Talk:Tim Pool/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

feel free to make additions / improvements / corrections to this page

Tim Pool's style of first-hand reporting and insightful commentary is very similar to the type of reporting by Sharif Abdel Kouddous of Democracy Now when he was the "eyes and ears" of Egypt during the mass protests beginning near the end of January 2011. If there is a way to better classify this type of reporting, both Tim Pool and Sharif Abdel Kouddous should be listed as notable journalists that made use of the technique. Mizerydearia (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pool is one of the few journalists properly covering OWS. He has become a notable name in the realm of new media and will continue to do so. You must keep this page, do not censor the press! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.178.208 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Drone as Privacy Catalyst

A reference to this likely belongs in the article somewhere.

• Calo, M. Ryan (December 12, 2011). "The Drone as Privacy Catalyst" (PDF). Stanford Law Review Online. 64. Stan. L. Rev. Online (29). Stanford Law School. ISBN 0038-9765. ISSN 1939-8581. Archived from the original on December 31, 2011. Retrieved December 31, 2011. Associated today with the theatre of war, the widespread domestic use of drones for surveillance seems inevitable. Existing privacy law will not stand in its way. It may be tempting to conclude on this basis that drones will further erode our individual and collective privacy. Yet the opposite may happen. Drones may help restore our mental model of a privacy violation. They could be just the visceral jolt society needs to drag privacy law into the twenty-first century. {{cite journal}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title= and |month= (help)

Happy New Year. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues

This page reads like a resume. For example:

• The "founder" of timcast and the "tech director" of theother99%. Both of these are Ustream channels. Millions of people have them. How is this notable or important?

• "Unique 21 hour marathon earning him fame". Who says this guy became famous?

• "Throughout his reporting, members of the public and viewers of the stream, inspired by the coverage, brought him batteries, food, water and energy drinks to support his reporting marathons. Pool's dedication to reporting has earned him praise from both social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter as well as mainstream media sources." First of all this entire paragraph is unsourced. Again, who says he was given praise?

Need I say more? I don't really consider Mr. Pool notable enough to merit an article in the first place. If this is going to stay the blatant praise and flattering of Mr. Pool needs to be removed and more reliable sources are needed.

Also, some of the sources used are not appropriate. For example:

• [1] - This is the Occupy website, which naturally isn't reliable due to bias etc.

• [2] - No blogs should be used

• [3] - Again, no blogs

Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

I've decided to put this article up for deletion. It seems that some primary editors of this article haven't been active. Deletion candidacy will bring this discussion to a wider audience. Thank--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

Tim Pool is featured in TIME's person of the year. HIs footage is used by NBC universal and all of its affiliates. Maybe you guys need to do research and clean the article instead of deleting it.

• [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.7.97 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He has two features with TIME magazine one of which is person of the year. Several stories just came out over his departure from TheOther99 and his OccuCopter is international news,

being carried by hundreds of outlets. He just went on RT, his footage is used by NBC, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Rueters, BBC, CBS. His Ustream page has over One million live viewers and over 4 million unique hits. If that is not notable I don't know what is. Someone needs to edit his page to fix it and I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.68.230 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim Pool's coverage of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street direct action are extraordinary simply by the consistency and perseverance of his reporting, despite the inherent danger posed by the NYPD. The NYPD have established a pattern of arresting livestreaming reporters first (with prejudice) , seizing equipment and destroying evidence thereby restricting the freedom of the press. It is imperative that Tim Pool's citizen journalism be encouraged and promoted in service of a larger challenge to preserve freedom of the press.

Cebu4u (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Leave the page as is; the remarks about it seeming as more of a resume seem to be a personal attack rather than a discussion about the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.229.189 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you guys would like to discuss the deletion of this page please contribute on the main page Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Zeppelin modification

What is the "zeppelin modification" mentioned in the subsection Technology? Autarch (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

50-100K social media subs is notable? No.

Certainly this person is not notable for being a journalist, nor social media notable. (As paper mags turn to the Internet Wikipedia will have to rethink its policy about cites - side note). He's currently posting essays from a trip to Sweden with his girlfriend paid for by extreme right-wing Trump supporters, and this is a theme of his 'dogged reporting' of late. 20 or so essays on a single subject. It would be unfortunate if everyone could compose their own resume in place of an actual one to get a Wikipedia hit among his first hits who are all the normal social media ones. I'd provide a ref for my claim, but all the refs supporting it point back to him. He's on Youtube, and he has fewer views than anyone you never heard of on Youtube, and suspiciously few for a 'leak type reporter'. That's my ref.

So he's not yet Youtube famous, despite having sought out controversy wherever he's gone since, oh, all the way back to 2011. When he apparently became a journalist.

