Talk:Tim Pool/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Bias in this article

I know very little about Tim Pool, and have never watched his show on YT, but I did read the exceedingly long Daily Beast piece on the guy, which is the main source used for this Wikipedia article. That Daily Beast polemic is dripping venom, and hardly the sort of reliable source that should be the main supplier of information for this Wikipedia article. The Daily Beast diatribe is used as a source no less than 46 times, which dwarfs the amount of citations taken from any other source. Not saying that a critical piece can't be RS, but there is quite a difference between a dispassionate, NYT-style takedown and an article written in abject fury. Even then, the Daily Beast piece has its uses, but multiple parts of this Wikipedia article are virtual transcriptions of the Daily Beast article.

If someone is more knowledgeable on the subject of Tim Pool than I am, as I'm sure many are, perhaps you can balance out this article.

Thank you. Matza Pizza (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that the source is written with "abject fury". Being less formal than the NYT is not necessarily a problem for any source, and your opinion about the level of passion in this source is not necessarily relevant to that source's reliability. Sources are allowed to have specific perspectives, and are not obligated to present those perspectives in an encyclopedic fashion. Instead, they are expected to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and our job as editors is in turn to summarize those source from a neutral point of view.

If you have some specific reason this source is unreliable, please explain that. Otherwise, if you have some specific reason this source is not being summarized neutrally, please explain that.

Inviting people who are more knowledgeable about this person could be construed as inviting original research. As a reminder, first-hand knowledge is of very limited use for writing Wikipedia articles. As for balance, Wikipedia is not looking for "equal validity", we are looking for reliable sources.

