Talk:Tim Pool

Time magazine clip.

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

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

Journalist

As of July 13, these sources were used to support that Pool is defined as a journalist:

• Rebecca Savransky (August 15, 2016). "Journalist pulls out of Milwaukee over escalating racial tensions". The Hill. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
• Michelle Mark (August 15, 2016). "Prominent digital journalist pulls out of Milwaukee: 'For those who are perceivably white, it is just not safe to be here'". Business Insider. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
• Andrew Marantz (December 11, 2017). "The Live-Streamers Who Are Challenging Traditional Journalism". The Hill. Retrieved March 12, 2019. - This is an error, as the source is the the New Yorker, not The Hill.

The first two are in reference to a single incident. Him stopping his filming of the 2016 Milwaukee riots and leaving the town for his own safety, ostensibly because a white kid was injured and he no longer felt safe. (Reliable sources I have seen barely mention this non-fatal shooting, and I haven't seen any which mention this person's race. The riots started in response to two black people being fatally shot by police.) While these two sources do describe Pool as a journalist, it is specifically in relation to one incident of him stopping his journalistic activity.

As discussed in a previous section, The New Yorker source is far, far more nuanced. It contains substantial discussion about whether or not Pool is a journalist. It quotes Jay Rosen's comments about this specific point (specifically this post from back in 2011), but Marantz doesn't draw a single conclusion. It doesn't provide a simple answer. Regardless, it's very critical of Pool's skill as a journalist. It tentatively describes him as a journalist, but harshly criticizes the quality of his journalism, such as his unwillingness to "to separate the facts from the fulsome bullshit." It's a red flag if we are using a source for simple, flattering attributed while ignoring the larger context of the source.

If we are going to describe Pool as a journalist, we need to include some of this context, otherwise this is misusing sources.

Some sources specifically push-back on describing Pool as a journalist, also.

• Harris, Malcolm (19 August 2014). "OPINION: Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - This source says he is "no journalist" and describes Pool as a "rabid transparency ideologue" instead.

• Wilson, Jason (18 March 2018). "How to troll the left: understanding the rightwing outrage machine". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - This source says "The event was also given lavish attention by the YouTube star Tim Pool, who insists that he is not 'alt-right', despite his apparent chumminess with the movement's leading lights."

• López, Cristina G.; Molloy, Parker (10 July 2019). "The White House's social media summit is just another stunt to game the refs". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - Media Matters for America isn't a neutral source, but it documents several sloppy factual errors made in Pool's content in support of right-wing conspiracy theories. It doesn't describe him as a journalist, either, it describes him as "a YouTuber who has a soft spot for 'alt-right' figures..."

• O’Connor, Brendan (17 September 2018). "Davos For Fascists". The Nation. Retrieved 31 July 2019. - Referring to a film by "grifter" Mike Cernovich: "Interviewees include Alex Jones, Anthony Scaramucci, James O’Keefe, Tim Pool, Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern, Ryan Holiday, and Jordan Peterson." The purpose is not guilt by association, it is to explain how sources perceive this person. His activities have made reliable sources increasingly skeptical of Pool's legitimacy as a journalist, and this is an example. This isn't a list of journalists, it's a list of right-wing pundits and social media personalities.

There are, however, many source which simply describe him as a journalist or "independent journalist" (or "citizen journalist"). These tend to be older. Newer sources using this term are less common, and more likely to be from unreliable outlets. If we are going to include this term, we need to cite reliable, substantial sources which directly support this. Since we have sources disputing this description, we should find something better than passing mentions to support this. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. More recent sources in a similar vein:

Slate 2019  independent journalist Tim Pool

NR 2019 independent journalist Tim Pool

Colorado Independent 2019 Pool is a journalist known for his roaming live-stream reports

USA TODAY 2017 Journalist Tim Pool

Spiked 2018 journalist Tim Pool

HuffPo UK journalist Tim Pool

Reason 2019 Pool and Reason's Robby Soave were the rare journalists who bothered to examine more of the videos.

New Yorker 2016 A video journalist named Tim Pool

Michigan Daily 2019 independent journalist Tim Pool

These are all from the last three years but his work hasn't changed in the last few years so I don't see why RS would describe him differently or why we'd discount their earlier descriptions. I don't have serious objections to "independent journalist" he's clearly independent but that's a subset of journalist and not the majority description. Cestlavieleir (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Harris, Malcolm (19 August 2014). "OPINION: Unethical journalism can make Ferguson more dangerous". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

I don't know much about Al-Jazeera, but the article is clearly very biased. Whatever you think about tim pool he is definitely not a "rabid transparency ideologue" and, even if he was, that sort of activity is reminiscent of investigative journalism or the activities of wikileaks (ie classical journalism).

