# Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight

There's been an attempt to remove the Blake Neff news from the lead. Here's a couple of points that I believe make this info more than relevant:

Tucker Carlson's biggest notability comes from his nightly show. Everything else is secondary to that.
In a recent article in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, Neff said, "Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me."
Carlson said he spends hours working on scripts, but referred to Neff by name, saying he was a "wonderful writer" and acknowledging his assistance. And Carlson credited Neff in the acknowledgments of his book, "Ship of Fools," for providing research. In the acknowledgments, Carlson said that Neff and two others who helped with the book "work on and greatly improve our nightly show on Fox."
Neff never responded to CNN's request for comment, but before the news even broke, Tucker's show fired Neff asked Neff really nicely if he would please resign, which he did.
To argue that this isn't hugely relevant to the show is to put blinders on. There are already dozens of reliable sources reporting this news. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

First, this is a detail about the show, not a high level fact.  Second this is RECENT so the impact to the show is unknown. These questions need to be answered before this content goes in the lead. Springee (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be of a minority opinion about what a "detail" is. Here's an exercise: search Google News for "Tucker Carlson". Then look at all the articles that are talking about Blake Neff. You don't even need to search Neff's name. He's the head writer of the show. Carlson has named him on-air. But I said this already above, and you ignored it and chose to revert over and over again without discussing. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Based on the consensus view at Tucker Carlson, I have restored the previous edits. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is absolutely misguided, and now that I'm here, it's two against one. There have been bigger controversies surrounding this show, and none of them have made the lead. The firing of a head writer is a minor detail that's dominating news coverage right now, because it's a recent development (and because Carlson's show is so widely watched). Unless this becomes a defining aspect of the series (like the Roseanne scandal, which led to the show's cancellation), it shouldn't be in the lead. Too early. MetaTracker (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
"The consensus is absolutely misguided" ? I'm not sure that's going to fly once an admin gets involved. Maybe strike that comment. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It's my opinion. As for the topic at hand, I'm not censoring anything. If I was, I'd be removing any mention of the controversy. My point is that this is a current event that hasn't played out enough. It shouldn't be in the lead, especially when it's already acknowledged in the History section. Also, characterizing comments using contentious descriptors is not the best practice. See WP:RACIST. MetaTracker (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, WP:RACIST very clearly states that in cases where reliable sources agree on framing, then the descriptors should be treated as attributions. Short of putting "racist and sexist" in quotes, the previous wording didn't fly. MetaTracker (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What are you talking about? You're removing content that is literally taken word-for-word from every single source that's reported on this (and there are many). I'm talking about WP:CENSOR, where, if anything, policy dictates that we should go even FURTHER than the CNN article - that article doesn't even print the n-word, but according to our guidelines, we don't put asterisks in, we print the whole word. I actually omitted that sentence because I figured the other two examples were enough, but given the solid sourcing, if someone else felt it should be added, I would have no problem with it. You're looking to wipe the article of those examples completely.
And by the way, saying "I'd be removing any mention of the controversy" - yeah, I know, you've already tried that. The consensus that you called "misguided" was against you. And that was on the Tucker Carlson article. Now here we are, at the actual article of the show itself, and you're arguing that content doesn't belong here either? Hard to imagine the rationale. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
With regard to your last edit, I don't even see how those qualifiers are necessary, given the universal condemnation of those comments, but if it mollifies the Tucker Carlson fans, I suppose it's not the end of the world. It's not like there's even one editor who would argue that those comments weren't racist and sexist. See WP:SKYBLUE. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing the examples. I'm the one modifying the wording of the descriptors, which are fine now, because I added an NYT attribution. Gesture of good faith: I'll keep your stuff in the lead, so long as you keep the NYT attribution. MetaTracker (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: I'm fine with the way the article looks now. Thanks. MetaTracker (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a bartering system. There's a right way to write an encyclopedia entry and a wrong way. Your NYT attribution is designed to make it appear that only that one source described the comments as racist and sexist, when, in fact, dozens of sources have done so. And even worse, you know this full well. So your attempt to salvage some sort of softening of this incident is for naught. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it looks fine now, so we can cease this interchange. MetaTracker (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This is not DUE for the article lead.  It currently is over 1/3rd of the lead which is meant to be a summary of the article. Springee (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The section on Neff is UNDUEly long.  Neff's specific statements don't need to be included as they are things he said/posted outside of his involvement with the show.  This single incident is now half the entire history section of the show.  I understand that many sources have repeated the same CNN material but that is the click bait age we live in.  It's almost free to repackage the story that CNN just ran and get clicks for your own site.  However, this reeks of RECENT.  The weight being applied here is currently undue.  The material should be in the article but the level of detail is UNDUE since it's not about the show itself.  Springee (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've reduced the length of the Neff material in the article.  It was UNDUE for the lead and the length in the History section had grown to be a subjection and half the overall history material.  This is UNDUE as this is something the writer did outside of his work on the show.  Material about the show is due but this has become a coatrack for material that isn't about Carlson or the show itself.  Springee (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you're right. We need to keep space to potentially extend the content depending on the development of the story and its impact on the show. If I remember well, Carlson is going to make a statement today; his reaction needs to be mentioned. Alcaios (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple people that disagree and think this is WP:DUE for the lead. The only one that agreed with Springee was MetaTracker. And we saw how that turned out. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article.  Weight in the lead is typically based on weight in the body of the article.  It's UNDUE to add a section to the lead that is almost as long as the same material in the body.  Ultimately, other than Carlson acknowledging the issue we haven't seen much impact to the show.  That might change in the future but for the time this is a RECENT issue that may be little more than a flash in the pan relative to the scope of this TV program.  That said, if you disagree perhaps raising the question at WP:NPOVN would be in order. Springee (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep out of the lead. recentism applies and we don't have more information about an incident in the lead than we do in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Lead should reflect the body of the article in scale, give it the proper weight and not try to monopolize the lead by inflating some negative press incident. Its an Encyclopedia not Reddit.Eruditess (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