I do agree that the source is over-cited, but that's a minor issue. As I've mentioned above before, there is relatively little coverage of Pool over-all, and especially recently. It makes sense that a source of this length would be useful to such an article. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Drawing too much from one source with a strong bias is an issue. While RS allows POV, we must be careful that we are impartial even if the source isn't. Speaking on impartial, NorthBySouthBaranof's recent edit got rid of material that was not supported by the source. With respect to the edit summary (which is not article content), it is worth noting that the judge in the case did not allow the deceased to be referred to as victims in at least one hearing. In this article I don't like that we just say Rittenhouse shot the people but we offer no context at all. Just saying he shot them allows readers to jump to the not unreasonably assumption that this was an act of intentional harm like we saw at the Charlottesville car attack. The Rittenhouse case is much different in that there is a strong self defense argument in that case. I think it would be proper to include a statement that Rittenhouse is claiming self defense (this can easily be sourced). I would include this as part of a BLP protection for Rittenhouse as he is not an intentional public figure. Springee (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I should probably remind you that the subject of this article is Tim Pool, not Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shooting the three protesters is all that's relevant as far as this article is concerned, and any further clarification is unwarranted, and quite possibly POV. If a reader is interested in how Rittenhouse and his lawyers frame the shooting, they can look up the relevant article on the shooting itself. We are not required to bring that up every single time his name is mentioned. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies to all mentions of a person anywhere on Wikipedia, not just in their primary article. If we imply someone committed a crime but fail to note that it may be self defense that may be a violation of BLPCRIME since we are required to presume innocence. Sentences that reasonably imply this was something like murder could be problematic. To extend the thought, what if Rittenhouse is found to have reasonably acted in self defense? Would we still leave it in a way that could imply this was a murder? Springee (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If that's what the cited sources say, then that's all wikipedia can say. Isn't citing an additional source to introduce information that does not pertain to the subject WP:COATRACK? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so clear cut. BLP is a policy of Wikipedia. Statements that imply someone committed a crime for which they haven't been convicted are a problem. In the case of Rittenhouse RS do support self defense and no RS is claiming this was some sort of murderous rampage. A neutral statement that his lawyers say he was acting in self defence is not a coatrack. Springee (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: And that would be a valid concern if the article claimed he "murdered" the protesters. But the article says Kyle Rittenhouse "shot three protestors [..] killing two". This is an objective, verifiable statement of fact, that isn't even contested in court. The point of contention is whether the shootings were in self defense, and even if the judges will accept this defense (which at this point would not surprise me), it's not going to change the fact that the act of shooting and killing happened. Compare Murder of George Floyd, which was called "Killing of George Floyd" before the court ruling, as opposed to "Death of George Floyd", despite multiple move requests. The curent wording is neutral and does not violate any BLP policies. Adding material irrelevant to the article subject on the other hand, would be problematic for several reasons. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the implication is there it is still a valid concern. Springee (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I already explained why this is not the case. This does not address any of my arguments which are based on site policy, nor the precedent I provided. Repeating an assertion does not an argument make. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion so there is no reason to ping me. You are concerned with COATRACK which is a valid concern. I'm concerned with BLP. One is an essay, the other is policy. Springee (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And as I have stated previously and even brought an example to prove my point, the current wording doesn't violate BLP because there is no claim that a crime was committed. In my example, "Killing of George Floyd" was the neutral, non-blp-violating wording BEFORE the court ruling, and was changed to "Murder of George Floyd" AFTER the court ruling. This is a simple assertion of the fact that somebody shot or killed someone, without the explicit claim that it was murder, so no claim of a crime is being made. The wording is neutral. On top of that, there is literally no way to wedge in the tangent about Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, without drastically rewriting the entire paragraph, to the point where it's no longer about what Tim Pool said or did. Imagine doing that on the article of every single person who commented on the Kenosha shooting, only to undo it all in the event that Rittenhouse is found guilty. In the event that Rittenhouse is found not guilty, I guess the wording can be changed from "shot three protesters" to "shot three people in self defense", but until then, the current wording is the neutral one, and does not violate BLP. I'll leave it at this because I see no point in repeating myself like last time. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Leading a reader to a potentially false conclusion by omitting critical information is still a BLP problem. Another reason why this information is important is because it adds critical context to Pool's tie in. Saying that Pool supported someone who shot someone else without providing additional information is also potentially leading readers to a false conclusion. Springee (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The reader can follow the link to the Kenosha shooting article for context. The self defense claim is critical to the outcome of the trial, but not to the fact of the shooting itself, which is undisputed. Unless the source specifies that Pool supports Rittenhouse because he believes his self defense claim is valid, or unless you can find other reliable sources specifying that Pool believes Rittenhouse acted in self defense, a tangent on the specific details of the kenosha shooting seems undue. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added a POV section template to help revive this discussion. There seems to be too much emphasis on controversial, negatively portrayed aspects of Pool's journalism/commentary. There are also still numerous sources included which use a lot of loaded language and overall there's too much partisan bias in the sources included. Untitled.docx (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm the person who added most of the content from The Daily Beast to the article, the question I have is, are any of the claims made by The Daily Beast wrong? If not, then as long as enough of the bias from the source is removed when being added to the article, then I see no problem with using The Daily Beast as a source, although I do agree that the article should rely less on the single Daily Beast source and more on multiple sources. However, looking for more sources to back up all the claims would be hard. As Greyfall pointed out "there is relatively little coverage of Pool over-all, and especially recently." X-Editor (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

'He claimed that this decision was due to "death threats" from the left.'

I don't think this is a question of bias as much as one of accuracy, but I'm putting it here since it relates to the TDB article. In the article, we say:

He claimed that this decision was due to "death threats" from the left. [emphasis added by me]

This is correctly sourced to The Daily Beast article. The Daily Beast Article, in turn, provides a direct link in the article, leaving no ambiguity as to its source for the claim. The source linked is a YouTube video on Pool's channel, for which TDB provides a timecode. The direct quote is:

"Now, I'll be honest. A lot of people would say the same thing about me. They'd say 'I used to cover things on the ground and then I started doing news and political commentary'. Maybe. But I will say it's different. Maybe ... maybe, there's just an opposing view. Maybe this is my bias. But one of the big reasons I stopped going on the ground was because of the death threats and the physical attacks against me and the violence. I just couldn't do it. So we made efforts to launch, you know, some actual reporting from the ground to get that job done, which we're still planning on expanding."

