Talk:Tim Pool/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RFC on allegation that Pool promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theory
Should we include some mention that Pool was accused of promoting the claim that Seth Rich had leaked the Clinton campaign's emails to Wikileaks? One suggested wording would be:
According to NBC News, Pool has "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks.[1][2] Pool has disputes that he promoted the conspiracy theory.[3]
References
- 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.
- Sommer, Will (July 11, 2019). "Trump Praises Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorists at White House Social Media Summit". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
- Evans, Greg (July 11, 2019). "Social Media Summit Day: Donald Trump Slams Tech Companies, Mocks Elizabeth Warren's Appearance, Calls Himself A Great Looking Stable Genius". Deadline. Retrieved 25 October 2019.
Editors are welcome to propose alternate wordings below, the primary concern is whether or not any inclusion is warranted. Nblund talk 01:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Survey
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.
- Include He's not someone who receives a ton of article length coverage, but a number of different outlets took note of the Seth Rich stuff as the central fact of his biography when explaining who he was back in July - to my mind, that suggests that this is useful context for his bio. We also have Pool's response, so we can offer balanced coverage of both the criticism and his view. Nblund talk 01:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Include, but do not say he's been "accused" of it. Just say he promoted Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. The fact that this is something that RS mention when they cover him (and not a lot of RS cover him at all) makes it clearly DUE. As for the editors who are quibbling about its accuracy, Pool explicitly says he believes it's likely that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker and praises InfoWars for its reporting on the issue. He's not "covering" the conspiracy theory, he's promoting it. The equivalent for 9/11 conspiracy theories is to say the WTC towers were likely rigged with explosives and praising the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change. It's bonkers to characterize it as anything other than pushing conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude This is clearly a disputed claim and it seems there is some subjective interpretations used to support the view he pushed the narrative. This is sourced to a twitter account that is clipping something TP said. The Twitter account didn't provide the full video of what PT said so we can't verify context. Even in context of what was actually presented, he didn't say anything about SR being "murdered for leaking", he only said he thinks SR may have been the leaker. That's not the same thing as saying there was a conspiracy to kill SR due to leaking. We really should avoid using such contentious, poorly sourced material, especially when it's only being mentioned in context of partisan snipping especially in a BLP. This is a case where we as editors CAN and should engage in OR to review the quality of the claims being made in the sources. They don't stand up. Springee (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's being sourced to NBC News, The Daily Beast and the New Republic. Prohibitions on OR is a great policy and this is a great case in point why: so that editors who are incapable of distinguishing fact and fiction aren't reinterpreting every insane conspiracy theory as "just asking questions" and "being skeptical". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The DB seems to be quoting the NBC tech and media article which is basing their claim on a single Tweet. That Tweet has a video that has been edited in a way that removed context. No link to the original video is provided. Even given what the video actually includes the "Tim Pool promotes SR murder conspiracy" claim can't reasonably be supported since TP didn't say that. So no, the sourcing shows itself to be weak. We don't have to accept what they say just because NBCNews is generally reliable. We can actually think for ourselves and look at the source of the claim. Given this is the only evidence that TP "pushed the conspiracy" and TP has expressly said this is not true this claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny and shouldn't be in a BLP. If there were multiple TP videos that supported the view that TP pushed the conspiracy theory then we can revisit the question. BTW, please review WP:OR. It specifically says the restriction on OR only applies to the article space and is specifically allowed when discussing sources in the talk space. Springee (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, ignoring your plea that Wikpiedia should use OR: if we are to use OR, your OR is very simply wrong. This is very very simple: he says he believes it's likely that Seth Rich is the DNC leaker and praises "reporting" by the conspiracy network that pushes a slew of conspiracy theories about Seth Rich. That's pushing Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your statements don't support your claim that my OR was incorrect. The video was clearly clipped so we don't know what TP said between the SR material and the other material. Do you have any other sources that don't trace back to this tweet using an edited video to support the material you want to add? It's discouraging that editors are so uncritical as to think that a random twitter account, presenting a clearly stitched together video is sufficient to include negative information in a BLP. Perhaps we should both agree to disagree and let others speak their peace. Springee (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going to back away from a statement I made earlier. @Snooganssnoogans: is correct, I made a mistake. I was thinking the conspiracy was that Seth Rich was murdered for leaking emails. I agree that Pool did say he thought it was possible that SR leaked the emails but this seems to have been blown out of proportion. Given that he did not "push" anything and it is more accurate to say he didn't out right deny it, I still see no reason for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude None of the three source quoted here support the underlying claim. Doing so with those references is OR, you need to make a claim about your opinion of how you think and feel Tim covered that news. Also, the claim is contradicted by the Deadline editor's note. Blatant attempt to circumvent BLP guidelines, as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — 173.176.159.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This is a one-month old single-purpose account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Good luck weasle speak your way arround. This is not an account, this is my IP address, also used to comment on Carl Benjamin's page. You dont see my previous edits because I switched ISP about a month ago. I wont open an account in wikipedia as long as I dont see minimal application of the BLP guidelines on critical pages that make WP as a whole not usable anymnore, at all. Please apply BLP guidelines to biographies ??? You wont see me proposing addition in pages in my field of expertise until then, sorry. I cant do that. Not when seeing you working that hard to fram Tim as a conspiracy theorist. You might win, but it is WP that will lose. Not the users offering a rebuttal. WP will lose to this fight. in form of credibility and its ability to raise donations from users. If you like wikipedia, please help it apply its own policies so it can fund its essential activities.