I agree with (talk)'s analysis, this entry is written by Tim or a friend. I suggest to again form consensus around keep or delete, and at the very least require citerefs regarding his employment history as journalist. I don't know how VICE News is relevant, since it's not a news agency and reads like a clickbait site.

Henrik Erlandsson 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)

Absolutely ludicrous, and clearly politically motivated opinions. Article should be expanded if anything; Pool's pretty famous for being a sort of "underground" journo. Has been for years. See: his reddit AMAs, and all the news articles about him.

"Sought out controversy". Behave.

78.149.209.252 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah whoever made this section is definitely anti-Pool. I agree with the above comment from IP 78.149.209.252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameequalsjeff (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal life edits

Hello, as a relatively new editor I over-use talk pages to justify what I do. I apologise for that!

I've made a couple of minor changes to the Personal Life section, which didn't reflect what was reported in the cited source or was uncited - says South Side of Chicago, source just says Chicago... and other minor stuff.

I'm also aware that he's quite wary of personal publicity - for example, you could report what his parents did and allow readers to judge if the family was "lower middle class" or "middle class" but that seems too much detail to me?

Happy to be roundly abused for my mistakes.

Cheers! SkagwayEntropy (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Small inaccuracy in the "Reporting on immigration issues in Sweden" section

It says, "He did this in response to a challenge from Infowars writer Paul Joseph Watson, who offered to pay for travel costs and accommodation for any reporter "to stay in crime ridden migrant suburbs of Malmö." ", but in this video Pool states, "I was already planning this trip before Paul Joseph Watson made his tweet about funding a journalist to go stay in Malmo. In fact ... my associate producer [and I] were hanging out, eating breakfast, and we said 'let's go to these places that Trump has said are dangerous and just experience it and see what it's all about, and if that's really the case.' When we got back to our apartment, we noticed Paul had put out this tweet, so I tweeted at him like, 'hey I'm game, let's do this.' " So it would be more accurate to say he did it in response to Trump's comments, not Watson's offer.

I've vaguely read that self-published sources are unacceptable, or something, still a bit confused about all that (I'm new to editing), so I also found this huffington post article, which is more accurate in this regard. Still not sure about what exactly is 'reliable' (is a statement reliable because it's in a mainstream news article but unreliable if it's in a Youtube video?) or the 'truth vs verifiability' distinction. User908325 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added a 'partly' in front of the 'in response' bit. I'm sure more could be done if needed. This part doesn't seem controversial, so it's probably fine. The more controversial the content, the more strictly the source should be evaluated. Huffington Post is kinda a mixed bag as far as reliability, but their "News" banner is generally more reliable than "The Blog" or unclassified stuff. Self-published sources are not ideal, but they can be acceptable sometimes. It's complicated. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

COI tag

Looking at the history, it appears User talk:98.204.81.167 has written most of the article and only has 4 edits outside of the article. Thinking possible CoI? 78.144.17.121 (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconding this. The entire article reads like it was written by his press agent. 70.211.6.112 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tim Pool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512161303/http://gothamist.com/2012/05/08/are_anarchists_acting_like_the_nypd.php to http://gothamist.com/2012/05/08/are_anarchists_acting_like_the_nypd.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

"Journalism" award

Tim Pool's "Shorty" award was an industry award (organized by a for-profit company to promote their product) for people who produce content for social media. He did not receive any award from any sort of journalism group such as Pulitzer, Peabody or Polk. To imply Tim Pool is a journalist simply based upon this single award (which was an award for producing live video on YouTube) is lacking the sort of citation needed for an encyclopedia, and doesn't meet the standard for what most people would consider to be a journalism award. Additionally, Tim Pool does "cover" issues of importance, but not in an objective fashion. Considering this, Tim Pool should be categorized as an activist. If creating live video and offering opinions and commentary is all it takes to be considered a "journalist," then Alex Jones should be listed as a journalist here too, instead of "host" and "producer."

67.168.187.188 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion on the award itself, but there is a large amount of evidence to support the claims that he is a journalist.

From the page:

"Pool's coverage has been carried and syndicated by multiple mainstream outlets including NBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and Time.He was covered by Fast Company and Wired. In 2013, Pool joined Vice Media producing and hosting content as well as developing new methods of reporting. In 2014, he joined Fusion TV as Director of Media innovation and Senior Correspondent."

One of the links to the above specifically refers to him as a journalist:

"How Vice's Tim Pool used Google Glass to cover Istanbul protests" – via The Guardian.