Typically, I would say that if a RS makes the claim, we shouldn't be second-guessing it by fact-checking the claim against the primary source. However, in this case, given (a) the lack of consensus about the reliability of TDB, (b) the particular caution PSN gives us about using TDB to source BLP, (c) the fact the article provides a direct link to its source which is fairly straightforward and doesn't require much in the way of interpretation, I feel like this claim needs to, at a minimum, be edited to remove "from the left" which appears to be an unambiguous factual error in the TDB article. We may want to consider removing the line altogether. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Got rid of the "from the left" part. X-Editor (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of that was good but how many other examples of misrepresenting statements exist in that article? This is one of the issues with using sources with strong POV. It calls into question any claim sourced to that article (though I suspect most are fine). Springee (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Going through all the claims in the article to make sure they aren't misrepresenting anything else would take a lot of time, but one claim being slightly misrepresented in TDB article isn't necessarily too concerning, considering that it is a very long article, so you're bound to make some minor mistakes. What would be concerning is if TDB article contains multiple misrepresentative claims. I apologize for adding anything to the Wikipedia article that was possibly misrepresentative. X-Editor (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is when a individual source has been shown to be inaccurate it becomes questionable as a RS. This isn't saying the DB as a whole isn't a RS, but that this specific article can be challenged on those grounds. I do agree that this single instance isn't large enough to dump the whole article but it is a clear red flag. I would not blame you personally for adding something that was 100% faithful to the DB source since it was certainly reasonable to start with an assumption that the article was reliable. Ironically, had it not provided a link to their source we wouldn't be in a good position to review it now. Springee (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Maybe we should first try to verify what claims in the article are correct so we know when it's appropriate to use the article as a source. X-Editor (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question. If we're dealing with an already marginal source, and we've identified one objectively false statement in it, we may need to question whether the overall reference is therefore a "poor source" as imagined by WP:BLPRS. I'm a bit on the fence on this one. If this were an article on an inanimate object I'd say this isn't maybe a stellar source but good enough. Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"... one of the most-watched independent YouTube political pundits in the country ..."

This, again, is a case where the author of the TDB article links to his source for the statement, allowing us to peer behind the curatincurtain. In this case, his source is a Microsoft Excel chart of unclear origin posted to an unverified Twitter account operated by a fan (?) called @TimPoolClips. Were we to include this in the WP article, it would be a case of fact WP:LAUNDERing, where ...'improperly included facts result from "passing through" a medium which is generally considered a reliable source. Thus the characteristics of the secondary source function as cover for a dubious source.'. I'm somewhat uncomfortable sourcing from an article that contains multiple claims that are either demonstrably false or that we would have to choose to omit to maintain compliance with WP:V. Many of the claims in the article are from anonymous sources which we usually presume are accurately and appropriately obtained as part of normal journalistic practice, however, when we find major errors and shortcomings in those parts of the article that can be checked it makes one question the veracity of those portions that can't be. That said, I haven't been deeply following the discussion here so I defer to other editors opinions on the matter. Chetsford (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC); edited to correct typo at 01:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: That certainly isn't a good look for the article in question. Maybe we should first try to verify what claims in the article are correct so we know when it's appropriate to use the article as a source. X-Editor (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Would that not constitute as original research? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree this would be OR. As WP editors, we're not qualified to individually check claims made in articles, nor do we have the capacity to do so. For instance, in the previous case, we can unambiguously state that the author made an objectively false claim because their indirect quote was from a YouTube video to which they timestamp linked and we could easily check. But we can't, for instance, re-interview their interview subjects. If we get to the point where an article has so many questions about its claims that each claim needs to have secondary corroboration before we can include it, this may not meet the BLP directive that sources can't merely be RS but must be "high quality". Again, however, I haven't closely followed the discussion here so I defer to other editors. Chetsford (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

OR, only applies to content in the article, not discussions regarding reliability of sources or claims. We as editors are certainly allowed to challenge claims made in any source used in an article. If either by logic or citing other sources we can show a claim made by a source is wrong we can then treat that claim or source as unreliable. Citing RSs that disagree is certainly the preferred method since it avoids editors doing the analysis. The problem when editors do the analysis is getting consensus that our analysis is correct. That is likely easy in the case of say a simple but critical math error (RS says: "The train went 100 mph for the whole trip while setting the record New York to LA run in just 12 hours" - given that NYC to LA is ~ 2400 miles the example math just doesn't work). It's harder as the explanations become more complex. What we can't do, which I think was your intended point, is question that the quote or summary provided by a RS isn't reliable without being able to review the source for the quote. Springee (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe OR's proscription on the inclusion of material in an article based on independent research implicitly includes a proscription on the exclusion of material based on independent research. But that's splitting hairs; in essence, yes, I think I agree with what you're saying. Chetsford (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"...by 2020 he’d donated to multiple GOP candidates ..."

