Talk:Tim Pool/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth"

Meaww (unreliable for new pages per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide ) posted an article at https://meaww.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-impeachment-internet-calls-for-it-after-meghan-and-harrys-racism-claim following a JOKE tweet by Tim Pool -- discussion about this is around 1 hr 14 mins into his current livestream; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStgTNUetVM Harami2000 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a reliable source and it seems like precisely the sort of one-minute throwaway joke material that doesn't have any place in Wikipedia biographies. If some actual reliable source takes it up, there'll be something to discuss... but as of now, absolutely not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion of MEAWW on RSN, which concluded that it was, at best, a clickbaity tabloid site which should be accorded little weight and not used for claims about living people. Unless there's clear consensus to overturn and reject that conclusion, we need to avoid using that source to make tawdry claims about an obvious joke tweet. There doesn't appear to be any lasting importance here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick entry because page keeps getting changed and my edits lost. MEAWW is NewsGuard certified. Your linked archived discussion is just a couple of users providing zero sources that the site is "clickbaity tabloid" plus no mention of NewsGuard certification. I Use Dial (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that I Use Dial (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

"NewsGuard certification" does not dictate Wikipedia policy toward sourcing. You do not have consensus to add this material and the source is, at best, questionable; if you continue to edit-war this material, you will likely be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. If you are proposing that we include this material, you need to find better sources and you would probably need to explain why we would devote space to questionable and gossipy claims about an evident joke tweet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It is you who is edit-warring - take a look at the history. You address basically nothing I stated about how there are ZERO sources for the claim that MEAWW cannot be used. You are engaging in threatening behavior toward another editor and I feel offended. You need to take a break from bullying people here at Wikipedia while I do the real reporting on the actual behavior here this evening. I Use Dial (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Three editors here agree that MEAWW is not a sufficiently strong source. Also consider checking out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Ad_Fontes_Media and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Media_Bias_Fact_Check. Newsguard is pretty similar. These are not typically useful for arguments about the quality of sources for wikipedia. Jlevi (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You still aren't discussing MEAWW. I Use Dial (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In regards to NewsGuard, it seems there are quite a few other editors on Wikipedia who consider it a substantial enough source to include it within articles, including AlterNet and The_Epoch_Times, among many others. So it seems that there are a larger number of editors disagreeing with the three editors here as to whether NewGuard is a service usable on Wikipedia. It is completely clear that this is a reliable service as far as editor consensus on Wikipedia goes. I Use Dial (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Since it is clear that the across-Wikipedia consensus on NewsGuard is that it is a reliable source, I will be adding their story back until someone decides to either undo all the other articles on Wikipedia or explain why the Tim Pool article receives different rules from all of those articles. In regards to whatever Pool tweeted, Pool cannot be a source for the Tim Pool Wikipedia article. I Use Dial (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, that "MEAWW is NewsGuard-approved" (whatever that means, and a fact not in evidence), does not automagically make the site a suitable source for Wikipedia. BLP policy requires that we use only the highest-quality sources and avoid sensationalism when discussing living people. Moreover, the weight to be accorded to a single gossipy source stretching a joke tweet beyond meaningful recognition is subject to editorial consensus, and you are the only editor proposing that it be included, while several editors have objected to your proposal. Your bold proposal has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. You have two choices: work to gain consensus for your proposal, or or drop the stick and move on to something else. If you cannot gain consensus for this addition, it will not be included, no matter how much you want it there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, more editors have attempted to make the edit while a few editors have been reverting every edit as if those few own the article, and your assertions here suggest that the editors in this talk page own Wikipedia, because I have just linked to specific articles using NewsGuard within the article, both pro and con, to discuss the worthiness of the news outlet. The sum of the editors editing those posts is higher than the number of editors that have had anything to do with the Tim Pool article. You are using original research to support your claim that it is not a valid source, and that goes against the very foundation of Wikipedia, itself. Unless you can find sources to back up your claims, I will be adding the edit back in per the authority of the great many editors already using NewsGuard to evaluate sources. I Use Dial (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