Also, these articles specifically call him a journalist:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/tim-pool-vice-reporter-white-black-unsafe-racial-tensions-milwaukee-police-protest
https://www.businessinsider.com/reporter-tim-pool-pulls-out-of-milwaukee-because-of-racial-tensions-2016-8
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/the-live-streamers-who-are-challenging-traditional-journalism
Seraphael7 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Improve neutrality?

I made a contribution which has been undone due to lacking neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Pool&oldid=889665153 (see Career section, paragraph on Joe Rogan podcast) I'm working on this at my sandbox. User:Geekyroyalaficionado/sandbox Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to use restraint to evaluate WP:DUE. If this isn't a WP:FART, reliable sources will explain precisely why this is significant to Tim Pool as an encyclopedia topic. Nobody is disputing that Rogan had him as a guest, but verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Simply saying it was "attention" is probably too vague to be helpful.

Please be mindful of WP:RS, also. Zero Hedge isn't a reliable source. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes, Forbes "contributor" content is not reliable. Start from reliable, independent sources and work from there. Do not use original research and "backfill" with sources after the fact. The Daily Dot source is usable, but it's pretty weak. It provides specific context about why Pool's comments were controversial. If one paragraph of that source is used to support his self-description, it would also be wise to summarize the multiple paragraphs which indicate this isn't accepted by outside observers. I do not think this source is strong enough to say Pool's "alt-right adjacent" but this is presented as a more significant perspective than Pool's own take on himself, so the source needs to be judged accordingly. If this cannot be done in a neutral way, this source isn't particularly useful after all. That's fine, because there's no end to political gossip which could be added.

I'm also not clear on why these sources are to archive links even though these links are still live. Please include the direct link, when available, and use the archives as a backup. Reliable sources issue retractions or corrections, which is part of what makes them reliable. Archives make these harder to notice, which is a problem. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Great feedback! I admit, I wasn't comfortable with the ZeroHedge article. It is fringe, but I thought the ZeroHedge was a good contrast the Forbes opinion piece. The ZeroHedge opinion was overwhelmingly favorable to Tim and antagonistic to Dorsey and Gadde; the Forbes opinion takes a favorable opinion to Dorsey and Gadde, and a pretty balanced, fairly skeptical (but respectful) view of Tim. So I thought they were a good contrast to use. Anyway, I can see how both are problematic, since they are opinion pieces. I have to keep trying because I think this podcast overall was a major milestone in Pool's career. I believe that while he has already achieved fantastic height, this podcast elevated him to a whole other level of recognition-- dare I say it? A "normie" audience?

Proposed solution:

• To use examples of credible journalists tweeting about the Rogan podcast? (in lieu of Zero Hedge & Forbes editorials)
• As for archival links, I think for Tweets this should be preserved, because tweets can disappear. (I see your point about archiving news articles, and I balk a little, because I think there is value in seeing the original, which "journalists" often try to distort by making untraceable changes... and besides, I hate giving them clicks. But for an encyclopedia, the point is taken.)Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

One more point: Archiving the sources is not actually a problem as the coding includes a link to the original article.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: If you accept that sources are likely to covertly alter their reporting after the fact, why do you trust them for content in the first place? For better or worse, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we fundamentally have a bias towards mainstream sources. This is especially true of WP:FRINGE concepts, which Rogan and Pool both frequently cover. Mainstream journalism should not be viewed as a monolithic, unaccountable entity, because it isn't. Journalists vary in perspective and integrity, and they very frequently disagree with each other on most topics. Not all journalists are "journalists", in other words.

Archives for tweets make sense, but they are still primary sources, and should have at least some specific indication of significance from a reliable, independent source. The Daily Dot article shows tweets from Nathan Bernard, Ben Collins (who?) Jack Posobiec, and some other names, but this would introduce new problems. Picking tweets from recognizable people isn't enough. We need context from reliable sources. Without that context, it's too hard to differentiate important comments from cherry-picking or off-hand asides. Deciding which tweets to include and which to leave out should be decided by independent sources.

Strictly as an aside, Rogan's podcast doesn't have a normie audience from what I've seen. This source might provide some perspective, but his popularity (and he is definitely popular) hasn't translated into credibility. That source mentions both of Pool's appearances, saying of the recent one It was a tough interview, though one unlikely to be appreciated outside the Breitbart set. That's not an endorsement, or an indication of larger significance, and from what I've seen, that's pretty typical. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All noted! Therefore, you will notice that my updated sandbox reflects the negation of the objectionable content. I have left only the statement of the fact that the podcast happened, and Tim Pool, who has verifiable political stances, confronted the Twitter CEO and CLO. Pool presented his views, and the Twitter executives presented their views. End. Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The summary of the issues of the debate seem to be WP:OR, and this part lacks a source. Who is "broadly speaking"? This is a form of editorializing. As a rule of thumb, every source should specifically be about Pool. Exceptions are rare, so the CNBC source about a town square should not be used for this content at all. To use unrelated sources as a means to introduce a separate perspective is WP:SYNTH.