Again, the author of the TDB article links to his source for the statement, which allows a review. Technically, this statement in the article is correct as "multiple" can be as few as two. In this case, however, it appears to be exactly two:

• Billy Prempeh (Republican), $2800 in 2020
• Sean Parnell (Republican), $2800 in 2020
• Michelle Caruso-Cabrera (Democrat), $2800 in 2020
• Agatha Bacelar (Democrat), $2800 in 2019
• Tulsi Gabbard (Democrat), $800 in 2019
• Andrew Yang (Democrat), $2800 2019

My question is if the author intentionally worded his sentence "...by 2020 he’d donated to multiple GOP candidates ..." instead of "...by 2020 he’d donated to two GOP candidates ..." or if this is a case where he made another error? Again, the statement is technically correct but is such an unusual word choice to use "multiple" to mean "two" in this instance that, in combination with the more unambiguous errors, it makes me wonder if this isn't just another mistake in the article? Perhaps he misidentified the affiliation of Caruso-Cabrera or Bacelar? We may never know, of course. Chetsford (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that article is show itself to be too misleading to rely on for anything other than the most basic of claims/facts. Certainly saying a person gave money to "multiple GOP candidates" while not mentioning that he gave to even more Democratic candidate is misleading/deceptive. This BTW, would be an example of the factually correct yet misleading presentation of information which I'm concerned about with the Rittenhouse topic discussed above. Saying Pool supported someone who "shot people at a protest" without noting the self defense aspect is certainly not telling the whole story. Springee (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned that the article didn't mention that Pool also donated to Democrats since, depending on context, his donation to Republicans may be the only element that's actually relevant to the story. My concern is that using the word "multiple" as a synonym for "two" in this way is so syntactically unusual that -- when taken in concert with the previously noted errors -- leads me to believe this was another error by the author rather than an intentional word choice which further calls into question whether or not we can characterize this as a "high quality source" as required by BLP. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"I think that article is show itself to be too misleading to rely on for anything other than the most basic of claims/facts." I might actually take a more aggressive position on this than you; I'm not certain even basic claims should be cited from this article as one of the factual errors we noticed was a fabricated (indirect) quote. Quoting someone from a recorded source is one of the most basic reporting activities that can be undertaken as it requires nothing more than literacy and same-language comprehension. And they still got it wrong! Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What should be done about The Daily Beast article?