- Source: 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.”)https://deadline.com/2019/07/donald-trump-social-media-summit-elizabeth-warren-stable-genius-1202644883/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk • contribs)
- Include as long as it includes attribution and Pool's denial. My recommended wording would be: "In 2019, NBC News and The New Republic described Pool as having promoted the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks, although Pool strongly denied the accusation." – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is much better already, but that becomes too much close to titillations for me. I still think it woud not respect the principles of caution and conservative approach as demanded by the BLP guidelines. That it doesnt gets applyied on other articles doesn't mean we have to let it spread through WP unchallenged. I would also argue that your new proposition is too easy to co-opt and sabotage. Once the conspiracy thing added, it is too easy to remove any mention of the rebuttal, hence my argument on caution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk • contribs)
- Exclude Reliable Sources states that "The reliability of a source depends on context... 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." The sources used here fail. They merely include Pool as part of a list, or in passing, and are not focused on Pool. They also don't pass the snicker test. Pool has stated that he did not promote the theory, and hates conspiracy theories. The sources do not look as if they have been subjected to any real editorial scrutiny, and come off as if they are backhanded jibes by individual authors. One even calls him a "conspiracy theorist" for allegedly promoting only one conspiracy theory. We have WP:BLP because we are supposed to be treating subjects with fairness and balance. It seems certain to me that in a biography from another (neutral) source, this would be excluded as being non-notable, inaccurate, and unkind. Be ___ Critical 00:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is all your own ridiculous original research. Pool pushes conspiracy theories all the time, so this is not one instance. Furthermore, these sources don't just off-hand link conspiracy theories to him. They literally use this to describe him when they mention him. That is his claim to notability: he's a contrarian who spends his time pushing conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric. And what on Earth does it matter that he himself disagrees with being called a conspiracy theorist? Every conspiracy theorist characterizes themself as some kind of rational thinker... who chooses to self-describe as a conspiracy theorist? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Rhetoric and opinion. Unsupported claim. Unsupported claim. Incorrect use of the word "literally." Opinion and unsupported claim. Ignoring caution regarding contentiousness of the entry in a BLP. Irrelevant. Proves contentiousness of the entry. TheRedReverend (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans, since you obviously did your own "ridiculous original research" to decide that Pool does promote conspiracy theories, please do share. Also, researching what the subject of a BLP has said is not "original research." So please do name this "fringe rhetoric" and "conspiracy theories." You seem to be pushing your own views onto this article. You are obviously not neutral, and you obviously hate Pool. You shouldn't be editing here. You're a stereotypical POV pusher. Be ___ Critical 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude Firstly, one of the two sources provided, this being The Daily Beast has no concensus at WP:RSP and states "special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to living persons." This means we have to disregard this source considering this is contentious material about a living person (WP:BLP). Secondly, the statement to be added is an exceptional claim have on a living person and provides only one reasonable source. This exceptional claim has to have "multiple high-quality sources" per WP:REDFLAG. Finally, there is only one small mention of Pool in the NBC article and "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and thus is not a reliable claim to have on a living person. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 23:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- What exactly is exceptional about the claim that he pushed Murder of Seth conspiracy theories? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is an exceptional claim to have on a living person considering there is no verifable evidence from a wide range of high quality sources as mentioned in my statement above. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 12:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Snoogan's comment highlights one of the issues here. Several of us (myself and Snoogan included) have confused or conflated the SR murder conspiracy with the theory that SR was the source of the leaked emails. The sources here say nothing about TP supporting the SR murder conspiracy yet here we are discussing it and Snoogan seems to be advocating for inclusion even though that isn't what sources say. Yet another reason for exclusion. Springee (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Include per discussion. - As a summary of multiple sources, this has not been credibly contested. Those sources have found this incident to be useful for describing Pool's perspective. The context, which was an alternative media event at the White House, could also be included in the article, but that's a separate discussion. Pool's response is also being given ample space out of courtesy and BLP. I also support Snooganssnoogans's proposal as a simpler summary of these sources. I have no objection to Wallyfromdilbert revised wording, if that has consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude. (Updated 2019/10/30) tl;dr: NBC News said something based on nothing, and then nobody talked about it, nothing happened, nothing changed, and nobody cares. The claim only appeared regarding the Summit, was never mentioned prior, never covered during, and hasn't been mentioned since. It didn't impact Pool's life, career, or public perception, therefore it's not of encyclopedic interest. The claim itself is ambiguous, false, contentious, poorly sourced, insignificant, and thus lacks any merit for placement in a BLP. See: WP:NOTNEWS WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:RSP WP:DUE WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP
- The claim: It's a non-event. It's not notable and has no enduring notability. The issue wasn't mentioned at all prior to the White House Social Media Summit, or outside of scant articles about the Summit, it wasn't significant (or even covered) in its own article, nor was it significant (or even covered) in the scantly few other sources' articles, it was refuted by mere retraction, nobody has mentioned it since, nor have any outlets' perception of Pool appeared to have changed due to the claim. Pool's life/career hasn't been altered. The NBC News claim had no impact, much less enduring impact. In a universe where the claim never happened, nothing would be different. How can it be of encyclopedic interest?