MEAWWW is a low quality outlet that tends to cover trivial material that other outlets don't give any time of day. Pretty clearly undue in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Source? I Use Dial (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This content was rightly removed. Springee (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it was not.I Use Dial (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This content has been REINSTATED AND SOURCED. As a long-time editor here at Wikipedia, it is truly shameful what has become of our organization. Further, TDB is _not_ a reliable source, as it is a left-wing biased news source and thus sources using it need to be vetted additionally (check NewsGuard for more information about their lack of credibility). Effort needs to be made to tag these sources as dubious at best and OR at worst. As it is right now, authors at TDB and Meaww can practically make things up and then be "sourced" for academia.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 13:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• That you disagree with the consensus here is evident, but that's a problem we can't fix. Your options are to attempt to create a new consensus, or to accept the status quo and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Edit-warring will just get you blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we get some addtional protection on the main article page? It seems we have some editors here with alterior motives attempting to sully it. The following text— "Also on this day, Pool clarified for the world on his show that his latest viral tweet was made sarcastically due to the very concepts of "impeachment" and a "monarch"; moments after, he further claims that he did this in order to prove a philosophical point regarding the nature of having "no accountability in media" (Pool)." —does not violate any of our policies here and the idea of asking for a "consensus" to post NON-BIASED BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT IS CONSIDERED A VIRAL TWEET PHENOMENON makes little to no sense. Is there something here you disagree with on a factual basis or are you simply against the very admission of new information because it does not meet your personal standard? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC) This question is exceptionally pertinent to you, North. Please get back to me on one of our respective talk pages, thank you.

Well this must be fixed post-haste. Clearly, 3 users do not a consensus make. However, we still need vetted and verifiable sources. Consider the following: the "Meaww" article was a talking-point for the Tim Pool commentater in order to show that making seemingly nonsensical statements in jest in today's current world-environment often results in it being taken at literal face-value and unduly enrages (outrages?) people with differing viewpoints. The point of sourcing the Meaww article is not to show that it is a credible source, but in order to show that this claim is not completely baseless and that it did originate somewhere on the internet. This is further why video links to the podcast with Tim himself, as well as dubious tags and OR tags have been added such that readers can clearly see for themselves what is factually accurate. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Moved from my talkpage Jlevi (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed? This is a BLP discussion so consensus isn't needed to keep this out, rather consensus is needed for inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed is our (Wikipedia's) standards regarding whether or not we as a whole consider "Meaww" a viable news source. Users have mentioned that it is "NewsGuard certified" while others have noted that it is "tabloidy". We cannot claim any form of credibility if we cannot even agree as a whole what is and is not "credible" with regards to one specific news site. Either the site publishes information that is true, is considered a news-source, and should thusly be used in citations for all of our works where pertinent OR the site publishes heavily spun articles with little to no credibility and an effort to be "click-baity". Why are we including an article about a random lady's cat that has to do with Pool but not a story literally regarding the Queen of England? Furthermore the claim that Tim Pool's site is "defunct" because of the aforementioned incident with a cat is verifiably false (just…go to https://www.timcast.com and you can see it is still up and running).

Additionally, every single TDB article reference needs desperately a neutrality tag (just the same way that TDW articles—that's The Daily Wire, for those unfamiliar—needs this tag). Generally here at Wikipedia, the usage of "far" left/right news sources is frowned upon and information needs to be revised for accuracy many times. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus that The Daily Beast is a reliable source - see its entry at WP:RSP. If you wish to change that consensus, you can open an RFC at WP:RSN. On the other hand, there is consensus that The Daily Wire is unreliable and may not be used for any factual claim on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

1 2 3 4

"The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Thus it is actually consensus that we should not use TDB for BLP's (at least heavily limit its use and vet all claims for these matters).

The template here clearly states that even though it is factually reliable, it is heavily opinionated (a.k.a. biased). In fact, they have been sued before for defamation of character so even more caution should be used due to the fact that we do not want any random legal battles here due to something a "source" said that we published.

As for Meaww, it has no entry or even a talk-page-entry on our RSPs—perhaps one should be started.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the "defunct" language LiphradicusEpicus. From where are you quoting? Jlevi (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing TDB article saying the site "collapsed" due to the issues with the Tim-Cat-Lady incident.მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• It is not enough for a source to be from a superficially reliable outlet, sources must be evaluated in context. The specific Meaww source is gossip citing other gossip. It also cites Quora, which is another red flag that this is nothing worth taking seriously. In context, this sources is extremely flimsy. While this tweet, and Pool's subsequent response, might seem like a useful demonstration of Pool's current approach to punditry, this conclusion would have to be made by a more substantial or reliable source in order for this to rise to WP:DUE. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note Pool is tweeting about this, and seems to be actively engaged in trying to get some nonsense on to his Wikipedia page to prove a point of... some kind. (also see around 54:00 mark in this video). Aside from the dubious sourcing and due weight issues, it's clear that this isn't sincere belief, so it's just plain contrary to the core mission of Wikipedia to add it to the entry. Nblund ^talk 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Far right stance