@Matza Pizza:@Grayfell:@Springee:@46.97.170.112:@Chetsford: Should it only be used in certain instances or should it not be used at all? X-Editor (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:RSP suggests we exercise "particular caution" using The Daily Beast in BLPs. That is not a prohibition on using it at all, as I read it, rather it suggests we need to evaluate each article carefully. After the above discussion, it's become clear the article has two unambiguous factual errors and, potentially a third (albeit more ambiguous) factual error. The standard for sourcing at WP:BLP is, not just reliable sources, but "high quality sources". If an article in a source that already lacks RS consensus has multiple, demonstrable factual errors I can't imagine how we could characterize it, with a straight face, as a "high quality source". For that reason, I think this is an either/or situation; either the article is a "high quality source" in which case we use all of it, or it's not a "high quality source", in which case we use none of it. If we use all of it, that would mean we would be okaying the incorporation of what we know to be false statements and invented (indirect) quotes into this BLP. Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like such a comically loaded question that I don't think any answer would be appropriate. A source is not reliable because individual editors dislike or disagree with it's findings. Likewise, sources are not required to cite their own sources (which are not required to cite sources, which are not required to cite sources... until every individual editor is satisfied). To put it another way, ee don't pick-and-choose which sources are reliable and which are not based on our own understanding of the topics, because that would be original research. So if someone would like to summarize why this source is unreliable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do so. Since this case hasn't been made, this is indistinguishable from back-door PR for Pool, and Wikipedia isn't a PR service. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A source is not reliable because individual editors dislike or disagree with it's findings." I don't think anyone is making that case. "So if someone would like to summarize why this source is unreliable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do so." The community has already done that here and determined "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." Since this is a BLP, the question is if an article that contains one unambiguously and objectively false statement and one laundered assertion, and which is published in a source with no existing consensus as to its reliability, is not only reliable but meets the WP:BLP requirements of being "high quality"? Chetsford (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Grayfell, this isn't a case of the editors deciding they "dislike" the article's findings. It's that the article is shown to be misrepresenting information and misquoting material. Editors can and should review sources for accuracy and if a specific article is found to be inaccurate then it should be treated as a non-reliable source even if the publishing source is still reliable (or semi-reliable in this case). Since you mention OR, please read the opening of WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". Springee (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor:In addition to the examples listed by various editors in this thread where the DB article went off the rails, I would add that the author of the exceedingly lengthy DB article made no mention of Pool's video being used to exonerate Alexander Arbuckle against NYPD accusations, which would be highly relevant to the entire piece, but was apparently omitted as it would bolster Pool's prior leftist bona fides; the article also twists in a brazen way the Sweden incident, which the DB article portrays as Pool doing the dirty work of the right, but this article shows - leaning upon numerous sources, including the London Independent - to be otherwise. Put those two examples together with the factual errors pointed out by others above, add in the tone of the article, as well as a headline which calls Pool a "coward and phony" and which tries to beat him over the head from the start, and I'd say that any controversial item whose only source is the DB article should be stricken. Using the DB article to provide background about Pool's grandma being Korean or whatever? Sure, no problem. But using the article as the lone source for claims vehemently denied by the subject, and for which there are no other sources (e.g. allegedly lying about his views on Occupy Wall Street), seems inappropriate. FWIW, Pool seems a little sketchy to me, but none of us would want to be treated this way in a Wikipedia article; we should treat others with that same level of fairness and deference. If it's true or harmless, go with it. If the only source is a very dubious and slanted article? That is why WP:BLP exists as a policy in the first place.

Matza Pizza (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's less convincing to me. Journalism is a process of selecting information to omit and exclude which is what differentiates reporting from chronicling. While I think we have license to question the TDB article on the basis of objective factual errors, I'm not sure that extends to questioning it on the basis of subjective stylistic analysis. Chetsford (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• The main arguments against the reliability of TDB seem to be that 1) they allegedly have a left wing bias according to sources which are not deemed reliable by wikipedia's standards and 2) that they use a format that makes it hard to distinguish normal reporting from opinion pieces.

My problem with the first argument is that bias has no bearing on accuracy of reporting. WP:RSP says Fox News of all things is generally reliable on subjects other than politics and science, despite them being, well, Fox News. Next to that uncharacteristic charitability, I don't see how TDB's allged bias can be taken as affecting their credibility (not to mention the claim sounds eerily similar to the "liberal bias in media" conspiracy theory, which has been thoroughly debunked by reliable sources).

My problem with the second point is that many news outlets with an on-line presence have adapted this blog-format. Keep in mind, they need to compete with independent bloggers and nonsense-merchants on a daily basis, and they need to retain their audience somehow. If this is a problem with TDB, it should also be an issue with sources like CNN or Buzzfeed News, yet nobody is questioning their reliablility. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The main arguments against the reliability of TDB seem to be that 1) they allegedly have a left wing bias according to sources which are not deemed reliable by wikipedia's standards and 2) that they use a format that makes it hard to distinguish normal reporting from opinion pieces." I'm not sure who made those arguments but, to be clear, neither of these are problems I have. My problem is that there are unambiguous factual errors in this article, including falsified quotes. Chetsford (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:RSP lists six separate noticeboard discussions next to TDB. These are the most frequently voiced complaints that are relevant to this topic. Any objection to the source's reliability are based on these two points. Your concerns are not about the general reliability of TDB, but rather the accuracy of the information cited in this article, so what you're doing is original research. You would need to find a source that is more reliable and higher quality than the Daily Beast, to counter what you call "unambiguous factual errors" rather than making that call yourself. Incidentally, I wonder if what you call "falsified quotes" are really just paraphrases complemented with information that can be unambiguously inferred from the context.

