers a clear choice, would be my advise. El_C 23:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well sorry, not everything lends itself to "clear choice" and "one question." That of course is the reason for the RfC. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 00:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Just trying to help. From experience, I don't think you'll get that much outside input this way, is all. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll find out. El_C 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@greyfell No, I just read your previous comments from the talk page and reviewed past versions of the article since 2011. AS far as I can read your NBC source does not provide a clear quotation. I finally found, thanks to be critical editor, that The republic give us that quote and that the deadline also provide a clear, unambiguous rebuttal. Sourced and clear. You have been here for two things so far as I can read : the alt right libel and the conspiracy theorist libel. I still strongly disagree and observe that you are not helping to reach consensus since many alternative options have been raised, thus far you have rejected them all. AS far as I<m concerned, since we have now clear usable quotation, we could have a section on criticism with two source quoted, no need of weasle speak, one being the republic, the other being deadline editor's note, butt still reading BLP guidelines, if it reach my personnal treshold it doesnt seems to respect the call for caution and for a conservative approach, as stipulates unambiguously in the BLP guidelines. I was just trying to help you stop waisting a rare and precious ressource called time by referring you to an author known to advocate the kind of tactics you have been displaying here with great ostensibility, so you know that we are not newbees at this. I<m sorry to find out that you have been trying so hard for so long to end up having anonymous wikipedia users deliver a systematic rebuttal to what seems, on a common sens basis, biased sourcing and OR, if you ask me. IM not accusing you of doing it intentionally, but I dont mind being honest about what I think either. Look, if you have a journalist friend, ask him for a news article labelling tim pool as couspiracy theorist on another topic. If no other news source offer a rubuttal, maybe you could have it your way, but until then you have failed to meet the burden of proof to add what you want on the article and failed to convince about every other editor on this talk page thus far. Its funny to read you bring those rules while blatantly trying to circumvent them, You should probably read the comments left to you by other users. You seem to think I<m the one who invoqued BLP and locked the article, but thats not the case, it looks like many other people have a similar opinion on your take and describe it as ridiculous claims (see "False claims about the medias matters" talk section. been locked since you have repeated there the same content you have been pushing the previous days on the previous talk sections, Im not the one who took the call to block it). I have too much fun fencing with you to call an admin and try to get you locked out of wikipedia. It would be conterproductinve since I<m convinced you could appreciate the new propositon I<m bringing here, one that was brought up by at least 2 other users, or similar variations of the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Becritical and @El_C Do you think a Crticism section referring to both the claim of the Republic https://newrepublic.com/article/154467/trump-social-media-summit-assembles-gang-deplorables and Tim's rebuttal in the editor's note section of the Deadline https://deadline.com/2019/07/donald-trump-social-media-summit-elizabeth-warren-stable-genius-1202644883/ would pass the test of the BLP guidelines ? I dont think the two other source could be used, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well if this is the only thing to be covered, I don't think so simply because I don't think this criticism is notable in the first place. Acontroversy section might be a different story, since Pool is all about controversy. But at the same time, I doubt there are third party sources sufficient to fill it up. Still, if this is the only way WP can cover it fairly, it's a possible way to go. I don't know why we're here really. Seemed like just saying "Pool's been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, which he denies on the grounds he merely talked out them and asked for more evidence," should have been a rather uncontroversial way to do it. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