- The content and source: The NBC's authors' claim was ambiguous, as "pushed" has different interpretations which render the claim even less notable, or contentious. The ambiguous claim is two degrees of separation away from the source article's topic (The White House Social Media Summit). NBC News used some rando Twitter user as their source, who used a questionably edited video clip for theirs. The claim is at least 35-43% contradicted by Pool's own expressed statements in their source. Pool has refuted the claim via retraction. Please see my "Extended discussion" entry.
- NBC News said something based on nothing, and then nobody talked about it, nothing happened, nothing changed, and nobody cares. TheRedReverend (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saying Seth Rich was likely the DNC leaker and praising InfoWars' "reporting" on the issue is to promote Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is editing, not editorializing. Your argument is unconvincing. We heard him say in a questionably edited video, supplied by a rando on twitter, clipped statements that his opinion, which is not fully formed, favors the conspiracy, and that InfoWars has less fake content than it used to. This is the basis for the poorly worded statement, slipped into a sentence not about Pool's views, in an article also not about Pool's views. And that is the basis for the content being suggested. It's worthless down to the ground. TheRedReverend (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude. As others have said, the topic is mentioned in passing in a much larger article, the claim that he pushed anything is vague and likely represents weasel words, we know that the author is stretching the truth through the article that *they* linked as evidence. Finally the fact that someone who has produced likely thousands of hours of media gave a one minute opinion about something that was topical at that time is poor evidence. If we are going to include it, it should not mention "seth rich murder conspiracy theories", but should say something along the idea that he mentioned the "conspiracy theory that Seth Rich leaked e-mails" because that is what the source says. If we are going to allow a weasely smear we should make sure we use an accurate smear. In that case it should also include Tim Pools rebuttal.Seraphael7 (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)— Seraphael7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Include if it's both sentences. Exclude if it's just the first one. Connor Behan (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Include. Relative to the overall coverage he received, this is high profile and covers a significant enough aspect of how he's covered in high-profile mainstream reliable sources that it deserves at least a mention. Several of the arguments against inclusion seem to be based around editors second-guessing the sources based on their personal interpretation, which definitely isn't a policy-based argument. If we were discussing adding an entire section or putting it in the lead I could understand the hesitation, but the NBC article is sufficient to justify a single sentence given the firmness of their characterization and the context in a credible article about the broader conspiracy-theory landscape. Pool's denials (which of course must be included as well) also increase the relative weight - editors here might thing it's insignificant, but it's clear that Pool himself disagrees if he took the time to address it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude (barely) I find Aquillion's argument that this "covers a significant enough aspect of how he's covered in high-profile mainstream reliable sources that it deserves at least a mention" extremely convincing. Ultimately, however, a single sentence in two articles on unrelated topics does not quite crest WP:RSUW, in my opinion. If this received even one more substantial treatment elsewhere I would probably say include. Chetsford (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Chetsford: New Republic, Yahoo News. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks but these are, also, simply one sentence asides and the articles appear to be précis' of the original story as well. Even a single more substantial treatment would probably be sufficient to change my !vote to include but any number of one-sentence asides in précis' probably is not. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there's not going to be extensive treatments of this character by reliable sources. If that's the standard for inclusion, then barely anything in the Wikipedia article should stay. It's an unworkable standard. If someone has only been covered by a dozen reliable sources (and not given an in-depth treatment by any of them), yet half of them tie him to event X, how can event X not be a core aspect of his notability? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- First, there is a higher standard for inclusion of negative information about the subject of a BLP. Second, because there is a higher standard for including contested information on the subject of a BLP. I suggested above that we should look at the article on Hillary Clinton, to see if the information on her recent promotion of conspiracy theories is included. Also, even her historical promotion of conspiracy theories does not seem to merit her being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", even though she could be per RS. Be ___ Critical 23:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Also, there are sources that cover Pool in detail. If you can find one of them that calls him "right wing" or a "conspiracy theorist," then that is a different story. For example this source this this. I went to see if what you said was correct, and a very small amount of research showed you to be completely wrong. Be ___ Critical 23:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude The first two sources cited in the RfC make passing mention of Pool (1 sentence) with an unsubstantiated claim. The third retracted the claim. Clearly insufficient for an exceptional claim. Smells like another smear campaign. See also WP:DUE. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude I don't think the citation is substantial enough and the line in the citation isn't reliable enough to be given due weight in Pool's article. Cook907 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude Conclusion can be barely scraped, likely to be OR or synthesis. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 18:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude I agree with what TheRedReverend said.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude. No BLP significance - seems not a big part of this life and report not tied to an impact for Pool. As written it seems contrary to WP:RUMOR and sounds like WP:SUSPECT. It’s ok for someone to speculate or accuse, but that doesn’t make it suitable for WP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Exclude For a BLP?? The standards for pejoratives are A LOT higher than this.GPRamirez5 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
This content should not be included.
- WP:BLP Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.; Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
- WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 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,
- WP:REDFLAG challenged claims [...] with an apparent conflict of interest; ...reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; ...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in [...] biographies of living people.