• López, Cristina G.; Molloy, Parker (10 July 2019). "The White House's social media summit is just another stunt to game the refs". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

Media matters is an activist organization dedicated to deplatforming anyone it labels as right wing. It even declares its' own bias on its' facebook page: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

• O’Connor, Brendan (17 September 2018). "Davos For Fascists". The Nation. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

Guild by association is not evidence

Seraphael7 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

All the sources mentioned against Pool are left-wing outlets. Whether or not they are generally reliable (Media Matters, at least, isn't), in this instance, it seems to be a matter of ideological bias. Many of the articles are obviously opinion, and quite silly too (Davos for Fascists? Gavin McInnes is the only one on that list who can really be called far-right). Pool is a journalist because he does journalism; he engages in journalism. Whether it is good journalism is a different matter, but to refuse to call it journalism is silly. Apart from ideology, I think some of this is also a matter of established media trying to shut out independent, online competitors, so you get the strange notion a journalist must work for some established outlet, instead of just be someone engaged in journalism, reporting, etc.61.68.174.134 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding section on Criticism

Wikipedia has a neutral POV policy which means put up both awards and criticism, both accurately sourced. So a criticism section is being added. 103.77.137.247 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters is disputed in terms of reliability and your Al Jazeera source did not refer to Pool as a conservative. As you can see above there is already an on going discussion and dispute. There seem to be more reliable sources referring to Pool as independent or as just a journalist. Additionally some of these citations for criticism have published contradictory claims. This isn't a space to put up any critique unless it is relevant in the greater context. As this page has already dealt with repeated partisan vandalism I think we should take a cautious approach before including any positive or negative associations. The award section is a career accolade, Media Matter's concern over a single invitation is not. Uneditablerunner (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters' status as a biased source has been explicitly mentioned in the edit. Doesn't mean it isn't relevant. The Al Jazeera source does refer to Pool as a conservative. The critique here isn't that Pool isn't an indepedent journalist (he is an independent journalist, because he isn't associated with corporate media), but multiple sources refer to him as a conservative commentator. One person can wear multiple hats. This is the most cautious approach, taking all bias into account. 103.77.137.247 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

103.77.137.247 can you provide some additional sources that describe him as conservative? I did look at some of the sources in the article but could not find one. The Al Jazeera article does not explicitly describe him "conservative" rather an overall blanket statement about several people they describe as "far-right" or "conservative". S0091 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is at least one source referring to him as left, but again this just goes back to it being a previously resolved dispute where nothing was changed. It doesn't seem to make sense to include one single incident where outlets previously described as biased are referenced again. In the end it probably makes the most sense not to include a partisan websites concern over one single incident especially as it has no bearing over the greater informational context of the article. It does nothing to add to our understanding of who Pool is other than 'one time he went to the White house and got criticized.' I dont see that as relevant to his career in greater context Uneditablerunner (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Tim is less left wing than he thinks he is, but to anyone who follows his work and actually knows what conservatives think, he is clearly not a conservative. The problem here is that most people on the left cannot accurately describe the positions held by those on the right. While I understand that wikipedia is a tertiary source and relies on what secondary sources say, I find it deeply dishonest to use biased, vague or factually incorrect secondary sources to misrepresent the truth. Unfortunately I am not sure what wikipedia can do about it. Seraphael7 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSECTIONs are usually a bad idea, but this is not an excuse to remove critical content. Media Matters is probably too weak for an entire section, though.

As you say, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, so saying "he is clearly not a conservative" is a textbook example of WP:OR. If you've picked your pony, so be it, but your personal opinion about the accuracy of these sources in not persuasive without something to back them up. His stated beliefs and his actions are not in sync, which is discussed by some of the sources I linked above in the #Journalist section. To put it another way, his activity is appreciated by many on the far-right for amplifying their ideas, but much less so the left. As with any media personality, how he describes himself is not more important than how reliable sources describe him, because Wikipedia is independent of Pool, and this isn't a public relations platform.

So with that in mind, here's what the Al Jazeera source says:

Tim Pool, a YouTube video journalist, said in a video he was also invited. Pool has amplified claims that conservative media endure persecution and bias at the hands of tech companies.

Is anyone disputing this?