If you take a look at the titles for every single video, it's all slanted with far right buzz words. "Far left Rioting BACKFIRES As Armed Counter Groups Strike Back, Regular Americans Have Said ENOUGH", "Antifa Leader Arrested Charged With FELONIES, Fired From job", "INSIDE A "NO GO ZONE" IN MALMO, SWEDEN", "Ebay Just NUKED Dr. Seuss Books As OFFENSIVE, RSBN Gets Nuked By Youtube As Censorship Escalates", "HARD Evidence Of Widespread Fraud Announced By Voter Audit Group, Media And Democrats STILL Deny It".

Doesn't matter what your stance on the guy is. This article claims he is not political, but he is using far right buzzwords constantly, and the slant appears to cater to right wing viewers in general. There's hardly any indicators he is anything but a right wing commenter at this point. He is frequently making podcasts with right wing view points. This needs to be rectified under this article, instead of serving as an inappropriate vehicle for plausible deniability by blurring his obvious slant which indicates at this point he is more of a right wing commenter than a gonzo journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.66.182 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Titles of videos and what he says in said videos are far from the same thing. While I can concur that the video titles share a lot with traditional right wing types such as James O'keefe, Steven Crowder, and Mr. Obvious, you have failed to substantiate what the far right is. Cherry picking specific examples of things he has said that sound radical are far from an objective assessment of his own views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.60.159 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dissappointed no-one removed that tag which has sat there for a week or more. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Somebody tried but they got reverted, see what the person has to say about it [1] LucasImpulse (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

9 Sept Edits

Just today, I have been reverted - twice! - for three types of edits:

1. Improved grammar and readability

2. Correcting a claim in the article which used a single source, NBC, but in fact wrote something entirely different than NBC did in its article, so I matched the article text to the NBC source, and

3. I removed the entire Rittenhouse paragraph, as the majority of those who have chimed in here believe that it violated WP:BLP.

In all three cases, I was reverted for "editorializing", which makes no sense. In the first two cases, my edits, which I spent time crafting, had as much to do with editorializing as my backyard tree has to do with the Dalai Lama. In the last case, I removed the entire Rittenhouse paragraph in order to AVOID editorializing. Including a claim that Pool supports Rittenhouse while painting the latter as a cold-blooded killer is obviously off-base, and recognized as such by most of those contributing to this thread. However, since an objection was raised to my previous edit which simply balanced out competing claims, I removed the entire Rittenhouse reference for now, at least until we can reach a way of inserting it in consensus fashion. By no means is that one paragraph integral to this article, so removing it (temporarily, at least) seemed a pretty safe way to avoid controversy. To be reverted for reasons that are clearly inapplicable and inaccurate is not helpful to anyone. Matza Pizza (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Matza Pizza, I don't see any consensus for the removal of that Rittenhouse material--but maybe it's hidden in here somewhere, in this huge and somewhat confusing talk page post. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies:Indeed, no consensus for removal, but a majority want it rewritten in an unbiased way, as opposed to how it had been presented prior. Due to the opposition of the minority to the balanced version, I removed the reference entirely until we could figure out a way to make everyone happy - it was just a compromise. In that the inclusion of the biased material did pose a problem in the eyes of the majority, and its absence seems rather inconsequential, leaving that mention on the cutting room floor seems to be a way to lower the temperature for now while doing no major harm.

If we want to reinsert Rittenhouse, we should be able to find a way to do so without turning him into a convicted murderer, and Pool into an ogre by extension.