- WP:UNDUE Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
The resources making the claim are not at all about Tim Pool or his pushing the conspiracy theory. Pool is just listed among the invitees to the White House summit the articles actually are about. He is further described, in passing, as having pushed the conspiracy. Pool merited only one sentence of NBC's entire article, and that isn't enough to be clear about their meaning of "pushed." If it means "covered," then mentioning Pool covered the conspiracy is not notable: it was covered thoroughly by earlier, more prominent, sources and covering controversial headlines is what he does. If it means he "tried to convince people the conspiracy was true:" this is not the topic of the articles provided and they are not reliable for that passing claim. If we look to the source video clip to help us interpret what is meant by "pushed," we find it obviously supports that he covered the conspiracy and clearly does not support that he tried to convince people the conspiracy was true. WP policies seem to favor the sources being unreliable for this kind of content for this reason in the first place, which is either not notable, or both contentious and poorly sourced. The only truly fair way to treat NBC, Tim Pool and the content to leave it out entirely. TheRedReverend (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- He explicitly says that he believes there is a 65-70% chance that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker, and praises the far-right conspiracy website InfoWars for its "reporting" on the issue (i.e. it's pushing of the Seth Rich murder conspiracy) in the clip that NBC News links to. That's not "covering" the conspiracy theory, that's promoting it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You have to make a claim of opinion. Which means you are trying, cousciously or not, to do original research. We respectfully disagree with your opinion. Take a seat and find better material if you want an addition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk • contribs)
- @Snooganssnoogans: Your evidence doesn't support your argument, which didn't address most of my points. @Springee: is quite correct. Their source is Nikolashvili @ViniKako, who is...who? Their attached video clip is edited so we don't know if context has been lost.
Had the clip unquestionably showed Pool promoting the truth of a conspiracy (it does not), the authors' poor word choice, sliding the ambiguous claim into a sentence, which was not about Pool pushing a conspiracy theory, in an article, which was not about Pool pushing a conspiracy theory, citing some rando on twitter with an edited video clip, all devalues the content to worthlessness. It's not merely that the content is not notable, but the worthlessness of the content also makes it not notable."[SNIP] I'm personally inclined to believe...again, my opinion...that Seth Rich was, in fact, the leaker. Now with Kimdotcom's statement I'm sitting around a 57 to 65% chance was the leaker. [SNIP] InfoWars has done a good job over the past several years of moving more into the mainstream, the more acceptable...and uh...they've gotten away from a lot of the crazier conspiracy stuff, but...uh...so yeah, a lot of the stuff they put out now is not fake news.[SNIP]"
- I honestly had never heard of the conspiracy theory, know little of Pool, and care about neither. However, my Lit professor would have called this garbage and sent me back to the library. Be that as it may, WP policies stand with her. TheRedReverend (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans: Your evidence doesn't support your argument, which didn't address most of my points. @Springee: is quite correct. Their source is Nikolashvili @ViniKako, who is...who? Their attached video clip is edited so we don't know if context has been lost.
- You have to make a claim of opinion. Which means you are trying, cousciously or not, to do original research. We respectfully disagree with your opinion. Take a seat and find better material if you want an addition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk • contribs)
- Exclude Any of those source should be presented with the rebuttal from the Deadline article, it contradicts the sources proposed and contradicts the necesssity of the addition : (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.”) https://deadline.com/2019/07/donald-trump-social-media-summit-elizabeth-warren-stable-genius-1202644883/
- From the BLP guidelines :
- Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@TheRedReverend: and 173.176.159.21: please put a brief response (include or exclude followed by a brief explanation) in the survey section above, and reserve this section for more extensive threaded discussion of the RfC. Also: please refrain from offering extended quotations from our policies and guidelines. You already linked to the guideline, its not necessary to recite them at length. Nblund talk 15:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nblund: Apologies, but a previous RfC criticism was that Becritical did not specify which part of the guideline(s)s were in question, so I detailed those excerpts for clarity. Survey entry added, and your input is appreciated. TheRedReverend (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: the text attributes the statement to NBC News, it doesn't treat it as a fact, so this seems largely irrelevant. Personally, I think it is patently obvious that he was promoting the Seth Rich conspiracy theory stuff (he doesn't really claim to the video misrepresented his statement), but that really only illustrates why editors should avoid getting in to these kinds of debates when they don't need to. Nblund talk 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nblund:, I missed that the conspiracy theory was only related to leaking emails, not the conspiracy theory I think of when we talk about SR conspiracies, that SR's murder was a conspiracy. [] I still do not support inclusion given that TP only said he thought it was possible given some evidence presented by someone else. If we are to claim he pushed" the idea then we would need to show that vs that he didn't dismiss it out of hand. Springee (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: It is also akind of accusing him of being a political trouble maker through covert weasle speak and an attack to his credibility. That is why I think the burdon of proof to make those kind of additions is especially high. Even adding the Claim made By NBC, the daily beast and the rebuttal through complete quotation would be misleading to an extent and could hardly not become or a form of personnal attack or a form of promotion for Tim. Neither have their place on wikipedia it seems to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk • contribs)
@Nblund That is your personnal opinion, and your personnal opinion is contradicted by a secondary source (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.”)