Pool was also discussed by the Alternative Influence report which was heavily covered by many reliable sources. Few mention Pool specifically, although one of the few which did was this article from Mic.com. As it explains:

The members of the AIN aren’t all right-wing, or even necessarily self-identified conservative. But as the below chart indicates, the network of guest appearances and mutual promotions creates pathways on the web, so that in just a few clicks, a viewer can veer from rants about campus feminists to videos about debunked racism pseudoscience and white nationalist politics.

No, this is not Wikipedia finding guilt by association. Reliable sources are perfectly free to document significant associations... That's kind of the point, isn't it? We do not ignore something just because it's unflattering. This would be censorship (or political correctness, if you prefer). While it does matter what Pool calls himself, what matters more is that we reflect what reliable sources say about him. This includes the infamously chummy association he has with white supremacists.

If someone reading the article doesn't even get a hint that this person is very controversial, both as a pundit and a journalist, the article has failed to reflect reliable sources. If we're going to say someone is "controversial", we should be able to explain why he is controversial, because anything else would be euphemistic. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: @Grayfell: Here are a few sources which all claim that Pool pushes conservative rhetoric in his political commentary. https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/baseless-smear-targeting-ilhan-omar-made-its-way-trump-thanks-fox-and-these-far-right https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/11/white-house-social-media-bias-talks-1576717 https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qv7q87/trump-invites-fringe-social-media-company-popular-with-nazis-to-the-white-house 103.77.137.99 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, I do think first claim by Media Matters should be taken with a grain of salt. It says that the Alternative Influencer thing "put Pool at nearly the direct center of this network". This is technically accurate, but really painfully misleading. His physical location on the chart was not intended to indicate anything in particular, and Media Matters should not have implied otherwise. The article shows the graph, and as the key to the graph explains, size and color are the relevant indicators, and he is not particularly highly-ranked in either of them ("betweeness centrality" and "closeness centrality"). The document itself explains why it was arranged the way it was (on p.11), but there is nothing which indicates that Pool was singled-out. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Does the centrality of some undirected graph have any bearing on Pool's status as a right-wing commentator? That graph is a conspiracy theory at best. If multiple reliable sources (some of them vetted as Perennial Sources on WP) believe him to be a right-wing commentator, what does the graph have to do with it? 103.77.137.99 (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pool is referenced in the previous link I posted as a fan of Tulsi Gabbard and as far as I can tell he supports her, she is a Democrat. I think too much time is spent trying to figure out what Pool is instead of discussing what he does and I do think it is strange for so much of the conversation to be around whether his politics can be identified in a partisan way. There are probably more sources calling him independent than anything else. Could it possible be that he is just a centrist? If we are having this hard of a time figuring it out maybe it is because he doesn't fit a particular box. For that matter this whole page in my opinion is woefully lacking and there has been no real attempt at an update outside of his perceived partisanship, which again seems odd to focus on. The introduction references occupy wall street which I certainly think based on this conversation doesn't make sense, that he is most known for it. Why is no nato relevant? Why is Sweden relevant? It barely discusses what he did at Vice, where he claims he "founded" Vice news and it barely even mentions the work he did at Fusion. I just think it would be weird to simultaneously claim he is famed for occupy wall street but also conservative but also targeted by police. Wikipedia is not a high light reel, resume, or a place for every instance he was ever mentioned. Its supposed to be an encyclopedic understanding of who Pool is and what he does. Uneditablerunner (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Uneditablerunner: @Grayfell: What Pool does is consistently push conservative viewpoints in his political commentary channel on YouTube. He also participates in independent reporting on his other channels following his stints at corporate media outlets. Which bring us to what he is. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Which makes him a right-wing commentator. WP, being an encyclopedia, should report on all his past newsworthy stories. If you feel a sub-section about his Vice and Fusion days would round out the article, please add it in instead of reverting other people's constructive edits. An encyclopedia should add more relevant information as time goes by, not less. WP might not be a resume, but deliberately obscuring information counts as POV-based editing.