Matza Pizza (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"He shot three protestors, killing two" is hardly a BLP violation: it seems pretty accurate to me. That he expressed sympathy or whatever, I don't know that that makes him an "ogre", but my reading of "ogre" is pretty much what it says in ogre. Removing a section in these circumstances is an odd kind of "compromise". And its importance seems clear to me: he's important enough that Trump would retweet him--that's something for him to be proud of, I imagine. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Drmies here; this is really more a point for discussion rather than a passage that demands bold removal. And the majority agreeing or disagreeing on something isn't that salient since this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Chetsford (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

While I have BLP concerns that the way Rittenhouse is mentioned here can reasonably imply he was acting with malice vs self defense or similar, we have enough sources that mention the topic to make this likely DUE. My concern with weight would be, why is this an important fact. Is it meant to tell us Pool's commentary has reach, is it meant to imply his political views on the use of guns, self defense, how protesters should be treated, etc? Why this is an important part of the Pool article isn't as clear. I think a case for removal would have to be made before removing it again. As for the part about visiting the White House, I think the updates here [2] generally improve IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Springee, "He shot three protestors, killing two"--what someone can or cannot imply from that, really--it's as factual as one can get, unless you wanted to say "he pulled the trigger of the gun he was carrying thereby sending a bullet through the barrel which ended up meeting the body of a person, and that person subsequently died" or some crazy thing like that. No, "reasonably imply malice", that's really not so reasonable here. And it's important because a. reliable secondary sources reported on it and b. as an editorial decision it makes sense because it makes a statement both about his politics and how they align with Trump who, as you know, once was the US president and thus was very important. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies:Thank you, that is more or less what I argued for as well. I honestly do not understand the "reasonably imply malice" argument, when in every prior example on wikipedia, "killing" and "killed" was universally accepted as the objective and neutral language while a murder conviction was pending. Springee argued in favor of including a tangent about Rittenhouse's self defense claim, even though there was no apparent way it could be integrated into the article to make it not feel out of place, and now he's arguing for removing the paragraph entirely, in spite of it being relevant information pertaining to the views of the subject, based on the argument that so much as mentioning Rittenhouse in any capacity without emphasising his self defense claim is a BLP violation. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Right Wing Viewership statement

I reviewed the sources that call Tim Pool's audience primarily right wing. Not only does this sentence seem out of place in the entire page, but one of the included sources is literally someone writing a few sentences about what twitter users have said on the subject at hand (The Daily Dot). Additionally, the Buzzfeed and Indepent both make claims that Tim Pool's audience is right wing, but fail in my opinion to adequatly substantiate their claims other than "trust me bro".

Perhaps I am not familiar with Wikipedia citation standards but I don't believe this is enough of a fair argument to call Tim Pool's audience right wing, particularly without any real data to back up the claims made in the respective pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.60.159 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News, The Independent, and The Daily Dot are generally reliable sources (see WP:RSP), which means their articles do not need to contain the type of "data" you suggest because they already have strong editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Your characterization of The Daily Dot article is also factually inaccurate (literally). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Daily Dot is only green for internet related content. I wouldn't consider the political views of Pool's audience to fit into that category. I also agree that the other two sources are really making this claim without evidence and there are examples of how once source makes an unsubstantiated claim then others follow it and now we have "proof" (I'm specifically thinking of myths related to the M4 Sherman tank). It may be better to attribute the claim rather than state it in Wiki-voice. Regardless, the sourcing is sufficient to include at least as an attributed claim. Springee (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

At the very bottom he even outright rejects left and right ideology so why does the article start with "far-right"? Media outlets are far from having the final word on what is what. The opinion of a journalist does not translate into fact.

The admin User:Drmies who protected the page and defends the "far right" allegations of Tim Pool claim, Pool that in my opinion always commented on reality in a pretty neutral way, is clearly a propagandist. This story doesn't end here. I want to see him stripped from his administrator privileges in the best scenario. Also why does the user User:Vigursii have multiple accounts and what does he use them for? Wikipedia doesn't need political bias and polarizing buzzwords artificially created by think-tanks or propagandists, both from the right AND from the left. --SamZane (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

SamZane, the grammar of your first sentence is very difficult to parse, but PLEASE go ahead and report me on WP:AN and ask for my privileges to be stripped. The moment you do that, someone will go look at what I actually reverted, and why I protected the article, and will discover what you apparently could not see: that I removed "'far right' allegations" from the page. Maybe you should look a bit more carefully before you start throwing accusations around. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I find your question unduly cynical, User:SamZane. I have exactly two Wikipedia accounts, one of which I no longer use. As I clearly state on my user page, my old account included my full real name, and as such I phased it out in favor of this account for privacy. Although I no longer use my old account, I still disclose its existence on my page for transparency.