I think you are being disengenuous to still try to add an affirmation explicitely contradicted. Also, here is the full NBC quote : Tim Pool, a YouTube personality who has pushed the false conspiracy theory that former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks, also plans to attend the event
It is explicitely contradicted by the Deadline Quote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia describes disputes, it doesn't make determinations about who is right or wrong. It is not a statement of opinion to say that NBC News said that Pool pushed this claim. That is a fact, regardless of whether or not we think NBC is correct. It is also a fact to say that Tim Pool denied it. The proposed edit doesn't state an opinion at all, and the only reason I've mentioned my own opinion here is to illustrate why it is unhelpful to engage in debates about who is correct in this situation. Nblund talk 23:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nblund:I agree, and your points are valid. Would you consider this:
- Speaking plainly, the authors clearly deliberately used the vague term "pushed" to imply, instead of say something outright, as the implication is not strongly supported by the source. That's sneaky, but fair journalism, IMHO. The benefit of using the vague term renders the claim itself vague enough to withstand scrutiny, but a secondary consequence of the vagueness was rendering the claim either weak and contentious, or not notable at all. A good rule of thumb: if a statement is so vague it cannot be challenged, it also cannot be saying anything.
- The claim in question is mentioned only once, in a sentence about Pool's, among other's, attendance to the White House Social Media Summit, in an article about the White House Social Media Summit. The vague claim is a throwaway modifier to Pool. Pool is only included as an invitee. This makes both the claim and Pool insignificant to the sentence and the article, rendering it even less notable and weakens it further.
- Pool covers controversial headlines. NBC News (or anyone) claiming he pushed one (any)thing one time, really doesn't add anything to his bio. Saying Pool pushed something and denies it, also doesn't add value.
- Just because NBC News said something, doesn't automatically make it relevant and suitable content. Saying, "NBC News claimed..." establishes NBC's article, where the ambiguous claim exists only as a throwaway modifier to Pool, who is but one of many invitees, as the Primary Source for the vague claim. Saying, "NBC News reported Nikolashvili @ViniKako via Twitter claimed..." is just ridiculous (pause for laughter). Media outlets don't seem to have mentioned his conspiracy clip since the Summit, despite more recent articles including Pool being published.
- The vague claim implies something we know to be contentious to this subject.
- This particular claim, in this instance, in the way it was presented (vague, brief, two degrees of separation away from the source article's topic, poorly sourced, not significant in context to the source article and the subject, contentious, and not adequately covered by other reliable sources--or any at all since the Summit) lacks value, and definitely lacks enduring value (WP:NOTNEWS). Can you reconsider based on how these points highlight how WP:UNDUE WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:RSP WP:REDFLAG and WP:NOTNEWS offer a buffet of better reasons to leave it out in further accordance with WP:BLP guidelines than have been provided to support putting it in?
- Being honest, given Pool's career choice, those who want something like this in Pool's bio will certainly (eventually) get their chance. But in this instance, with consideration to editorial integrity, I think it's just too weak to justify. TheRedReverend (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything particularly ambiguous about the meaning of the term "pushed". They mean that he promoted the conspiracy theory. Whether that is a fair characterization is a separate issue. Most of the policies you're throwing out here simply aren't relevant because we aren't treating NBC's characterization as a statement of fact. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:RSP are all related to verifiability, but all we need to do here is verify that NBC actually made this claim. We've done that. WP:DUE is really the relevant policy. I'm inclined to include because this description is roughly consistent with how he's been characterized elsewhere (he credulously covers right wing rumors) and because he hasn't received other significant coverage that would conflict with this description. Nblund talk 18:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nblund:I agree, and your points are valid. Would you consider this:
- @Nblund: Respectfully, we need to do more than just prove NBC News made the claim to include it in a BLP. Verifiability is one of the 3 core principles of BLP's, and the policies included under Verifiability argue very strongly against this content.
- We'll have to stand in disagreement on ambiguity. If the claim cannot be challenged in any universe where Pool so much as mentions the conspiracy, that certainly implies vagueness.
- I'm very happy you agree WP:UNDUE is relevant, as I'm glad of any of us finding common ground where we can!
- Consider this: After reading your thoughts, I think the why I feel this way finally fully formed in my mind. The best argument against the suggested content really is the most mentioned notability, and least mentioned WP:NOTNEWS enduring notability.
- The claim wasn't mentioned at all prior to the White House Social Media Summit, it wasn't significant (or even covered) in its own article, nor was it significant (or even covered) in the scantly few other sources' articles, it was refuted by mere retraction, nobody has mentioned it since, nor have any outlets' perception of Pool appeared to have changed due to the claim. Pool's life/career hasn't been altered. The NBC News claim had no impact at all, much less enduring impact. In a universe where the claim never happened, nothing would be different. How can it be of encyclopedic interest?
- NBC News said something and then nothing happened, nothing changed, and nobody cares.
- It's kind of sad, in a way. TheRedReverend (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- But we only need to verify the claims that we're actually making. We aren't claiming that Pool promoted a conspiracy theory. We are claiming that NBC said he did. Wikipedia notes that R. Kelly claims he has never sexually abused girls. Obviously, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia thinks R. Kelly is innocent, we just stated the fact that R. Kelly said something.