Using tweets to support Pool's specific political position in this context is also a form of editorializing. If reliable sources do not provide this as context, it is not appropriate for the article to do so. As a journalist, he is not automatically considered noteworthy for his political positions. Instead, he is noteworthy for whatever reason reliable sources give. Some basic facts might be supported by tweets, but these would have to be fundamental biographical details.

Context matters, also. Even if his politics are significant, his interview with Dorsey is not the correct place to explain his political positions. Unless, of course, that can be contextualized by a reliable, independent source. This is why I say it's better to start with sources and go from there, instead of writing and then adding sources later. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How about we just mention that the interview happened? We don't have to say anything at all about what it was about. I just thought it relevant to Tim Pool because free speech (the topic of the debate) is a central thing relating to his activism. However, it is not necessary (??) to expand on that. We can just mention, Tim Pool did this thing, leave a source validating that it happened, and leave it at that? Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(Regarding this edit)

Nothing about these two relatively routine sources suggests this deserves an entire subsection. Neither source is centrally about Pool, and neither explains why this is of significance to Pool. Your summary of the podcast was absolutely not neutral ("Pool defended the rights of everyone"... sez who?) Your summary was not based on any independent source. It was also written in a conversational and informal WP:TONE which has its own set of neutrality problem. The section title "Challenging Silicon Valley censorship" is loaded and leading. It presumes that this is "censorship", which is certainly something that Pool says, but as a section header it's simplistic and subjective, even going by the two cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ok! So how can we improve it? Instead of just undoing it, let's improve it? Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Set aside what's already been written. What, exactly, is the encyclopedic significance of this one podcast, to Tim Pool specifically, according to reliable, independent sources? Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The significance of the podcast to Tim Pool is that it elevated a regular topic of his editorial content, giving him an even bigger platform that he already had for making his case. He stated his opinion that Twitter is absolutely has a left-wing bias and exercises a double standard in its bans and suspensions. The Twitter executives in the room presented their case as well, a total disagreement with Pool, stating quite clearly, repeatedly, that the discussed bans and suspensions had been taken in decisive action against bullying and harassment. Pool was able to present his ideas on this topic to an audience even more expansive than the one he had already, hitherto acquired. Evidence: This podcast on YouTube (Joe Rogan experience #1258) has more than 3 million views, 81,000 likes and slightly more than 7,000 dislikes. This is vastly more views than the number of subscriptions, combined, at Tim's two YouTube channels. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. How do reliable sources say this is significant? I am not asking you to summarize a podcast, I am asking you to find parts of reliable sources about the podcast which explain in their words how this is significant to Pool. The number of viewers doesn't explain why this is significant. Adding your own WP:OR about why this is significant isn't productive. The number of likes/dislikes is even less relevant. Without reliable sources telling us, we do not know if people were there for Pool, or if they were there for Rogan, or they don't care about either of them and only care about Jack Dorsey. We don't know why people were watching, and drawing a vivid picture with numbers is non-neutral. Brushing Dorsey off as just a "twitter executive in the room" is, frankly, pretty silly, since he is certainly far more influential and famous than Pool, and probably more than Rogan, also.

Instead of relying on your own knowledge of the podcast (which is WP:OR), what are reliable sources saying about it? Do those reliable sources explain why this matters to Pool? Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

I propose adding to the career section:

Tim Pool regularly criticizes the mainstream media as well as Silicon Valley-based social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook for what he considers as bias in favor of left-wing perspectives. He was able to voice his concerns to the CEO (Jack Dorsey) and CLO (Vijaya Gadde) of Twitter on a podcast hosted by Joe Rogan. The podcast has so far reached more than 3 million views on YouTube, which is substantially more than the average number (roughly between 100,000 and 200,000) of views on Pool's daily video content.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekyroyalaficionado (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your comments.

What sources do you have which say that he "regularly criticizes mainstream media..."? Is this first-hand knowledge? Interpreting these numbers through subjective terms like "substantially" is using primary sources to present novel conclusions, which is WP:SYNTH.