My point is that the case against the general reliability of TDB is weak, and if TDB were to be considered a reliable source, then the contested information meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Unfortunately, due to there being "no consensus" on the reliability of TDB (I personally don't think it's unreliable, just opinionated, but I will defer to consensus), some contributors recomend only using BLP related claims from TDB if they're supported by other reliable sources. If other, more reliable sources confirm the claims made by the Daily Beast, then it doesn't matter what you, or any of us think of their factuality. If not, then I guess they can be ommitted. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Chetsford explained why the quote was false as well as the other misleading presentation of information. OR only applies to material that appears in the wiki article. Editors can and should discuss if a source is reliable for the way it is being used in a wikipedia article. That is what we are doing here. Springee (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed many of the more controversial claims made in this article by TDB article, whose reliability for controversial claims seems questionable. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"The most frequently used source material in his videos as of mid-2020 was The Daily Mail, according to Jack Lawrence, a British medical student and independent journalist who’s carved out a niche documenting Pool’s work on Twitter at @TimPoolClips."

Here's what appears to be another case of fact laundering, though in this case it's a unique and exotic form of third order laundering. The link provided by TDB goes to a free Wordpress blog which bases its analysis (which TDB has, in turn, based several of its claims upon) on WP:MBFC which is a consensus-determined unreliable source: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings." A claim from an unreliable source laundered through a RS may or may not be reliable, however, a claim from an unreliable source laundered through a second unreliable source and then laundered through a third source of disputed reliability (such as The Daily Beast) certainly can't meet the BLP standard of a "high quality source" (which is implicitly, a source of superior quality to a 'mere' RS). Chetsford (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be very concerned about any claim that is ultimately sourced to a Twitter account who's objective is to attack Pool. Springee (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The article literally sources election falsehoods spread at a notable level. If we RS, who is to say that far-right is not an accurate term? (especially with his recent content on polling Americans favoring secession) Tyrone (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

TYT segment

The Young Turks did a segment about mr pool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvOb7vfWJ10 Persesus (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Tim Pool's Reject of Left Right dichotomy

I feel a counter point to his self described labeling should be added. While he may claim not to use left/right labels, a good portion of his content his him attempting to discredit 'the left', and he uses the term 'left' explicitly.

How he chooses to self describe himself is rarely an accurate reflection of his beliefs as he is categorically a grifter.

This is most evident in prinary sources such as his own videos, which I recognize may be harder to source.

But this article gives the impression that he is somehow an American centrist (as he self describes), despite sitting right of center by American political standards. 71.7.225.104 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Tim Pool's new single

Tim Pool has released a song that has gotten attention in the media and 1.5 million views on YouTube. Much of it is negative. I believe this warrants addition to the article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfvaUwWi2k https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-far-right-youtuber-tim-pool-uses-butt-rock-to-lure-in-viewers My tightness (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

Add a section to his career "music." This section should reflect that he collaborated with drummer Pete Parada to release a song, Only Ever Wanted. If critical reception is reflected in this section, it should reflect that the song has seen mixed reviews thus far.

Add a "discography" section reflecting that he released one song, Only Ever Wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfvaUwWi2k My tightness (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/tim-pool-only-ever-wanted-itunes-pete-parada/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-far-right-youtuber-tim-pool-uses-butt-rock-to-lure-in-viewers?source=articles&via=rss Are these sufficient to warrant a mention? @madguy7023 --My tightness (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

Add a section to his career "music." This section should reflect that he collaborated with drummer Pete Parada to release a song, Only Ever Wanted. If critical reception is reflected in this section, it should reflect that the song has seen mixed reviews thus far.

Add a "discography" section reflecting that he released one song, Only Ever Wanted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfvaUwWi2k

Use these sources to show this is reliable information: https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/tim-pool-only-ever-wanted-itunes-pete-parada/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-far-right-youtuber-tim-pool-uses-butt-rock-to-lure-in-viewers?source=articles&via=rss My tightness (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@My tightness

I agree with you for the most part, but if we have a discography section shouldn't we also include "Will of the People" a song he released last year 2601:243:1400:D95:4CE6:9830:8802:E9CF (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added it to the "Other" section. Discography for just one song is excessive. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Tim Pool's comments related to the Colorado nightclub shooting