Do you have any other questions? — Vigursii • 📨 09:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is true and you only have two accounts for the reason you mentioned, no more questions. --SamZane (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, the new source has nothing to do with Tim Pool, just far-right echo chambers on YouTube, and is only an attempt to make this seem more solid. The original source, the article, focuses on putting Tim Pool's character down, and is very biased. It's not suitable as a neutral factual source such that it validates the label "far-right". As SamZane says, Wikipedia has never been the place for right wing or left wing bias. We're here for the facts, backed up by reliable and neutral sources. LucasImpulse (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I should note that the new source you mention has a full-text PDF available: [3]. The full-text PDF includes an appendix on page 29 which lists Tim Pool as "far right".

I agree, though, that this is a suboptimal source. It's on a preprint server (Arxiv) which is generally not peer-reviewed and does not describe its methodology for compiling the mentioned appendix. — Vigursii • 📨 09:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like that arxiv source with dubious peer-review too. Also I don't like their way of putting everyone in a four or five way category. It is pretty weak calling Pool far right only on the base of a table in a (peer-reviewed?) publication. I think we would need more of them, all that agree on such classification before ruining Pool's life for nothing --SamZane (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

My bad, I didn't see that they had classed Tim Pool as far-right. However, if the second source is to be reliable, which we're disputing already, it says that The Daily Beast is far-left, which reinforces the point that the first source, a Daily Beast article, can be targetted, and reinforces that it has bias, because of a motive and reason already there to benefit them.

Also, Tim Pool's Twitter generally talks about anti-capitalist topics positively, and is against racism. That doesn't align with far-right very well. LucasImpulse (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? Remove the ridiculous far-right tag and get on with productive editing. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We tried [4]. LucasImpulse (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If it gets reverted this will have to be raised further. Can't have such libelous information thrown willy-nilly around on such important places. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removal of "far-right" from the lead. Using a bucket type classification system from an pre-review paper isn't a good way to state in Wiki-voice that Pool is far right. I agree that his positions are a bit all over the map and I think he is popular with the right at this time due to some of his particular positions. I wouldn't oppose putting something in the body of the article saying, in effect, X sources have called Pool far right. I don't think we have sufficient sourcing to put it in wikivoice. Also, it should follow from the text of the body. Springee (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a little impatient. I've been on Wikipedia over 10 years and seen it all. As all wikipedians know, the header should be supported in the body of the article. At present 1) The body of the article mismatches blatently with the tag "far-right". 2) the sources are very thin on the ground for such a life changing claim, and with WP:BLP there needs to be a number of things meet in order to change the article so drastically. 3)There is a lot of information available online that support a significant shift in opinion for Tim Pool. For example he's now pro-gun and other more traditional republican stances. If people genuinely want to improve the article then they should try and demonstrate how his views have changed instead of lazily adding a tag and leaving it at that. I'm always very dubious of people who don't make many edits to a page and then come along and make a contraversial edit as noted here [5] by a random ip. It's very rarely in good faith. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You go, detective. LucasImpulse (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Springee and Alexandre8. Sources like The Daily Beast, The Daily Dot, etc. - while reliable for the who/what/when - should generally be used with caution for controversial statements involving living people. While we don't have to attribute facts, where sources are on the edge it is best not to use Wikipedia's own voice to present them. And hot takes don't generally belong in the lead. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

After some reflection, I somewhat agree with @Springee, @Alexandre8, @SamZane, and @LucasImpulse—the ramifications of adding the `far-right` qualifier on a Wikipedia BLP are too serious to be backed up by a single pre-print arXiv paper and news article. However, we cannot purely rely on the subject's self-identification (we cannot call Pool a leftist if he merely claims to be one, for example).

I suggest the following course of action:

1. Any right- or left- lean descriptors are removed from the lede of the BLP;
2. Information about the dichotomy between Pool's claims and his actions/videos be put at the end of the Views section.

Do we have some sort of consensus on this? I think it's a good mix that avoids libel but does not place undue weight on Pool's own self-identification. — Vigursii • 📨 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also the SPLC piece on Tim Pool that seems to have spurred on the Daily Beast article. In the SPLC piece, it directly refers to Tim Pool as a 'reactionary', but it doesn't call him 'conservative' or 'far-right'. I suppose you could argue that a reactionary is just a type of conservative/far-right, but it's something to consider, since the SPLC is a much more credible source on this kind of stuff than the Daily Beast.71.121.237.216 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is a reliable source.