Once again, summarize what reliable sources are saying, not your own personal observations. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The source for "regularly criticizes..." is indeed the primary source, Tim Pool himself, that is to say his 'timcast' channel on youtube, and of course several tweets. The source for the positions respectively taken by Tim Pool and Dorsey/Gadde would be the podcast of Joe Rogan itself. I think the last sentence is the most objectionable. The preceding, I don't see anything wrong in it. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a possible secondary source for the podcast itself, with several quotes from it: https://pjmedia.com/video/tim-pool-and-joe-rogan-face-off-against-twitters-jack-dorsey-and-vijaya-gadde/

From Slate:
The YouTube stream of the Jack Dorsey podcast got 13,000 likes and 86,000 dislikes. Viewers thought Rogan had betrayed them by failing to press Dorsey about why various right-wing figures had been deplatformed while people such as Kathy Griffin got to stay. One YouTube commenter wrote, “wtf is going on here!” “Censorship of conservatives is evil and you didn’t call him out. Coward,” wrote another.

For the entire following week, Rogan fretted on air about the blowback. He spent hours overcompensating by dwelling on the questions that he might have asked Dorsey had he bothered to prepare for the initial conversation. Far from hewing to his “it’s my show, listen or don’t” philosophy, Rogan seemed afraid—as if he had realized that the listeners who have made him a rich and influential man will tune out as soon as he stops playing to their political biases.

Inevitably, like a mad scientist desperately trying to appease the monster of his own creation, Rogan gave in to his listeners and rebooked Dorsey for another episode, a month after the first. For 3½ hours, Rogan and Tim Pool pressed Dorsey and Twitter exec Vijaya Gadde on their reasons for banning Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Jacob Wohl, and Chuck Johnson, among others; on the importance of allowing conservatives to misgender people online; and on the injustice of perma-banning the right-wing trolls and anti-intellectual intellectuals to whom Rogan is indebted for his late-career success. It was a tough interview, though one unlikely to be appreciated outside the Breitbart set. Finally, we saw what the third eye adorning Rogan’s mug on his podcast art really sees: fear. https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is-an-essential-platform-for-freethinkers-who-hate-the-left.html --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Political views

Section on this? Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are reliable, independent sources, sure. He is prolific and somewhat vague about his views on his own social media, so this would mainly require independent sources, with primary only very selectively used for WP:BLP issues or for filling-in significant, uncontested details. See WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Let me phrase this another way, since it's a recurring problem with political youtubers: Since he is a pundit (whether he like that term or not) his specific claims about his own political views are self-promotional. I strongly maintain based on past experience with Wikipedia that we will need a specific reason, derived from an independent source, to go into detail for any specific view he holds. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. He is objectively a pundit. I also agree that his own views about his views are not relevant. Only reliable sources that are not his own media would be relevant. And as you put it, Grayfell, since there is not yet a specific reason to include that, it's not a necessary section. I have thought about it subsequent to my initial question and I have concluded that his personal political views are no more relevant than any TV host like Anderson Cooper. He's a commentator of news, a reporter, an analyst. While he does offer up his own opinions, sometimes, and always prefacing it appropriately, his opinions are not the story. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup. His views are not the story... except when they are, but that's not for us to decide. I suspect that will happen sooner or later, but that's just speculation. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty clear that he is politically biased, politically motivated, and even said on the David Pakman show that he is no longer a journalist bust a commentator. Therefore, his political motivations must be made public. All of his biases must be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.247.250 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a link and timestamp for the Pakman reference? His motivations already are public, or at least obvious, but for Wikipedia to include this information we will need reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Expansion

The page needs some expansion. I'd say the "Sweden" section in particular - maybe add in that he said "Sweden has real problems", his interviews with migrants as well as an immigrant former-police officer who works with migrant youths who said "there is a new phenomenon where men surround and sexually harass young girls"

Also the riots in Greece, his interview with Dave Rubin, his talks about internet censorship and free speech (etc). That's just off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameequalsjeff (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say his political bias and transition from pseudo-journalist to politically biased commentator needs to be addressed. I think the fact that it appears Tim Pool himself has attempted to edit this article needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.247.250 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

While it's certainly plausible, what evidence do you have that Pool has edited this article? Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Immigration to Sweden section

It's not actually true that Tim went to Sweden on PJW's challenge. Tim set up the gofundme in response to Donald Trump's speech mentioning the "no go zones" in Mälmo. Then PJW issued his challenge and offered to donate to Tim's gofundme. Tim has said (in his first appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast) that PJW's contribution amounted to 9% of the total amount raised.Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Watson's specific financial contribution should not be judged without context. Browsing through the GoFundMe page's donations, someone named Adam Evans donated $100 and said "I support EVERYTHING that Paul Joseph Watson supports. God bless!" Which if nothing else, tells us that it's not as simple as Watson just being another rando with cash to burn. So, what do reliable sources say about this?