- WP:NOTNEWS is the strongest argument. I don't really think we're going to change each other's minds on whether this is WP:DUE for inclusion, but I do want to get across that the question of whether or not Pool is actually a conspiracy theorist is mostly irrelevant, and a lot of space got wasted in this discussion by debating it. Nblund talk 15:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not really. If the generally RS makes a very flaky claim we aren't obligated to include it. I understand that in many instances we include attributed quotes. When a possible expert makes a claim we ask, is that person actually an expert? Is their opinion on the subject notable? We have something like that here except that the "expert" is a NBC reporter who has shown critical research by quoting a Twitter account's claim with respect to the subject. Yes, we are certain the NBC source made the claim based on the claims of a random Twitter user but does that mean the claim is at all significant (DUE)? I think the fact that the claim seems to have died with the related Trump story says all we need to know. Springee (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: I really don't think you read me very closely. I didn't claim we were obligated to include it, I said the question of whether editors think a criticism is fair or totally accurate is mostly irrelevant for WP:DUE weight. Frankly, I think it's silly to argue that Pool wasn't pushing this conspiracy - partly because I think the video already provided is plenty of evidence, and also because I'm personally aware of since-deleted videos where he was clearly advancing the idea - but again, that all illustrates why this just isn't a productive line of argument: it calls on editors to do original research that ultimately isn't really relevant to any policy. The question of what criticisms to include is a valid one, the question "are these critic actually right about Pool?" is just an invitation for WP:FORUM postings about what editors think of Pool himself. Nblund talk 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not really. If the generally RS makes a very flaky claim we aren't obligated to include it. I understand that in many instances we include attributed quotes. When a possible expert makes a claim we ask, is that person actually an expert? Is their opinion on the subject notable? We have something like that here except that the "expert" is a NBC reporter who has shown critical research by quoting a Twitter account's claim with respect to the subject. Yes, we are certain the NBC source made the claim based on the claims of a random Twitter user but does that mean the claim is at all significant (DUE)? I think the fact that the claim seems to have died with the related Trump story says all we need to know. Springee (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nblund: Respectfully, we need to do more than just prove NBC News made the claim to include it in a BLP. Verifiability is one of the 3 core principles of BLP's, and the policies included under Verifiability argue very strongly against this content.
- Regarding relevance and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: These sources are in reference to Pool's attendance of the "White House Media Summit". From context, it appears that the reason NBC and a few others mentioned Pool was because his views helped explain the significance of this event. If his views are significant according to sources, they should be included in the article, and readers may plausibly find this information useful. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, taken in context, is a warning against exactly the kind of sources used. I would agree with you if the sources actually took any time or care toward their subject, or looked as if they had been fact-checked. They do not. Do "far right commentators" support Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard? CONTEXTMATTERS is allowing us to use a least a modicum of common sense in order to protect BLP subject from exactly this kind of smear. Be ___ Critical 23:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I am saying. For what it's worth, there are plenty of far-right supporters of those candidates, or those who claim to be, at least, but that doesn't matter. Pool's claims of X do not mean we have to completely ignore sources which say Y. This would be WP:OR. Saying something which doesn't make sense to you, personally, isn't enough to invalidate a source. Your opinion that someone who supports a candidate cannot belong to a specific ideology is too sloppy. In other words, your personal opinion that they didn't take any time or care is unsupported. This is not self-evident as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not quite how I see it. If you were to go over to the editors on the RS talk page and ask if these are great sources for a negative claim in a BLP, they would answer with a resounding "no." They would in fact take into account that the subject has denied such claims. They would, in other words, apply the criteria I've been applying here, such as the fact that these sources are lists and not covering the subject in depth. CONTEXTMATTERS is just the way they wrote RS in order to try and make it explicit that we shouldn't be wikilawyers about whether a source is reliable. Be ___ Critical 15:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I am saying. For what it's worth, there are plenty of far-right supporters of those candidates, or those who claim to be, at least, but that doesn't matter. Pool's claims of X do not mean we have to completely ignore sources which say Y. This would be WP:OR. Saying something which doesn't make sense to you, personally, isn't enough to invalidate a source. Your opinion that someone who supports a candidate cannot belong to a specific ideology is too sloppy. In other words, your personal opinion that they didn't take any time or care is unsupported. This is not self-evident as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, taken in context, is a warning against exactly the kind of sources used. I would agree with you if the sources actually took any time or care toward their subject, or looked as if they had been fact-checked. They do not. Do "far right commentators" support Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard? CONTEXTMATTERS is allowing us to use a least a modicum of common sense in order to protect BLP subject from exactly this kind of smear. Be ___ Critical 23:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans above made the claim that there aren't any RS that cover Pool in detail. So I went to the article and pulled up a bunch of them already cited such as this Guardian article. It is not as if we don't have enough RS to establish Notability, or as if we don't have sources that do cover the subject and establish the kinds of things he's notable for. What we have is an attempt to use other sources which barely mention Pool in order to include a smear. It's not necessary to the article, and none of the RS already used in the article -sources which actually meet the criteria as RS for an article like this-, mention Pool as a conspiracy theorist, or right wing. Let's stick to the sources which actually meet the highest standards for Wikipedia. Be ___ Critical 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Time to close the RfC? Be ___ Critical 20:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors seems to disagree on Caution
After lenghty debates here, my conclusion is that our main disagreement in essence is what constitute caution and how to apply it following the BLP guidelines. Some are still arguing that the accusations levelled against Tim Pool by news medias outlets should be mentionned, others that it should not, or at least that it should not unless it also presents the rebuttal presented in the Deadline's article editor's note. I would like to open a specific discussion here as to how each editor's think the call for caution mentionned in the BLP guidelines should apply here. For example :