Regarding the dichotomy, we would have to find a reliable source which mentions the dichotomy and summarize what that source actually says. Otherwise this is a form of WP:OR. By placing this discrepancy at the top of a section on his views, and giving equal weight to these different assessments, this paragraph is stating in Wikipedia's voice that the mainstream sources which cover him are not consistent or reliable. Since sources naturally make these assessments at different times and in different contexts, this is editorializing. In this particular case this is also another BLP issue, since it could be seen to be implying that Pool is a hypocrite, without actually saying that he's a hypocrite (or indicate who's calling him a hypocrite). The Daily Beast article does a pretty good job of explaining why people might make that accusation, but this Wikipedia article would obviously have to handle it carefully. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Good points.

If it was so that he was a reactionary, it's best to use the label conservative. The far-right are people who genuinely love fascism and/or see Hitler and his actions as amazingly good. Ultimately we can see why far-right is less suitable. LucasImpulse (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Makes sense. We can stay neutral by not affiliating him with either political wing. LucasImpulse (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC removed an article that described Pool as a fascist or something similar and apologized to him.[6] The SPLC, unlike newspaper reports, are considered experts on the far right and therefore their opinions should be presented rather than news articles. News media's area of expertise is publishing current events, not political analysis. Also, I would avoid the term conservative, which is ambiguous and because Pool may not meet any standard definitions of the term. Probably best just to present in te lead the positions he holds that make people consider him right-wing. This should be presented first. TFD (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't any good point to actually include that his audience is mostly "right wing" The information is generally irrelevant. I believe it is best to just leave out. 02:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Timteam33 (talk)

Tim's Place of Residence/Culture War Issues

Hey everyone, I just wanted to point out that Tim's actual place of residence is in West Virginia (as stated a couple of times on a couple of his TimCast IRL & Cast Castle podcasts & vlogs (I cannot remember which videos but I do remember him mentioning this several times when discussing expanding his business and buying more real estate; I think he mentioned it a couple of times recently with Alex Jones and/or Steve Bannon). While I agree that the article from the "notably quite far to the left of the political spectrum and often factually irresponsible (or at least according to Dave Van Zandt's MBFC & Microsoft funded NewsGuard)" Daily Beast has smeared Tim Pool and skewwed what his actual political positions are, as a person who is a fan of his I'm going to be refraining from joining in the edit/revert war regarding Tim's politics et al. However, I will state that Tim Pool has stated that while he is socially (gay marriage support, recognition of a trans person's sexual identity etc) and politically liberal (meaning from a policy perspective; such as on the issues of abortion & universal healthcare) he is on the cultural right of the culture war.

Could you provide links to the podcasts and vlogs he has done that back up the claim that he lives in West Virginia? I also just removed TDB article. X-Editor (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

why do you psychopaths need to know where he lives so badly lmfao 65.31.241.140 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you also source any video segments where Tim Pool actually defends LGBTQ+ people, abortion and universal healthcare, instead of just him saying he's for these things while constantly releasing videos that attack these positions? I know for a fact that he defends the Texas abortion law, paddles the trans-children conspiracy and a quick youtube search literally has a video of his titled 'Tim Pool SLAMS Universal Healthcare Because Leftists Have Made Vaccine Distribution RACIST'. If anything we need an honest discussion about adding the 'conservative' tag to this article, because the amount of disingenuous obfuscation is getting ridiculous, when multiple sections of this article are about how he is conservative/right-wing, but we can't call a duck a duck for some reason. 71.244.144.75 (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The first guy in this talk tree is just trying to censor this article by downplaying Tim's right-wing video content. This is something that is pretty common among fans of supposedly "center-left" YouTubers who spend all their time spreading right-wing views and mindlessly defending Trump. In addition to Tim Pool, other examples include Carl Benjamin/Sargon of Akkad and Tarl Warwick/StyxHexenHammer666 (the latter of whom doesn't have a Wikipedia page). It's kinda funny; they ask for sources that show them supporting right-wing views, and you can show them the thousands of videos they've made where they attack liberal views and mindlessly defend Trump, but when you ask for sources that show them supporting liberal and left-wing views, the only source they can give is "trust me, bro". TuneyLoon 01:57, 2 October (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: in which city/state he is based. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

2008 vote

@MrPorpoise:, as regards your recent edit, do you have a timestamp of when in the livestream Pool says he voted for Obama? Presuming this is true, and pending any other sourcing finds, I'd support removing our claim from the article entirely. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's at 1:40:56 in the mentioned live stream, here is a direct link to the relevant part: [7]. Given the momentary attention to the issue I'd vote for a correction rather than an outright removal, but clearly we can't have that claim stand in its current form. MrPorpoise (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