All it needs is one motivated user. Hence my previous systematic criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(sorry) I also think your uncontroversial take woud fit the job perfectly BTW, with The republic as source for the fact tim is being called conspiracy theorist and the Deadline as the source we can use for his rebuttal. It would also mean that if in the future Tim start seriously to go full flat earth we can trust @Greyfell will keep this article accurate and updated ASAP ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL, yes (: Apparently people think this RfC is too complicated. But funnily enough that's why we need an RfC. If it were a simple question why would we need help? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 02:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@173.176.159.21 and @Becritical — I 100% agree that it's just not notable in the first place. Becritical's points are concise. The subject's only relevance to the topics of the respective articles is that he is listed, among others, as an invitee to the summit. The articles stand regardless of his inclusion, so I have to think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS precludes using them to source anything about the subject except perhaps an entry that he was invited to the summit. I like Becritical's solution or variant: "Pool has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, which he denies on the grounds he merely talked about them and expressed the need for more evidence." The subject's career choice at the moment is covering controversial headlines and I think including this sentence could be a justifiably fair and balanced reflection of what is being reported as a result. The problem is, if WP:CONTEXTMATTERS nullifies these sources, there's little to support the statement. They're splitting hairs. We're splitting split hairs. lol TheRedReverend (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheRedReverend Yes we are splitting splitted hairs but in the meantime that might be just good enough to reach consensus. If as you mention WP:CONTEXTMATTERS nullifies it, at least we have a beginning of a solution that can be re worked as new sources covers our topic and it would at least remain in the history of the article and could be recycled until it reaches WP:CONTEXTMATTERS treshold of acceptability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@173.176.159.21 Threshhold of acceptability. Works for me! "Be a Wikipedia editor," they said. "It'll be easy," they said. LOL TheRedReverend (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@173.176.159.21 @TheRedReverend: That works for me as well. If we are willing to accept that additional, reliable secondary sourced that specifically commit to a statement, such as "Tim Pool is a conspiracy theorist" are required to add any more comments, I think that is acceptable. My contention as always been that the sourced quoted were attempting to misrepresent the facts and we need more solid evidence before someone states or implies he is a conspiracy theorist.Seraphael7 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As to whether we really ought to be mentioning that Pool has been accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, perhaps we should review the article on Hillary Clinton, and see if they include such accusations against her. . These offhand accusations or list-inclusions about Pool might be proportionally similar to Hillary being accused of promoting a conspiracy theory by major news organizations, and other news organizations writing dedicated articles about it. But I think we all know they aren't going to include it. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 03:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I applaud your Naivete. The people who disagree with you have no intention of presenting balanced arguments. They are about to point out that the way that Hillary or Don Lemon are presented should not be allowed to interfere in their attempts to smear someone they don't like.Seraphael7 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OMG wikipedia is getting serious ! So, I have to make a donation now... we should, its great :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Rfc are supposed to be short and concise. This is clearly not and thus no reasonable conclusion will come from this. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you guys even talking about? What is the use of an RfC if it can only be used for simple questions? Simple questions are the kind one can solve easily. Complex questions are the kind one needs outside help with. If that is what Wikipedia does these days, it's asinine. And what are you opposing? Complex RfCs? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 18:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle Ideally I understand your point. But your colleague @Greyfell worked really hard against the consensus. Again, appeal to authority here is likely to backlash and make the page even more popular and used. Also, it seems clear to me this page is unusually popular with non regular wikipedia users, hence why it doesnt bend to political correcteness or with the groupthink of certain online crowds ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify that the questions of this RfC are related and inseparable. They are as follows:

1. "We disagree on whether these sources, while traditionally considered reliable by WP, are reliable in this case (per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS)."

2. "We would like clarification as to whether it is appropriate per the special protections in WP:BLP to include accusations which are mentioned by the sources in passing and have been denied by the subject."

3. "We are also in need of clarification as to whether if we include a sentence stating that Pool has been accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, whether we should also state that he denies the charge (per one of the secondary sources and his own statements)."

These are related, inseparable questions all of which must be answered together. You can't answer 1 without answering 2, and 3 cannot be answered till 1 and 2 are answered; and we want to get all the way to 3, because that's our main conflict. So please take the time to answer. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 18:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree or disgree with the following proposition : That we add a Criticism section containing the following "Pool's been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, which he denies on the grounds he merely talked out them and asked for more evidence,"3 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

malformed RfCs should be concise, ask a clear question and be neutrally worded. This is none of those things. There's clearly a dispute over some specific content here, so it should be fairly easy to simply ask "can we include X"? Nblund^talk 20:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect: the dispute isn't over content per se, but over sourcing and BLP issues, as very, very clearly stated. Please do read before posting. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Funny. Just so you know, @grayfell wants <<conspiracy theorist>> to be added. I guess thus far the consensus is : No, unless in a criticism section with his sourced rebuttal. It is pretty questionable to see you, @Greyfell and and @Spy-cicle coordinate and try sabotage a consensus found by untrained wikipedia random users. We are many and you are few. You are trained and we are wild. Good luck with it. Trying to police us by using qualifiers in an attempt to unlegitimate an honest conversasion is laughable at best. Get back on Carl's Benjamin page if you want to participate to the slander of someone. It wont work here, not when you have an organic movement of users coming it with volume. It is not short of concise because of sheer volume of participant. You cant control or police the swarm, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2019 (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.