### MetaTracker is a sockpuppet
MetaTracker is a sockpuppet and has been blocked.[1] Disregard all their comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The mention of the Neff's controversy is fine. I have only one issue with this: "A banner headline on the show was also quickly compared by critics to the neo-Nazi 14 words slogan".

The only sources that seem to mention that, the HuffPost and Salon, are tagged as often "biased and opinionated" by the community (see WP:RSP).
For context, they're comparing a Fox News chyron reading "We have to fight to preserve our nation & heritage" to the neo-Nazi slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children". I think this is precisely why the WP community has tagged those two sources as such ("use with caution"). Alcaios (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with your opinion. MetaTracker (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The Independent also mentions it[2]. But the community review states that In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.
The current source used is Salon. The community consensus states that There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources Alcaios (talk)
JzG, El_C, Objective3000, Springee, Volunteer Marek, JimKaatFan, ‎ Philip Cross, Portillo, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, could you comment on that? I think this should be removed unless several RS mention it; you'll find the arguments in the comments just above. Alcaios (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Salon is not at reliable source for such controversial BLP content. It's also WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
If the show had used the actual 14 Words, that would be WP:DUE. As it's just one source, and a banner was "compared" to the 14 Words, it probably falls short at this time, unless more reliable sourcing appears. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
That's all I found in high-quality RS (as per WP:RSP): both The New York Times[3] and Haaretz[4] acknowledge Fox News chyron in the context of the Carlson–Duckworth controversy; none of them make any link with the neo-Nazi slogan. Alcaios (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the 14 word sentence.  It was only supported my Salon (not the other two citations) and that raises a question of DUE.  It also may be a BLP issue to claim Carlson is associated with neo nazi slogans.  Finally, Salon's commentary/opinions about those it politically dislikes should be treated with caution.  This is one of those cases. Springee (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This trick of disqualifying a source because it is opposed to something leads to removal of every criticism of that something, i.e. it is a classic whitewashing tool. Fringe proponents often try to remove criticism of their fringe ideas with that reasoning. It does not work there, and it should not work here either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree. There's also more sourcing now than there was when I made my initial comment, so I struck it. I believe this incident rises to the level where it should be included. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, that comes across as an accusation that those who object are gaming the system.  First, there are several editors who agree this is UNDUE.  Second, at the time the material was removed only Salon made the link to the Nazi slogan.  The other two sources did not.  Thus we have only a single source making the link and that source is a marginal RS for such a connection.  Thus UNDUE.  If there are other sources that associated the on screen words with a neo-nazi slogan please provide the.  There are plenty of reliably sourced negative things to say about this show.  We don't need to jam the article full of speculative accusations that have amounted to nothing.   Springee (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
"There is only one source" is a good reason. "The source disagrees with Carlson" is a bad reason. You used a bad reason, and I called it. (Bad reasoning is not "gaming the system", it is just bad reasoning.) Now you are trying to weasel out of it, instead of admitting you used a bad reason. Now, as JimKaatFan said, there is more than one source, so the good reason is gone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Then show the other sources that make the "14 word" connection.  You can claim my reasoning was bad but that doesn't mean it was. Springee (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the removal. UNDUE at this point. Covered by the news cycle who then moved on. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the criticism section is very poorly written. I don't know enough of the details or what is due, but it should be rewritten for clarity. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Fox News a reliable source for the fact that nobody in their right mind takes Carlson seriously?[5]. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Certain types of news, like Opinion pieces are held to a lower standard than regular news. Readers/watchers are (perhaps wrongly) expected to know that. Part of Fox New's lawyer's defense of Tucker Carlson Tonight is that it is a Commentary piece (I assume "Commentary" and "Opinion" are the same thing) and should not be held to the journalistic standard of the New York Times. I'm not sure Fox labels all of it's stuff that low grade, but stuff like Fox News#Climate change makes me think that on that network content rated to a higher standard is deceptive in a lies by omissions sort of way.--2605:E000:1704:77A:C025:98E7:CF8C:B027 (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought that this was worth bringing up. But someone reverted my edit saying my attempted contribution was misleading. Even if it wasn't it would have needed to be updated since a judge recently dismissed the case ([6]). I don't want an edit war, so could someone help me share this information on the Tucker Carlson Tonight page in a manner considered appropriate? Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit reversed? No explanation was given in the edit summary. Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I reversed it because it doesn't appear to be an improvement.  First, it's not clear the source is reliable or due.  Second, it doesn't appear that the added quote was part of the legal arguments vs something CHN highlighted as part of their own commentary. Third, it comes across as a bit of a POV comment vs being impartial.  Note that you didn't include an edit summary when you added the quote.  Springee (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to revert the 3RR, but I think this diff [13] should be discussed. It feels like this should included in the body of the article and not the lead, and the statements should be attributed to the source. Just my opinion, but others would be helpful. Didn't want to keep reverting back and forth. Spf121188 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Springee for their opinion here, since both of our edits got reverted back. Spf121188 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Euphoria42, moving this to the body was good but I think the edit still needs work.  The edit provides 3 sources to put "nationalist" in wiki voice.  Looking at the sources I don't see that National Review supports the claim.  It suggests Carlson's show is Paleo conservative.  The MSNBC doesn't make the claim, rather they say that Bill Kristol said it.  That is Kristol's opinion, not a fact and given the way MSNBC, CNN and Fox/Carlson often spar with each other we should be very careful when treating those as unbiased assessments.  It doesn't take much searching to find articles that suggest Kristol and Carlson don't like one another.  That would tend to make Kristol an involved party.  I can't verify the Atlantic since it's behind a pay wall.  Anyway, I think this needs to be taken out of Wiki voice and should be attributed to the Atlantic.  That said, I would like to read what the Atlantic actually says. Springee (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
After reviewing the Atlantic article, it doesn't support the text added to the article.  Springee (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Springee, I give up on trying to add this information. You seem pretty set on just removing any of my additions. I'll see myself out. -Euphoria42 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