Tim Pool's comments in this regard have just been removed by User:Springee under the guise of being recent, but it's obvious that what he said in this regard will color the way he is seen and talked about in the times to come. It's not every day that an influencer with millions followers on social media endorses mass killing or, at the very least, prefers to demonize the victims over the gunman. The section, which by the way barely took up three lines of the article and thertefore can't be reasonably described as carrying undue weight, should be inserted back in. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Peleio, the material was rightly removed. This article is supposed to be a summary of the person, not a play by play listing of every comment they might have said that outraged someone at some point. I would also note that most of the sources are of questionable quality. Two appear to have plagiarized off one another (or both off a common source). Stating that Pool even "seemingly endorsed" a mass shooting is a hell of a claim to put in a BLP. That some commentators took the tweet that way is not notable. It isn't some sort of clear representation of his view on the subject given the ambiguous nature of his exact quote (this is always a problem with Tweets given they are inherently short). It is possible his comment develops enough outrage that the blow back and his reactions to the blow back make this content DUE in the article. However, that will take time to tell (IE RECENT). Until then, the sourcing isn't sufficient for inclusion and we would need a CRYSTALBALL to see if this should be included in the future. Also, please use neutral section headings. Springee (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You would perhaps be right if this article were about an artist or a scientist. But when it comes to politicians and, even more so, political commentators, it is impossible to compose an informative article without referring to their political values ​​and their positions on prominent events that made the news. At least two of the referenced articles, one from NBC News and another from Rolling Stone, are considered bona fide sources in Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. Saying that one source "plagiarized" another seems overblown, as it is customary for one media outlet to report what another has said, but in any case, it is no excuse to remove BOTH. And describing what Tim Pool said as an endorsement of the massacre is not "a hell of a claim" when he literally said that Club Q goers were pedophiles and groomers. At least two credible sources report that he engaged in victim-blaming and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric (and that's because I haven't sought out more sources yet), and they did so in news columns, not opinion columns. News columns are the stuff of that makes the part of Wikipedia that deals with current events, and such columns can be quoted without even needing attribution. To speak of "the ambiguous nature of his exact quote" is pure nonsense, for lack of a better expression, as anyone here can directly verify what he said (in more than one tweet, something you don't seem to know), and none of the reliable sources report ambiguity about his meaning, nor has Pool contested how they reported his views on the shooting. The arguments you've been raising have all the trappings of Original Research, to be honest. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not restore without consensus. Springee (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The removal was correct. The content was not supported by the sources and constituted a pretty strong BLP violation. The only reliable source in that section was NBC News. Rolling Stone is not a reliable source for politics (see: WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). However, let's see exactly what Rolling Stone specifically said about Pool's comments:

• Tim Pool, a conservative YouTuber and podcast host with 1.4 million followers on Twitter, seemed to blame the venue where the shooting occurred. “We shouldn’t tolerate pedophiles grooming kids,” Pool tweeted. “Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?” He appeared to reference the all-ages drag Sunday brunches hosted at Club Q.[1] How does that even remotely translate into "His comments were widely interpreted as support for the massacre, or as engaging in victim-blaming" or he "seemingly condone[ed] the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting"? The deceased are the victims of the shooting, not the club itself.

NBC News states:

• Tim Pool, a conservative internet personality with 1.4 million followers on Twitter, targeted the venue, Club Q, where the shooting happened.“We shouldn’t tolerate pedophiles grooming kids,” Pool tweeted. “Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?” Pool appeared to be referring to all-ages drag Sunday brunches that were being hosted at the venue[2]. And then they quote Media Matters Ari Drennen criticizing Pool.

Neither source states Pool supported the massacre. A correct interpretation of the sources would be something like "Pool seemingly blamed the shooting on the venue and tweeted, “We shouldn’t tolerate pedophiles grooming kids. Club Q had a grooming event. How do prevent the violence and stop the grooming?”". However, as Springee mentioned, we still have to be cautious of WP:RECENTISM, Due Weight, and other similar policies before inserting such content. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't read the RS version of the story but when you see RS, NBC and MS's text it really seems like they have a coordinated message. The texts are only slight paraphrases of one another. Springee (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Peleio Aquiles, currently there is no consensus to include this content. Concerns have been raised by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and myself. That one commutator who appears to either be coordinating or plagiarizing from others raised a concern doesn't make this content DUE. You are now edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edits as well as Korny O'Near's edits without getting consensus here. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Institute for Strategic Dialogue: Tim Pool engaged in "apologism" for Colorado shooting, slurs LGBTQ people