Break

If editors commenting are going to insist that the question be reformed into something it is not- namely, a simple issue which doesn't need any thought or research, then there's no point in pursuing it any further. If anyone would like to do another RfC and make it what the commenters want, maybe they can do a better job. So since I stopped editing RfCs are only for simple no-thought issues? I don't know what WP has come to. Used to be editors could think deeply about things. But anyway, as I understand things, we do have a consensus between myself and the new editors. If I can put it simply enough, it is that there's no need to include anything about the conspiracy theory accusations because they are exactly what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is trying to prevent us from using. But if we do include it, we have a secondary source which presents a response. I would also like to address Greyfell's talk about WP:FRINGE. This is not relevant, since no one is trying to promote or discuss a fringe theory, including Pool. And contrary to what Greyfell said, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe you can claim to have found a consensus by posting a wall of text and then refusing to make any effort to correct the problem or address reasonable complaints from other editors. If you're interested in finding a consensus, you need to offer a concise summary of the issue so that other editors can offer additional input. Nblund^talk 23:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So, what is your suggestion ? that we add stuff ? thus far BLP says the burdon of proof is on adding stuff, not removing it. It is to the people who wants to add to reach consensus on adding and how. Thus far the argument of adding has failed. up to you to reach consensus on what to add and where and how. God i Love those BLP guidelines. Simple and effective. People should apply them. Its beautifull as it forces to keep things clean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A single paragraph is not concise enough? I literally broke it down into numbered questions for them- after the complaints. We don't need answers to questions that are as simple as they want. If editors can't deal with any complexity, then we'll just have to forgo outside help. Also, what "wall of text" did I post? Are you referring to the single paragraph of the RfC? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 00:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it really isn't short enough. It's going to discourage uninvolved editors from attempting to answer the question. Your breakdown also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but there's no specific information about the sourcing or the content, so it isn't possible to to answer the question. The best thing to do here is probably to withdraw this RFC and then create a reformatted one. But simply saying "we don't need em" isn't going to work, and it comes off as actively undermining the process of consensus building. Nblund^talk 00:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I already requested that if someone thought they could do it better, they give it a try. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I said we don't need them, because not only was no one willing to take the time to answer three related questions... they actively complained they shouldn't have to. We don't need help like that, and saying so isn't undermining consensus, since no consensus was in the process of being reached. Unless you mean the consensus that Wikipedians aren't able to answer. But I edited for years, and I know the complexity of questions which Wikipedia routinely deals with. I merely meant to convey that in my opinion, these are the questions that need answering, and if people are unwilling to engage with them we'll have to try to form consensus without comment. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Becritical: a little self-introspection instead of casting blame onto others is due here. El_C 04:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that's true, but I need someone to show me how a proper RfC is done. Would you be willing to help? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought I did when I wrote [t]ry to condense it to one concise, intelligible question that offers a clear choice. Now, I can't write the RfC question for you, but I would advise you to submit a proposed text as part of the RfC (e.g. should the article include or exclude the following <blank>?) — while with regards to any BLP concerns, if you consider that a pressing issue, I would submit a separate report at BLPN for further clarification. Hope this helps. El_C 04:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but that doesn't sound to me like it would be helpful. The questions when taken separately would have different answers from what they would have if they were considered together. We would be left with the same questions as we started with. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 05:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a crack at a new RfC, but you would need to agree to withdraw this one first. I would recommend that we go ahead and do that since this one is not going anywhere. As far as I can tell, this is the contested edit. So it should be fairly straightforward to ask if some version of that edit is acceptable. Your other RfC questions present your preferred framing of the content dispute, but we really shouldn't be telling editors how to frame things. Nblund^talk 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, but how do you withdraw it? B^e ___ C^ritical 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. So, is it a simple "yes" or "no" regarding whether this version or something like it is preferable to the current version? Is there another version you might want to offer as an option? And @Grayfell: are you on board as well or are there changes you would want to make? Nblund^talk 15:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't blame anyone for missing it, but as I have said several times, my original proposal is to mention this conspiracy theory with attributions to NBC news:

According to NBC News, Pool had "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks.^[1]^[2]