P.S. Pool only supports Gabbard's stance of reigning in Silicon Valley censors, which again reaffirms his stance as an independent journalist. I'm yet to see any recent references where he doesn't side with conservative viewpoints. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I included one, Vice called him "lefty." My main concern is that there seems to be a big push recently to heavily focus on partisan politics instead of actual career. Look at the past discussions and edits going way back. Why was no nato ever included, Sweden as well. If we go back to previous comments and stories we would have to decide at what point Pool stopped being left and started being right. I guess it could be included as it seems to have some relevance but in the end I am suspicious over the consistent and deliberate attempts to either call him conservative, right wing, or even outright remove the title journalist form his page. It looks like partisan left individuals started the page in the first place and partisan politics seems to take center stage all the way up to now. Perhaps this page should be completely rewritten, expanded to focus on career, accolades, and current work and following that a section on dispute over his politics could come in. Why is any of this relevant at all anyway? Certainly if he was a founder of vice news it would be substantially more relevant than his political alignment. To better explain my concern take a look at a page like say Don Lemon. Lemon is overtly partisan and even the new york times has blocked their reporters from appearing on his show but for some reason there is no real focus on his page about that. In fact his page says "independent." This is true for many other political commentators and reporters. There seems to be an ongoing and deliberate attempt to inject politics into this page. Uneditablerunner (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP is not a place to air your grievances. There are problems with the Don Lemon page, and you are free to edit it to make it impartial. It's not constructive to let partisan bias spill over into other pages. Your one source mentions no "lefty" activities with which he can be associated, using it merely as a moniker to describe him. All the other sources explicitly talk about him pushing conservative viewpoints. Also, there's some confusion about two different meanings of the word "independent". The media, in general, seems to be of the opinion that Pool is an independent journalist, i.e. not backed by mainstream media outlets, and not Independent, i.e. without a political affiliation. Also, please add that section about Vice News if you think it's important. Since the article is quite upfront about his work as a political commentator, it's hard to believe that mention of his own political positions is not merited. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Uneditablerunner's contribution history might lead one to believe that it's a case of WP:SPA. Nearly a year-old account and mostly reverts changes to the Tim Pool page. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't assume that 'independent' is meant to insinuate that he is not working for a company, that is a less common interpretation of what independent means especially as these articles mentioning him are doing so in a typically political context. Mentioning Lemon has nothing to do with grievances, it is interned to show that may be the case here, that Pool for some reason is getting undue attention. Pool is substantially less relevant than Don Lemon and not deserving of this intense debate. If you want to discuss the meaning of the word independent we can but it is typically associated with politics and I would contend that it would fit him well based on the current and previous discussion. As for WP:SPA I hardly think that matters considering your editing history shows a single purpose. I think your points are worth bringing up but wrong and I think I have made accurate and fair points about the dispute. Ultimately I think before any changes are made on this and the past discussion of nearly the same subject the article needs to be reworked entirely. If a section on criticism is to be added it would likely need more than a few sources with questionable reliability. I also noticed that a source you included says Pool is a self identified Bernie supporter and social liberal with views on social media aligning with conservatives. That source calls Pool independent, according to Pool's twitter he is not independent of a news outlets as he is "currently @ Subverse." I would assume they say independent due to the context they added in the article, atypical political views or views that don't align completely with either party Uneditablerunner (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You might have used "independent" in a political context, but the media articles don't seem to support that context. They firmly use "independent" as a journalistic term, as is usual and can be seen at the WP page on Citizen Journalism (which is a redirect from Independent Journalism). As for Subverse, it's his own company and its reporting runs contrary to established media narratives as it claims. That still makes him an independent journalist, not politically Independent. And as @Grayfell: previously pointed out, it's irrelevant if Pool is a self-professed Bernie supporter. What matters if his talking points in his position as a political commentator align with Bernie's, which they don't. Pretending otherwise is pushing Pool's biased POV over the truth. The original edit I made to the page took the sources' obvious left-wing bias into account. What you're pushing for here is a stifling of debate (in your own words), which is tantamount to censorship. You're constantly making the case that WP is missing key facts about Don Lemon's partisanship and Pool's former career. You've made no effort to enact those changes. All you've done so far is to impede any and all constructive edits to this page, and have been doing so for the better part of a year. P.S. My ISP changes my IP everyday, but even a cursory glance of my current IP contributions will suffice to show that I've made more uncontested edits to several articles in a day than the non-Tim Pool edits you've made in a year. The case for WP:SPA still stands. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

We are going in circles, I'm not the only who disagrees with you. You haven't provided any other sources and one of your sources, Politico, just calls him independent again. The issue I see is no attempt to actually define Pool's career or explain anything. Wikipedia should help people understand, that includes this conversation. But to just add another partisan comment would not contribute anything. I would be in favor of expanding the article, updating it to be more reflective of Pool's career, criticism included, but it would need more sources that would ideally be more specific in their criticism and not just passive claims. Think about the format of what this article is already. It just lists a few minor moments that don't talk about Pool at all. He attended No Nato, He Went to Sweden, And he was criticized after going to the White House. If we continue down this path it will just be a list of random moments in his career instead of explaining what his career actually is. Uneditablerunner (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