I think any mention of the Seth Rich history and every conspiracy theory story linked to that deceased person should not be added to wikipedia article as BLP guidelines also applies to recently deceased person, and I argue that Seth Rich was a person. As recently deceased, mentionning the titillations about what other people think of that story at that stage and its potential ramifications is precipitated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, the disputed statement uses ambiguous wording that can be interpreted in a way that is not notable for this bio, or it can also be interpreted as a blatant smear. Not even the topic of the article in which its found--or even the topic of the sentence in which its found--has anything to do with Pool, except that he was one of the people invited. Two authors, who co-wrote the article for NBC, make the ambiguously worded statement, sourced to some rando on Twitter with an edited video clip, slipped into an otherwise unrelated sentence and article. That is 4 BIG problems rendering this content worthless to any biography. I may not know exactly where the line is for BLP and reliable sources, but we've clearly lept well beyond. Blame the authors for not being more explicit, for making it so obscure, for not enough coverage by other outlets, for garbage sourcing, and for rendering this content below Wikipedia standards for a BLP. The only way to be fair to Tim Pool is to leave it out entirely.TheRedReverend (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Subject of the article is directing people to this page
In case anyone was wondering where this crop of new editors are coming from.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I do think it is worth noting for the closer that there are multiple single-purpose accounts participating in this discussion who became active around the same time that Pool began tweeting/streaming about his Wikipedia page. Obviously WP:NOTAVOTE always applies, but it should probably be given additional consideration here. Nblund talk 16:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Discrediting the editor and not the arguments? I have been reading WP guidelines for a very long while and scrolling through "Random article(s)" until I found one I felt I could contribute to confidently. The issue presented appeared to be cut and dry—even by high school remedial English standards. I simply stated what I felt, and feel, is an obvious poor choice of content to include in an encyclopedia's biography. My inclusions have been based on the integrity and notability of the content and the sources in regard to WP's own standards. We don't have to put it in. It's ambiguous and doesn't add anything. If it does, it implies a negative smear and we need to be cautious. It is a poor source for that ambiguous statement, which they further laughably source. Given the facts, the harder you argue, without making an argument, the more difficult it is to assume good faith. TheRedReverend (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, but Tim Pool began tweeting and streaming about this content on the 20th. You created your account and began discussing this issue one day later, and you've made most of your edits about this topic. I'm not attacking you here, but the number of inexperienced and narrowly-focused accounts participating in this RFC is something that should be considered when assessing the consensus. Nblund talk 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- You could say the same thing about me, but why exactly is it of interest to Wikipedia, or a threat to the neutrality of articles that current events or discussions draw editors to particular articles? I'm not reading the walls of text the IPs generate, but I'm willing to consider their factual or policy points as any other editor. Be ___ Critical 23:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nblund: It's fair to say my account appears 'Pool-focused,' but I was just taking it slow. Other talk page discussions didn't typically seem this involved. I thought, 'see how this lands, take the learning experience, then try my first edit.' A couple days of this back-and-forth proved the strategy flawed. It may be Rapture before resolution. lol TheRedReverend (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, but Tim Pool began tweeting and streaming about this content on the 20th. You created your account and began discussing this issue one day later, and you've made most of your edits about this topic. I'm not attacking you here, but the number of inexperienced and narrowly-focused accounts participating in this RFC is something that should be considered when assessing the consensus. Nblund talk 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Tim Pool the conspiracy theorist?
Tim Pool has promoted the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was made in a Chinese lab. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCVrr04N6eI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FRRgKBBmAE This, of course, is incorrect. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientists-exactly-zero-evidence-covid-19-came-lab Sarsath3 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- While it's very tempting to debunk misinformation like this, and this is certainly a conspiracy theory, we need WP:RS/WP:IS to explain this for us to avoid original research. This would also be needed to meet WP:CATDEF.
- I cannot find any good sources specifically mentioning Pool's support of this conspiracy theory. Most recent coverage of Pool is just spicy twitter gossip that will be completely forgotten within days. The one recent exception is this article from last month, which discusses how Pool's videos prompted a far-right harassment campaign against a journalist. It's interesting, but it has nothing to do with the pandemic. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that reliable sources are needed, with corresponding content to be applied by due weight. Otherwise, it's a BLP] violation. El_C 21:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Tim Pool voting Trump in 2020
My recent edit concerning his views was deleted as "undue." Pool stated that he will most likely be voting for Trump in 2020. Someone who has been so anti-trump for so many years, suddenly stating they will vote for Trump, must be newsworthy. Especially considering Tim Pool has an audience of hundreds of thousands, and speaks about this stuff daily. Is there any valid rationale why that would be undue? It seems radically due. it is an extreme departure and evolution from when he supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election. You can see my edit in the most recent revision. 2604:6000:B20D:5200:601E:B0C6:673C:6682 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- "
Suddenly
", eh? I'm not sure about that. - Anyway, Pool says lots of stuff, and his opinions are not generally treated as significant by reliable sources. The size of his viewership is not automatically relevant. To be encyclopedically significant, this would need coverage in a reliable source, which in this case would also be a independent source. Independent, in this case, means independent of Pool. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
biographies of living persons policy, yet again
| IP blocked for one week for personal attacks (after warning). El_C 19:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I suggest we just remove the section on political views as it is where the slander gets typically added. Thus far the slander some are trying to push : Conspiracy theorist, right wing. The guidelines on the biographies of living person is specific on how to deal with this : anything potentially problematic has to be removed FIRST, THEN any addition has to be weighted in the comment section before getting added. Since we are all in quarenteen we will have plenty of time to deal with this one. from the guidelines : Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Source :[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information Wales, Jimmy (16 May 2006) https://archive.is/20180622205129/https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
What dont you understand in the guidelines ? "Contentious material about living persons (...)should be removed immediately" The fact that it is sourced is irrelevent if you understand how to read. How much do you get paid to do this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Add his other Channel?