This would include the specific context from the sources, not just as a vague accusation. This statement could also include a sentence to indicate Pool disputes this, citing the Deadline source. I'm not sure how to phrase that, since it's fairly cryptic as a response. It could also be rephrased to include the other sources which mention it. "According to NBC News and others..." or similar. For what it's worth, I was not the one who added Media Matter. I don't think it's worth edit warring over, and I don't think it's a BLP violation, but it's also relatively weak. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

[1]
Collin, Ben; Alba, Monica (July 10, 2019). "Conspiracy theorists, far-right agitators head to White House with social media in their sights". NBC News. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
[2]
Sommer, Will (July 11, 2019). "Trump Praises Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorists at White House Social Media Summit". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 21, 2019.

Agree with Grayfell, if we include it. That is a good way to write it, including Pool's response. I suggested phrasing for his response. I think it's also quite obvious that the sources are wrong about Pool (in a recent video he said how much he hates conspiracy theories, and in the videos I've watched I've never seen him promote any), and I think that it's within our editorial purview to decide it doesn't merit inclusion. For various reasons, such as that it's not notable, or that he's only mentioned in passing and isn't the subject of the articles. But Greyfell's course of action is good if we do include it. B^e ___ C^ritical 00:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I added an attempt to re-open the discussion below. If there are glaring issues let me know.Nblund^talk 01:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Vandalism

This page have been the subject of vandalism since october 18th and forced admins to put it in protected mode. Here is the potential vandalism, as you can all find it in the history of the precedent versions : Criticism Media Matters for America, a left-wing media advocacy organization, has classified Pool as a far-right commentator[32]and a conspiracy theorist[33].

This specific line of claim have been heavily contested by many users. Thus far, neither Mediamatters or NBC sources can be used since neither affirm that im is a conspiracy theorist or far right. However another source, The republic, provide this direct claim that could be directly quoted, and a fourth, the Deadline, providing a rebuttal, proving the libel conspiracy theorist as UNFOUDED SLANDER until better sources cover the topic.

As such I propose we consider the addition of the libel conspiracy theorist at this stage with these two refences as vandalism and the repeated action to revoque the deletion as an edit war. To prevent further acts of vandalism I propose an extention of the protected state until 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be heard, you're going to need to familiarize yourself with some basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For starters, you need to sign your statements on the talk page, and you need to indent your posts when you're responding to someone. The inclusion of sourced material - even if contested by other users - is not WP:VANDALISM. "Slander" and "libel" are legal terms, and they're best avoided in Wikipedia discussions because they can be construed as legal threats. You are not going to get anything accomplished by going around insisting that you intend to overwhelm editors through sheer numbers rather than through policy-based consensus building. In fact, you're far more likely to get blocked for that kind of rhetoric. Take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Maybe create an account. But please stop this. It is disruptive. Nblund^talk 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Said sourced material does not refer to Tim neither as conspiracy theorist or far right. Since it is charged and seems to be used for its shock value, I respectfully disagree with you. We also found two alternative sources but it would have to include his rebuttal that was published within the deadline. We have time, I'm just proposing we keep things the way they are until 2021 and still believe the therm vandalism is correct and precisely describes what is happenning. You can continue to work on Carl's Benjamin bio in the meantime, we'll join you there later on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:INDENT and WP:SIG. The page was not protected due to vandalism —please see what vandalism is not— I know that for a fact because I'm the one who protected it. El_C 22:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

say what you want. When I see a Cat, I call it a Cat. And no, I dont want to help a tabloid, so sorry, I have to respectfully decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This page have been the subject of vandalism since october 18th and forced admins to put it in protected mode — again, I'm the admin who protected the page, so I think I'm pretty well positioned to know why it was protected! El_C 22:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GREAT ! please enlighten us on the specifics, I am curious. Sorry if I was mistaken