UncomfortablySmug, is there a source for the list you added to the article? [14]  It seems like good content but absent a source I'm worried it may be OR.  Springee (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Here you go. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is doing to pass wp:DUE or wp:OR.  Also, I think IMDB isn't considered a reliable source though I'm not certain on that last point.  The problem with DUE is we don't have a RS saying a list of repeat guests is significant to this article.  As for OR, it appears that you went down the list and decided which guests appeared say more than eight times or which were the top 20 most common guests.  Since you, rather than an outside source have set the standard for inclusion it could be considered OR.  For that matter, the idea that we have a list of top guests is OR if RSs don't establish it first.  Finally, the list, as edited fails WP:V since it doesn't have any citations.  Springee (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The issues with citing IMDb are given at WP:IMDB and WP:Citing IMDb. Pemilligan (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I think this list, assuming IMDB citations were added, would violate WP:Citing IMDB. Springee (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please update Tucker Carlsons shows page to include the now widely available emails showing he knowingly lied on his show. This is 100% fact, the Dominion vs Fox lawsuit has unearthed mountains of emails that show that Tucker Carlson didn't believe his own lies. Maybe put it under a new section called "Scandals" or something. 172.58.219.130 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a growing collection of sources that can be used. This article is definitely a relevant article for this content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Valjean/Sources for Dominion vs Fox News scandal

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please change the succession box:

{{S-start}}
{{S-bef|before= ''Jesse Watters Primetime''}}
{{S-ttl|title= ''Tucker Carlson Tonight''|years= 8:00 pm – 9:00 pm <br>1:00 am – 2:00 am (replay)}}
{{S-aft|after=''[[Hannity]]''}}
{{S-end}}

TO:
{{S-start}}
{{s-other|Fox News Channel primetime schedule}}
{{S-bef|before= ''Jesse Watters Primetime'' |as= 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm }}
{{S-ttl|title= ''Tucker Carlson Tonight''|years= 8:00 pm – 9:00 pm <br>1:00 am – 2:00 am (replay)}}
{{S-aft|after=''[[Hannity]]'' |as= 9:00 pm – 10:00 pm  }}
{{s-other|Fox News Channel primetime 8:00 pm – 9:00 pm timeslot}}
{{S-bef|before= ''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]'' |as= 1996 – 2017 }}
{{S-ttl|title= ''Tucker Carlson Tonight'' |years= 2017 – 2023 }}
{{S-aft|after= ''[[Fox News Tonight]]'' |as= 2023 – }}
{{S-end}}

This will add clarity to what the succession box is indicating. The addition of titlebars will show that the current succession box is for the FNC primetime schedule. The new second box will function as what normal succession boxes do, indicate the preceding and succeeding occupant of the post (the 8-9pm timeslot) 
-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Extra fluff not needed. Should be condensed instead, not expanded. Callmemirela 🍁 13:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If Tucker has been let go, the show cancelled and rebranded, why does the article still use present tense? I'm not fully aware of wikipedia policies, just was confused for a sec while reading. 70.31.76.156 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)