A variety of social media influencers have engaged in apologism for the shooting, continuing to slur LGBTQ+ people as ‘groomers’ and ‘pedophiles’. Tim Pool, a verified ‘independent journalist’ with more than 1.5 million followers on Twitter dubbed a ‘superspreader’ of 2020 election disinformation by the Universities of Stanford and Washington, insinuated that the mass shooting was justified due to Club Q hosting a ‘grooming event’ being held on the same day. Pool retweeted another tweet by Kurt Schlichter (454,700 followers), a columnist for Townhall, indicating that conservatives did not have to “tolerate pedophiles because some asshole shot up a gay bar.” Schlichter has suggested that drag queen events ‘ought to be illegal’ in the wake of the shooting. (Source) Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned because the source is ISD's "digital dispatches" which is a "blog for the latest in data-driven research on hate, disinformation and extremism." WP:BLOGs are typically prohibited for claims about living people, even if the blog comes from a respected institution/individual. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The text in WP:BLOG seems to be referring to personal blogs, not those blogs kept by institutions, think tanks, or universities, however. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Swatting incidents

Pool has been swatted several times, which has no mention in the article. Why is this the case when less popular people in the political sphere such as Keffals have an entire section of the article dedicated to it? 142.186.88.120 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Independent covered one January 2022 swatting incident. Has there been more coverage in reliable sources about that incident or others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hard to find sources Wiki deems reliable, considering such reliable sources will purposely ignore it. But I did come across two more (albeit seen as questionable sources per Wiki standards): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tim-pool-swatted-livestream

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/tim-pool-podcast-swatted-for-ninth-time-this-year-40k-viewers-stayed-to-watch-abandoned-studio-for-three-hours/

Number of available sources aside, my question remains - is this not mentioned in the article due to a lack of plentiful sources, or because it is somehow not notable? And does the reliabiity of these sources actually mean we can't verify if the swatting occurred? This event is obviously true with video evidence. The only thing that makes the sources questionable is their potential bias, but that can easily be avoided for a case such as this. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason (as far as I know) beyond no one having added it yet. I wouldn't favor adding content about it unless there's more coverage. The Examiner is considered a marginally reliable source (see WP:RSP). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The irony about The Independent being considered reliable is that the article alleges Pool is a right-winger, and the ones "marginally reliable" do not mention his political affiliation. I'm surprised this event hasn't even been mentioned on this talk page until now. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

right-wing audience, again

A changed the description to:

According to The Independent, BuzzFeed News, and The Daily Dot Pool has a "primarily right-wing audience," is "popular among the right," and "spout[s]" "an endless font of right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories."

That way readers can make up their own mind. To treat these publications as authoritative sources is, to put it politely, not adequate. The linked articles merely assert a right-wing stance and/or appeal without any political analysis or polling that would prove the point. tickle me 20:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the concern regarding the sources and agree with using attribution but it would probably be better to just drop the latter two and stick with the first. Also, the quotes really suffer in terms of IMPARTIAL tone. Springee (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

And what policy grounds is that agreement based on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are for the most part authoritative sources. If you want to challenge the consensus on reliability of any of them you can do so but for now, to put it politely, they are completely adequate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither BFN nor the DD should be considered authoritative. Springee (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

BFN is generally reliable, for internet and pop culture things we consider them authoritative. DD is no consensus. But Tickle me isn't just questioning BF and DD they're questioning The Independent as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

Tim pool is not a right wing commentary host. He’s a centrist libertarian 2600:100C:B229:8416:DDB:1658:D9BC:C1AC (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In light of very strong sourcing that says he is right-wing, you'll need multiple high-quality sources to back up your claim. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

You seem to have forgotten he worked for The Young Turks as well! I suggest you do more research! 2603:7081:4702:53ED:98D9:AEB2:D761:3214 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 This is not a proper edit request. For your information, only use an edit request template when you are going to specifically state what you want to add. You are not supposed to use it as a means of suggesting to other editors to add more content to an article. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)