Talk:Tucker Carlson

Darryl Cooper subsection

Is the addition of the Coopoer section really due in this article. The section comes off as a bit of a coatrack since the sources are criticizing Cooper, not Carlson. The only criticism of Carlson seems to be that the sources feel he should have pushed back. Put another way, what makes this interview any different than many others where Carlson interviews a controversial person? Springee (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Mostly because of the sheer volume of criticism this particular interview received, which was compounded by the fact that it took place during a presidential election season in which one of the two major candidates (and his running mate) are closely allied to Carlson.

Indeed, in terms of the amount of negative attention it got, the Cooper interview is probably second only to Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin (which actually has its own article, not just its own section in Carlson’s article!) 2604:2D80:7186:600:0:0:0:1CAD (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because people are eager to defend the Western imperial war machine? Therefore defaming Darryl Cooper, claiming he engaged in Holocaust denial. Zyloba (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I will add that Holocaust denial is rather more serious than just being historical revisionism, and may in fact be very due. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that since this is Tucker Carlson's bio, not Darryl Cooper's bio, all the criticism needs to be about Carlson's hosting of Cooper, and not criticism of Cooper's points of view. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper closed as a redirect to this article, meaning there is a consensus to include something about the interview within this article. We just need to make sure the focus is on Tucker Carlson, and not on Darryl Cooper. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That closing doesn't decide consensus here. This looks like a rather trivial insurance given Carlson's long history. Springee (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that condemnation by the White House and two dozen Members of Congress make it "trivial" matter? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein:: Does the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper carry no weight here? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's up to editors here to decide what should be in the article. If consensus here is to not cover Cooper in this article, the redirect resulting from the AfD should be submitted to WP:RFD. Sandstein 08:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the AfD contributors so that they can contribute to the discussion about whether or not to cover the Darryl Cooper incident in Tucker Carlson's article: @Isaidnoway, @Chairmanmeow, @Xegma, @AusLondonder, @GordonGlottal, @LizardJr8, @Lostsandwich, @The Four Deuces, @Bluethricecreamman, @FeldBum, @John Z, @Donald Albury, @Andol, @HonestManBad, @Kimdime, @Hemiauchenia. Sandstein 08:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An RFC might attract more eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look. You're right that it will be sensitive, since we don't want to coatrack; the section should be about Tucker, not Cooper. --FeldBum (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the subsection. An alternative might be to include a couple of sentences in the Tucker on Twitter / Tucker on X section - On September 2, 2024, Carlson hosted podcaster Darryl Cooper on Tucker on X. Cooper endorsed Holocaust denial and otherwise departed from the historical consensus regarding World War II. The interview was criticized by many, including The White House, 24 Jewish members of Congress, Sohrab Ahmari, Erick Erickson and Mike Lawler. - similar wording to the Larry Sinclair interview in that section. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this... a couple of sentences under X, or somewhere in the Immigration and Race section, would be enough. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A sentence or two as outlined here seems like a reasonable compromise. Springee (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The interview has received significant coverage and therefore has weight for inclusion. What makes it different from other interviews is that Carlson appears to endorse some of Cooper's views, not just that he did not push back on his false claims. But weight does not depend on whether rs should have paid attention to the interview but whether or not they did. The policy presumes that anything that has extensive coverage is significant.

I notice that the sources used do not say that Cooper endorsed holocaust denial on the show. An article in the The Bulwark (website) explains why the NYT does not consider Cooper's position to amount to Holocaust denial and instead calls in "Holocaust revisionism."[1] We might consider just mentioning what Cooper said.

Per COATRACK, we should not use this interview to introduce information about Cooper not in articles about the interview. The deletion of Cooper's article means that he lacks notability and therefore nothing about him is significant other than this interview.

TFD (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have plenty of weight and coverage for inclusion. Tied to Carlson by his support not only the interviews but beliefs as well. Should be included. ContentEditman (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with editors who favor inclusion because of the weight of RS describing the interview and reactions to it. Only sources that mention Carlson should be used. Llll5032 (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The Mountain of Eden, you restored a full subsection with this material as well as content that was not about Carlson but Cooper/Cooper's claims. I don't see consensus for that. As FeldBum, LizardJr8, Isaidnoway and TFD said, we should have limited content that is about about Carlson and we need to avoid a coat rack. Springee (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed a sentence that's about Cooper. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The material should be integrated into the general section on his X platform work. Additionally, the response section can be reduced as well. This is just another outrage of the week for Carlson, an article that is already in dire need of a through reduction in length. Unlike the Putin interview this doesn't seem like something that would survive the 10 year test. Springee (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another way to put it, this article is at a length were for every word added we should remove at least an equal number of words. If this is important to include, what should be removed to keep the overall length the same? Is this supposed to be an encyclopedic article or just a running list of Carlson outrages? Springee (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The article currently contains 14,171 words. Per WP:LENGTH, once the article gets to 15,000 words, it would "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". How to go about doing that would be a separate discussion than this discussion. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The recommendation to start considering trimming starts at "> 8,000 words May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size." The next level is "> 9,000 words Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." To quote myself from a few years back (when this was shorter than now), "Look at the length of the article on Robert Hooke and look at the list of things Hooke contributed to the world. Now look at the length of this article and all the details included in it. Hooke's page is ~75kb while Carlson is 2.4x longer at ~180k. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most editors would feel Carlson is less significant than Hooke. Springee (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Evidence TC was ever a Democrat?

I remember him from his bow tie days and he's always been a right wing provocateur. He's been surprisingly consistent, he was offensive back then. SatanicYakuza (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Carlson was a registered Democrat in Washington, D.C. because to not is to de facto have no say in who is elected for anything because whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the general election in DC. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

Period after quote:

He expressed his disappointment with the Republican nominee for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, and the health care reform he signed in 2006 as governor of Massachusetts, which contained an individual mandate, saying, "out of 315 million Americans, the Republican Party managed to find the one guy who couldn't run on Obamacare".

Change to:

He expressed his disappointment with the Republican nominee for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, and the health care reform he signed in 2006 as governor of Massachusetts, which contained an individual mandate, saying, "out of 315 million Americans, the Republican Party managed to find the one guy who couldn't run on Obamacare." Werner Zagrebbi (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is his signature. Maybe update the Template and add it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TuckerCarlsonSignature.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaGuy768 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Signature

Here is his signature. Maybe update the Template and add it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TuckerCarlsonSignature.svg MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)