If the article said nothing at all about it, and you'd proposed adding a claim about who Pool voted for in 2008 based on a self-published video, I don't know that would gain consensus. Similarly, if someone dredged up a Chilean news article from 2011, I doubt we'd agree on inclusion. Overall, with little mention in secondary sources, focus on this one vote seems undue to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't call it adding a claim, there's a potentially factually incorrect claim in the article about who he voted for in the 2008 US election. I'm not taking a stance on whether or not it should've been there in the first place. As far as I can tell the source is to be considered a self-published source on a matter which clearly only involves himself, which would be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF. He does however mention publication names of some other sources in passing but obviously doesn't provide any links to the sources themselves (which in my opinion would be unreasonable to expect in a spoken sentence). If someone wants to dig up those articles then that would probably be ideal from a sourcing standpoint. Again, I'm not taking a stance on whether or not the claim is undue, I'm only concerned with the potential factual error. MrPorpoise (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The "adding a claim" was a hypothetical! Is there "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" per ABOUTSELF? Incidentally, are you comfortable with removing the sentence pending consensus on this matter? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I somehow misread your comment as if it wasn't hypothetical. I would say the "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" condition is fulfilled; it's from his own live stream where he makes a direct reference this this exact claim and immediately states who he voted for in the 2008 US election. For completeness I don't see any reasonable doubt as to neither if he did in fact make that statement nor if the statement is true. That said secondary sources would be welcome.

As to removing it pending consensus then I'd rather add a proper note stating that the claim has been disputed and make clear that it has been disputed by Tim Pool himself. But at the end of the day a temporary removal is probably better than leaving it up, if consensus is reached that the current claim is indeed false then it could hurt the reputation of Wikipedia in the meantime. MrPorpoise (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

(Repost on edit conflict) On second thought I might have misunderstood your comment, you're talking about a hypothetical scenario where it wasn't there in the first place, right? If so then I don't know. Someone thought his 2008 US election vote was relevant to the article but I don't really see how the relevance changes based on who he voted for. Properly sourced it would just be an independent statement of fact. MrPorpoise (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we can remove the statement that he at least said, in 2011, that he voted for Ron Paul unless we have a higher-quality secondary source directly contradicting it. Even with a source of similar quality, the best we could say is that he has said different things about who he voted for in 2008 at different times (but that would ideally be sourced to a secondary source that notes both statements.) As it is, though, we have to go with the secondary source we have. The problem with relying on [[WP:ABOUTSELF][ here is that we do have a clear source stating that in 2011 he said he voted for Ron Paul - I don't think we can just disregard it based on a primary source. I'd also consider it perhaps unduly self-serving in that Pool has spent significant time trying shape perceptions of his politics. As the article says, Pool tends to reject a left/right political framework for both self-description and in other contexts - but secondary sources almost uniformly describe him as right-wing today; he has sometimes framed himself as a disillusioned Obama supporter and used that as the rhetorical basis for his arguments, which does not broadly reflect how most secondary sources describe him. So in this context his own statement that he voted for Obama in 2008 is too self-serving for us to rely on him as a primary source - I'd want to see a secondary source discussing it before we take it seriously. EDIT: This is not, I think, a RS (so I would not add it directly to the article), but it provides a reasonably good and decently-sourced summary of how Pool's statements about his past and beliefs have often been inconsistent, particularly in ways that support whatever argument he's making at the moment; it summarizes my thinking about why we ought to generally consider Pool to be self-interested when it comes to describing anything about his political history, and therefore shouldn't rely on him unless we have a decent secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

So is that to say you think he's flat out lying in the live stream? Note that the source you're using to back that up is itself referring back to the source we're challenging here, [8]. You obviously can't use that one to prove the current source is accurate. Furthermore, it's using [9] to try to prove statements made by Tim Pool has been inconsistent, but from what I can see all it's doing is casting more doubt on the accuracy if the challenged source. I don't know about you, but in my opinion it's becoming more and more clear that aside from that one source, all sources points to him voting for Obama in 2008. MrPorpoise (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The possibilities here are:

• Pool was lying in 2011
• Pool is lying now
• Pool misremembered, either in 2011 or now
• Manuel Simián was lying
• Manuel Simián got it wrong