The Huffington Post news story (such as it is) quotes Pool soliciting Watson's advice on where in Sweden he should go, and explains that he had the idea, but didn't apparently act on it until after Watson's tweet. Okay, ideas are cheap, though. So from that source alone, this summary seems about right. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That Huff Post article is so absurd, though. It actually cites Tim Pool's video as its source on the matter. So Tim's word is not good enough, but an article by HP quoting Tim is good enough. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons that self-published sources are treated with caution. Broadly, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We favor secondary sources. There are also important considerations specifically related to Pool.

By Wikipedia's standards, Pool is less trustworthy specifically because he is outside of the mainstream. The reliability of a source is evaluated by its reputation and its accountability to outside evaluation. Pool bypasses editorial oversight, independent fact checking, peer-review, etc. He plays loose with the rules of journalism. This has its good sides and bad sides, but for Wikipedia, the bad sides are a pretty big deal.

Huffington Post isn't a great site, but its news department's reporting is sometimes reliable in context (per WP:RSP. It's still much better than Pool's raw material, however.

For this specific investigation, the whole premise was absurd,[5][6][7][etc]. Pool's trip only damaged his credibility by tying his reputation to far-right conspiracy theory websites and loony tabloids.

He's certainly not the first to blur the lines between his source of funding and his reporting, and he's not even the first to do so with crowdfunding. Journalistic objectivity#Crowdfunding mentions a study on this from 2014, for example. Since we absolutely would not use Pool's social media for factual claims in any other article, we need a specific reason to introduce this perspective here. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia claims I went to Sweden because of Paul Joseph Watson. Complete lie. The source they have says I went there because of statements made by Donald Trump, that's the truth, but will they publish the truth? They won't. They twist and justify how their personal opinion on the article supercedes the actual citation, and when you try and change it, they will lock the page and kick you out." - Tim Pool, source: 22m55s @ YouTube video R5r67lzhHk8?t=22m55s Jasonkhanlar (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

When I read that section it basically has the facts correct, but the way (and specifically the order) the information is presented gives one a mistaken impression. The easiest fix (in my opinion) is changing it to read something like:

"In February 2017, Pool travelled to Sweden to investigate claims made by Donald Trump about problems with refugees in the country. At nearly the same time Infowars writer Paul Joseph Watson offered to pay for travel costs and accommodation for any reporter "to stay in crime-ridden migrant suburbs of Malmö". Pool launched a crowdfunding effort which raised $9000 including $2000 donated by Watson."

I did drop the "far-right conspiracy theory" claim mostly because it didn't seem to have a neat place to be fit in but also because neither of the referenced articles make that claim (although one does claim PJW is "alt-right" and a conspiracy theorist, neither claims that Pool was influenced by PJW)Seraphael7 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"No Go Zones"

I edited the article to more accurately represent the cited articles. The sources do not reference "no-go zones" as being the reason Tim Pool went to Sweden. Neither do they assert that no-go zones are "far-right conspiracy theories".

For something to be a conspiracy theory, it must by definition be the result of a secret plan of a certain group to do something harmful. In an of itself, no-go zones in this context are used to describe areas that due to some reason, such as high-crime, people are apprehensive about entering. Since the claim that there is a "far-right conspiracy theory" in regards to no-go zones is not adequately sourced, and is "contentious material", I have changed it in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.

Also, in regards to the term "far-right", I have changed it to "Donald Trump" whom the sources specify as being the person who instigated Tim Pool's trip to Sweden. I'm not sure if it's accurate to call Donald Trump "far right", but nonetheless, it is redundant to use vague group terms when an individual can be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.2.167 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that we do not inadvertently legitimize Watson/Infowars' WP:FRINGE perspective. The few reliable sources which have commented on Pool's activities treat is as a waste of time at best. To put it more bluntly, sources do not treat this as responsible journalism, and they absolutely do treat it as fear-mongering and sensationalism. Wikipedia isn't a platform for sensationalism or political gossip, and this is just as true for click-bait as it is for supermarket tabloids.

• In reference to Pool's brand of "busybody journalism":

"...it would have turned up in search next to livestreaming journalist Tim Pool’s 2017 videos “INSIDE A ‘NO GO ZONE’ IN MALMO, SWEDEN” and “GETTING ‘ESCORTED’ OUT OF THE ‘NO GO ZONE’” and right-wing agitator Lauren Southern’s “Thrown Out Of Sydney No Go Zone.” The premise of this emerging genre is simple: A vlogger visits a neighborhood with a large Muslim immigrant community, ostensibly to see for themselves an area they’ve heard is too dangerous for even police to visit. The vlogger establishes that their presence in the neighborhood is unwanted — in Pool’s case because he was filming men who didn’t want to be filmed; in Southern’s because she was standing outside of a mosque “criticizing Islam” — and leaves. A video of the experience is uploaded to YouTube, the phrase “no-go zone” featured prominently in the title."[8]