Can we add Timcast IRL to the info box? I was having difficulty messing with the template. Here is the link. Bgrus22 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just added it. As of right now he has 534k on Timcast IRL but that channel is growing rather quickly so it'll probably need to be updated constantly. 135.23.230.81 (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
"Variously described" wording (views section)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pool#Views: "Pool's political commentary since the 2016 United States presidential election has been variously described as right-wing."
The above is supported by a single source, https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qv7q87/trump-invites-fringe-social-media-company-popular-with-nazis-to-the-white-house, which says the following:
"Tim Pool—a right-wing media figure who once worked at VICE News..."
So, the claim that he is "variously described" is not supported. Only a single source was given.
I should add that I think the Vice article has enormous problems and does not represent a neutral point of view (I'm aware NPOV applies to the editors of the wiki page, not the sources themselves).
Can we change the wording on the sentence in the article to remove the implication that multiple sources have called Tim Pool right-wing?
It's very unfortunate that if a single (IMO clearly biased) media source labels somebody as right-wing, it's now taken as gospel even on Wikipedia which is theoretically supposed to offer a balanced perspective.
2600:8802:5700:1CE:5575:CFFF:AB20:3536 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just once it would be nice to have a discussion about this which doesn't devolve into complaints about how "biased" reliable sources are. I have reverted to the previous wording. As a reminder, Pool's views are only significant to the extent they are supported by reliable sources, specifically independent sources. Pools Twitter feed is neither reliable, nor independent. If you know of additional useful sources, feel free to propose them here. Grayfell (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, VICE as ex-employer of Tim Pool is also not an independent source, yet it's used twice to describe him as right-wing. FreedomGonzo (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Conservative Label
Given that this label keeps showing up, i decided to do some research and see what sources support this claim. The searches included the following:
| website | search | articles browsed |
|---|---|---|
| duckduckgo | "tim pool" conservative | first five pages |
| duckduckgo | "tim pool" right wing | first five pages |
| duckduckgo | "tim pool" liberal | first five pages |
| "tim pool" conservative OR liberal OR "right wing" OR right-wing OR "left wing" OR left-wing OR alt-right OR "far right" OR far-right | all 140 hits |
As for my methodology, I included any source rated a a reliable source by wikipedia. If it was noted that they were thought to be biased I referenced it below. All other sources were excluded. Any article of that set that made a specific claim about Tim were included. I excluded some articles where he was quoted as saying something but there was no commentary on him at all. Many articles did not include the word "pool" even though they were hits and were excluded.
This is a summarty of the results:
| Claim | Number |
|---|---|
| Conservative | 0 |
| Right Wing | 3 |
| Right Wing alignment | 2 |
| not Alt-right | 1 |
| Liberal | 0 |
| Left Wing | 1 |
| Independent Journalist | 4 |
Ask you can see the strongest claim from these sources (which are rated as the most reliable) is the fact that he is an independent journalist. No source claims he is conservative, far right or liberal. One source dances around suggesting he is "alt-right" but the fact that it avoids making that claim is telling; another source specifically refutes the claim he is alt-right. Several sources (totalling 5) claim he is right wing or aligns with the right wing. Based on this I believe that claiming he is a conservative is not supported by reliable sources. We can claim that he right-wing and an independent journalist based on using these sources.Seraphael7 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a neutral summary of sources, for many reasons. It is pseudoscience. The categories you have used for sources are subjective, and Wikipedia doesn't sort sources into ideological categories in this way anyway. If a source is reliable, it's reliable regardless of whether or not it agrees with the ideology of the person it is covering. This is what makes it reliable in the first place!
- Therefore, you have added editorializing to this list to support your prior assumptions.
- Even worse, this is not supported by a closer reading of the sources themselves. As just the first example of why this approach is inappropriate, you have not explained why Al-jazeera is "biased" (it is considered a reliable outlet on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP). That source says
Pool has amplified claims that conservative media endure persecution and bias at the hands of tech companies.
I dispute that this is making "No claim
". I could challenge most of these entries in the same way. - All sources must be judged in context. Attempting to compile a score-card is far, far too simplistic. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort here, but I agree that it seems to be lacking in some aspects. For instance, the Mother Jones article is listed above as "no claim", but the article says: "the list of most popular American political YouTubers also heavily skews right, with figures like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Tim Pool, who each have over 1 million subscribers". I cannot rely on this table given this discrepancy and others. Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)