I don't have any information to help me decide which option is true. The fact that only one secondary source has ever mentioned this suggests to me that the content is undue, and removal conveniently avoids relying on us volunteers to tease out the truth from conflicting reports. To be clear, I am not advocating for removing well-sourced info based solely on self-published disagreement from the article subject; if even one more source mentioned his vote, I'd be in favor of continued inclusion and removing the dubious tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Good summary. In my interpretation of yesterdays live stream Tim Pool effectively claimed the last option; Manuel Simián was not necessarily lying, he just got it wrong. This is my personal speculation but I think it was an honest mistake in translation; at the time Tim Pool talked about how he considered a vote on Ron Paul, but ultimately he voted for Barack Obama. So far I don't have any reason to think either of them were acting in bad faith. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrPorpoise: I've removed the claim from the article because it's better to play safe with this kind of thing. X-Editor (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: That's probably for the better, the thread has stalled without consensus anyway. MrPorpoise (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

SPLC Article Is Unreliable

Given the SPLC's leak of scandal after scandal and diminishment in the eyes of many news organizations (USA Today, New York Times, Politico, NPR, Washington Post, Current Affairs, The Federalist, Reason) I suggest that we discuss even including a reference to them on this page, as they seem to lack the credibility they had in former decades and are now, in no uncertain terms, the equivalent of smearists and propagandists.

Crun31 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

References

@Crun31: If you want to discuss the potential unreliability of the SPLC, please do so at WP:RSN, as this isn't the most appropriate place to do so. X-Editor (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Context matters here. SPLC and Tim Pool seems to have been at odds with each other for quite a while now. Therefore it is my opinion that regardless of whether or not SPLC is a reliable source, they're an inappropriate source in the context of this specific article. If Crun31 wants to discuss SPLC on WP:RSN I'd be curious to see how that goes but I take no stance on the issue at this point. MrPorpoise (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: That's a fair assessment, though it appears as if you're avoiding the primary topic of whether or not they're an appropriate inclusion in the article altogether. The point is less about them being a reliable source, the claims I leveled were secondary to the primary subtext of the message in that they don't belong being referenced on here since Tim Pool is not a "hate monger" nor is the claim that he is "reactionary" supported by anything other than the opinions of those who wrote the article on the SPLC website. He has donated to more Democratic candidates than he has Republican, supported Andrew Yang, and also supports universal healthcare. As everyone is aware, calling someone a "reactionary" is meant as an insult for them being against supposedly "liberal" "reforms".Crun31 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

COVID diagnosis and Joe Rogan

Remove Pool has not been vaccinated against COVID-19. As Mr.Pool hasn’t released information on his vaccination status Coopfight542 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the source, however the Daily Beast doesn't have a great rating at WP:RSP so I think we should be hesitant to use it in a politically charged section of a politically charged BLP. WP:DAILYBEAST says The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. I'm closing the request as it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

After thinking on it a few moments, I've removed that paragraph for now, as of it's WP:DUE there should be coverage in better sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Gizmodo rehashing the Daily Beast sorry is reliable enough for making controversial statements about a BLP, not are two sources enough to establish WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Daily Dot as source for minor commentary

X-Editor, the Daily Dot is considered a reliable source only for information about the internet. Content about Tim Pool, his guest etc is not "internet" specific. The Daily Dot's tabloid like coverage of Pool's show is not sufficient to establish weight for inclusion that R.A. the Rugged Man leveled some vague accusation at Pool. Even if we assume the DD is reliable for this sort of material, does it have WEIGHT? Why would this factoid be DUE in the Pool article? What does it tell us the reader? Are you suggesting by this edit that RAtheRM's comment is "commentary about Pool"? If so why is RAtheRM's opinion DUE regardless of where it was reported? Conversely, is this supposed to tell us about Pool's opinion on the Chauvin trial and outcome? If that were the case shouldn't we have some sort of detailed commentary? This edit was challenged as UNDUE that means the ONUS to show consensus for inclusion is on you. Please justify why this is DUE rather than just restoring it. Springee (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

How is a famous internet person getting into a confrontation which turned into a meme according to the source I provided not count as being a part of internet culture? As for the DUE part, let's wait and see if the incident gets more coverage. X-Editor (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this crosses over from internet culture to media etc. It's not about the internet even if it happens over the internet. That said, the easy way to figure it out is, as you said, wait to see if it gets more coverage. If it does then it may be due. Still, we should make sure it's inclusion supports some higher level subject/theme in the article. Springee (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)