• The myth of Malmo being a "no-go zone" appears to have started with far-right outlets like Breitbart, VDare, Pamela Geller, Infowars, and similar. Ostensibly mainstream conservative media like Fox, National Review, and (if I recall) Newsmax picked it up, and it spread from there.[9] If Pool only started paying attention after Trump falsely misrepresented this game of telephone, so be it, but that means Pool rushed to collect other people's money so he could cover news that was more than a year past date. It's hardly surprising that he's not taken seriously, is it? And reliable sources do not take this particular trip seriously, in case that was in doubt.
• As I said, sources specifically about Pool's investigation are skeptical that this was responsible journalism, or that it was even journalism at all:

...“I’m not on anybody’s side, but I let everyone have their say,” Pool told me. “I try not to judge people.” This sounds noble, even obvious. Yet not all opinions deserve to be weighted equally, and, though editing may create opportunities for bias, it also allows for context, narrative structure, and editorial pushback. A journalist’s first task is to gather information without fear or favor. The next task, which is equally crucial, is to scrutinize the data—to separate the facts from the fulsome bullshit. The source goes on to note Pool's editorializing comments in his interview with the deputy mayor of Malmo. If Pool claims that he doesn't take sides, this was an amateurishly irresponsible mistake.[10]

With all that in mind, this was a far-right theory, and any summary of this mostly-trivial incident needs to match-up with reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it still contradicts Wikipedia's editing policy, which requires inline citations and no original research. Nowhere in the articles, even if the ones you have provided in talk, does it directly claim "far-right theories of no-go zones" as reasons for Tim Pool's visit. Because you are making inferences based on information not directly stated, it falls under the category of original research.

"...this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources [11]

Furthermore, while the claim that no-go zones are far-right theories may yet be established, content in Wikipedia must be directly related to the material presented. I.e., if the claim that no-go zones are far-right theories is a claim that in and of itself must be established using sources that *aren't* directly relevant to Tim Pool and the article, then it is not valid to include in the article.

"...OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."[12]

I previously made an edit that I believe stays true to the sources. And in no way does doing so lend any validity to any fringe perspectives. It correctly elucidates on Tim Pools reasons for going to Sweden while staying true to the sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. 194.223.38.162 (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to again emphasise that "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged", as per WP:NOR 203.221.112.245 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)a

Time magazine clip.

What, exactly, is this source supporting? Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cestlavieleir: I have started a talk page discussion, so answer the question or self-revert. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