I still think it is vandalism and still think it is why, in essence, why this page is locked and propose you to extend the situation to 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Imfrom the outside world you know. In real life, on the streets and in worplaces, words already have a sense, I could understand that for wikipedia, maybe its not vandalism, but in real life, it is. UNAMBIGUOUSLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't real life. It's Wikipedia. If you want people to listen to you here, you need to familiarize yourself with how things work on this site.Nblund^talk 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand enough and I'm pretty happy on how much I'm getting heard, but appreciate the feedback. I will sleep on it, thak you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Y'all should brush up on what WP considers vandalism, and should also stop talking about libel. Brush up on the definition of libel as well. I haven't edited in a while, but I still remember how futile it was to try to help new editors this way... but for what it's worth. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So, no censensus on adding those 4 references, a criticism section and "conspiracy theorist" to the article. I still think if we want to reach consensus, those who wants to have "conspiracy theorist" added will have to accept the rebuttal contained in the editor's note of the Deadline and accept not to use neither the NBC reference, nor media matters, and will have to provide a sentence that respects both BLP guidelines and context matters. Also, important note, if new sources could be found and used, if things change sensibly, I think this debate could healthily be re-open. But you guys will have to meet the burdon of proof to have your additions. The text of the BLP guidelines is what you are fighting, subtily, if you haven't figured out yet. Therefore if those guideline changes, that is the other scenario where this debate could be re-open healthily with the same sources. with love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) Grayfell is the only one that wanted it in. Nobody else that has weighed in does. Can we get a determination that consensus has been reached, wait until better sources present, and all go out for coffee? TheRedReverend (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what Greyfell has to say about it. He hasn't been around. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 06:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly not vandalism regardless of whether or not it belongs or has trouble that requires rewording or more sources. Continuing to insist on calling it vandalism when multiple people have told you it is not, means any arguments to have for its removal are more likely to be ignored as you've demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how things work around here and an unwillingness to learn so it's reasonable for people to think you don't have useful policy backed reasons. So if you actual have a decent argument for removal it's in your own interest to listen to what you are being told. In addition if you call it vandalism when it's not, this could be construed as a personal attack against those adding or supporting the change and you could be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking apart another source

An article which I think is being used to term Pool "far right," has the following text:

Tim Pool falsely claimed Star Tribune claimed that Omar “may have married her brother.” Tim Pool, a YouTuber with connections to multiple white nationalists and far-right figures, uploaded a June 23 video falsely claiming that the Star Tribune showed Omar “may have married her brother.” [YouTube, 6/23/19; Media Matters, 7/9/19]

Let's take that apart. First, according to Snopes, it is not inaccurate to say that she may have married her brother, which contradicts the source's (positive) claim it is false. The source also says that Pool "uploaded a June 23 video falsely claiming that the Star Tribune showed Omar “may have married her brother.” ”". Mediamatters seems to be using a screenshot of this video as its source. However, the Star Tribune article says that "The search of records could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling."

The sources therefore conflict. Mediamatters claim that Pool's claim about what the Star Tribune said was false conflicts with what the Star Tribune actually said. Pool's claim was in fact accurate. Saying you can't confirm or deny something is the same as saying that it may be true (or false).

We are empowered as editors to note contradictions or false claims like this.

Second, if a journalist talks to or interviews subjects, does that mean they "have connections to" them? As you see, this is an implication that even this source doesn't bother to support.

I would therefore ask that this source not be used. It seems to have it in for Pool, but doesn't have enough editorial oversight to even get its basic facts straight. B^e ___ C^ritical 00:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we call him "far right" in the article somewhere? I don't see this source cited. WP:NPOV requires us to represent notable viewpoints, even if we think those noteable viewpoints "have it in" for someone. In principal I don't see any problem with leaving this source out, but it is misguided to suggest that we should exclude sources who are critical of a topic. Nblund^talk 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Did someone ask that sources critical of Pool be left out? As far as I know, people have only been asking that such sources be good ones. That is to say, both RS publications and not merely inclusions in lists and not contradicting their own sources like this one. B^e ___ C^ritical 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we find a source that calls him far right, how would people feel about including his own view that he is center/left (I think that is what he self identifies as)? Springee (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there are sources calling him "far right", not even Media Matters. We cite his self-description as a liberal and a "milquetoast fence-sitter" in the article, although the cited source for that is actually his video about this Wikipedia page. I think just citing his self-description as "centrist" is probably sufficient, and we have a secondary source for that here. Nblund^talk 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on which version you look at. In this recent version, the Mediamatters source is used to call him "far right," even though the source only says "right wing." B^e ___ C^ritical 00:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that version had a lot of problems, and I don't think we need to restore it. Opinion pieces critical of Pool might be worth inclusion in accordance with WP:YESPOV and due weight, but that wasn't even an accurate characterization of Media Matters opinion. Nblund^talk 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Break

Related Articles