False claims about the Media Matters Article

One editor blocked per NOTHERE. Section hatted because repeating these ridiculous claims becomes a BLP violation in its own right, by virtue of repetition. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to quote in here the full segment of the medias matters article first, related to Tim Pool: Tim Pool falsely claimed Star Tribune claimed that Omar “may have married her brother.” Tim Pool, a YouTuber with connections to multiple white nationalists and far-right figures, uploaded a June 23 video falsely claiming that the Star Tribune showed Omar “may have married her brother.” Here is the Star tribune Source used by Pool : http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/ In short, never did Media Matters called Pool a conspiracy theorist and they also fail to prove that he made a false claim in the first place, the star tribune did indeed run the article tTim says they did, and thay did the way he reported about it. The fact that you keep using this source to claim he is a conspiracy theorist is a just a poor case of novel and unsourced creation attempting to reframe and stretch the unfounded smear of a website you personnally have affection for, IMHO. Even if he did mistaken the star tribune, or covered the news coverage of a potential conspiracy theory, there is still a leap from being mistaken and actively promoting conspiracy theories. I would also point out that the libel conspiracy theorist seems to be used for a specific shock purpose. In other words, if you use that reference, you can say that he was mislead by the tribune about ilham omar (and not watch his video criticising the startribune) but it would be disingenuous to do so and not point out that your source is also false. Yes, he was criticing the tribune. If over the top you spin this as a fabricated proof that he is a conspiracy theorist.... You are not in RationalWiki or on PULL im afraid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Per the cited source: Tim Pool falsely claimed Star Tribune claimed that Omar “may have married her brother.” Tim Pool, a YouTuber with connections to multiple white nationalists and far-right figures, uploaded a June 23 video falsely claiming that the Star Tribune showed Omar “may have married her brother.” [YouTube, 6/23/19; Media Matters, 7/9/19] The story doesn't say what Pool claims it says, suggesting at best that he didn't read it carefully. The unsupportable claim that Omar secretly conspired to illegally marry her brother for immigration purposes is a textbook conspiracy theory. So this seems pretty clear to me. Regardless, NBC News has also said he has promoted conspiracy theories, in this case those attached to the murder of Seth Rich. These theories are also unsupportable speculation, at best. Several other outlets followed this one to link Pool to the Rich conspiracy. Based on this alone, I would accept removing this line and instead simply describing him as a "conspiracy theorist" in plain language, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Who gets to decide what claims are conspiracy theories and what aren't and why do they personally get to decide that? Just as FOX is an arm of the RNC, MSNBC is an arm of the DNC and everything they say should be considered as to how it might benefit the democratic party. Media Matters is directly funded by the DNC's Center For American Progress. I fail to see why these should be considered incontrovertible sources. If the jury is out on a given subject, I don't see any reason why one side of an issue should be allowed to claim the other side are the conspiracy theorists without being able to prove their own claims about the issue to be true. I also think it's important to note that *speculation* is not the same as "promoting conspiracy theories". I'll try to find Tim's videos that mention Seth Rich, but I'm not convinced that the characterization that he "promotes conspiracy theories" is correct or even fair-minded. BlackCatKillsRat (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC) @Grayfell I think you are trying to make an unproven assertion that your reference doesn't say. Then why using media matters and not NBC in the article ? Is it because you know your news sources are unreliable ? You know you are trying to create novel content, everyone is here to see you figure skating, @Grayfell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC) The funny thing about (one of, I have seen two) the NBC news articles is that it links to the video they base their claim on. He basically says that "personally I am inclined to believe that there is at least a great than probability chance that, again my opinion, that you Seth Rich was in fact the leaker. Now with kim.com's statement I am sitting around a 57 to 65% chance that Seth Rich was the leaker." I am sorry, if that is the evidence that they are using to say that he pushed the conspiracy theory they are being intentionally deceptive. He clearly stated that it was his opinion, not that it is a fact. If, after seeing their source, you really want to give credibility to the statement on wikipedia well I can only conclude you are as dishonest as the person who wrote article. with that evidence Article: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/conspiracy-theorists-far-right-agitators-head-white-house-social-media-n1028576 Link: https://twitter.com/ViniKako/status/868206160809259010 Seraphael7 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC) His opinion in favor of an unsupportable conspiracy theory must still be evaluated by reliable source, not original research. Your personal opinions on his opinions are not relevant, only sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC) So what you are saying is that a "reliable source" can be exposed in telling a lie and you would support including that lie in an encyclopedia because no "reliable source" has countered that lie?Seraphael7 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC) What does it matter what media matters says about him? They're an unreliable source, and shouldn't be cited. Gregnator (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC) They are reliable for opinions with attribution, and they are an independently significant group which analyses media. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC) They're reliable only when they cite other sources to back up their own claims. Given that they are directly funded by the DNC's Center for American Progress, I find your characterization of them as "an independently significant group which analyzes media" to be absurd and deliberately misleading. Why is it not relevant that they're directly funded by an entity that's directly affiliated by the DNC? That's an enormous conflict of interest. BlackCatKillsRat (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a platform for false equivalence. We do not assume that there are only two sides, nor that "both sides" must be treated exactly the same. "Independent" in this context does not mean "politically independent", it means independent of Tim Pool. They are independent of Pool just as Pool is independent of mainstream media. As I said above, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source which relies on sources that have a "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". For factual claims, this means editorial oversight and a history of issuing retractions and corrections, among other things. Pool is not a reliable source for factual information (such as Omar's marriage history) so his commentary should be avoided for factual claims, except in some limited cases for claims he has made about himself. This is the other major concern here, which is that Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources (which, again, doesn't mean "politically independent", it means independent of the topic they are discussing.) A source can be partisan or biased, but still independent. If you have some specific reason to claim that Media Matters as an organization has a financial interest in Tim Pool's Youtube Channel, then perhaps they would have a conflict of interest. You would have to directly support that claim with concrete sources. Does this make sense? Additionally, since the goal of an encyclopedia is to counter false information, we do not validate fringe theories. If reliable sources are stating that Pool supports a conspiracy theory, we must follow that source. We cannot attempt to interpret his own claims to see if it really is a conspiracy theory or not. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Saying that " the jury is out on a given subject" is incorrect. According to Wikipedia, these theories are wrong, and should not be presented as possibly correct without very solid sources. Those sources do not exist, so we cannot imply that these are anything other than false theories. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell you do realise I haven't done anything? I just found out by looking at the history of the changes of the page. You are trying to fence with half a dozen writers that strongly disagree with your assertions and your appeal to authority don<t work here. I could not have locked the article intil the 3 november with the potentally libellous slander you try to insere removed. I again disagree with your attempt to reframe the situation. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

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) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)