All the sources except for your Vice article say he's an independent journalist who commonly spouts right-wing statements as a commentator. Those are all active claims which reference his activities, and not the names they choose to call him. Nobody has disputed that claim so far. These moments being added to the article aren't random, they're all newsworthy. You're free to add other newsworthy moments. If all this information about his career is missing, nobody will able to make an encyclopedic article at all. It'll remain in whatever haphazard state it is right now, which is an unclear piece of prose roiling under heavy-handed censorship from you. You can't expect consensus to be built upon thin air. 103.77.137.99 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I find your responses out of line with the discussion. Subverse's reporting of news is not sourced anywhere as being in or out of line with established reports, you opinion on his talking points are not relevant. If he is called independent more often than not that it is not our place to describe him as anything else. If sources are conflicted on his politics then we can note that in a criticism section. You have simply been asked to consider the greater context and cite articles but seem instead focused on just putting in criticism based on your opinion. If you have issues with Subverse as a company, find a source. But it doesn't matter if my opinion on the phrasing of independent is political or not. We are not citing our opinions in the article. To clarify for the last time. This is not an article about what you find to be singularly important, it is about a living person. The article is already a mess that barely describes who Pool is. Adding more to that seems to be a waste of time and this discussion should be moved to a broader discussion about fixing the article as a whole, yes criticism included. Uneditablerunner (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Please indent your posts so that they are at a different level from the person you are responding to. This is standard talk page behavior which makes lengthy conversations much easier to understand. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So, as I've already said multiple times before on this talk page, we are not interested in any individual editor's interpretations of who he is, or what he has accomplished. His off-hand comments in support of Gabbard or Sanders are totally useless.

Here's a simplified explanation of WP:SYNTH: a source says X, and X implies Y. We cannot use the X source to say "Y" in the article. So from that, his support for any particular politician doesn't mean anything by itself. What defines him on Wikipedia is when a source defines him.

We are interested in summarizing what reliable, independent sources say. By "independent", I mean independent of Pool. Some sources mention Pool, or cite his work, but very few sources talk about Pool, and few of those go into any depth. Enough that he meets notability guidelines, probably, but not much beyond that. We summarize what we have, and we do not use our own opinions to fill in details.

We also must be very cautious about using his media to pad-out the article. He is a primary source for his own activity and views. He is also not a reliable source (in most cases) for statements of fact, for a lot of reasons. Subverse, which is Pool's own "label", does not appear to have the positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking which is expected by Wikipedia.

Regardless of his own position, sources have paid attention to his politics. The task is figuring out how to explain this. Some of the few sources we have mention his political leanings, but they do not agree with each other. They do seem to mostly agree with his popularity among the far-right, however. Still, we cannot use sources which do not say he's "conservative" to say he is "conservative", even if they imply it. That's not to say this doesn't belong. It might even belong in the first sentence, but this needs sources and context, in the body of the article, before being placed in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Greyfell and think the core problem is that Pool is notable in a lot of ways but as Greyfell pointed out no one seems to talk about him. I'd actually contend Pool is not notable in that regard but there still is a substantial amount of press mentions of him. Ultimately I don't know how to draw a conclusion based on Greyfell's assessment. If they mention him in passing, contradict each other sometimes then that explains why the article has never been updated and is lacking substantially. Older sources refer to him as an activist, some refer to him as a technologist, some are specifically about technology like google glass or drones, some are about his career activity, and more recently they seem to be about his politics. However it makes sense to explain this I have no idea. In fact I'm beginning to think he barely qualifies for an article altogether. Uneditablerunner (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Instead of the censorship option advocated by WP:SPA Uneditablerunner, I've added a new section with all the sources from this discussion. Please take a look. 103.77.137.18 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a start. "Censorship", eh? Editorial restraint is not censorship. We don't include everything in an article just because we can find a source for it. This is an issue of ethics, and as an aside, editorial restraint is a quality many people have criticized Pool for lacking (Malcolm Harris, for example). By far, most of Pool's output now is punditry, not reporting, so a summary of his views seems completely appropriate. Summarizing this in a neutral way is going to be a challenge, though.

As a reminder, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias baked into its policies, and this isn't likely to change anytime soon. Being rejected by the "mainstream" is not automatically a badge of honor. Sometimes sources are rejected for a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell:: Having watched many of your comments on political pages I generally agree with you. I am sure you are well aware that I generally oppose your take on Tim Pool, but I am glad we have some common ground here. I agree that Tim has moved from being a reporter to being a pundit. This still makes him a Journalist by all definitions I have seen but his style has certainly changed. Seraphael7 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Uneditablerunner: I pretty much agree with your take on Tim Pool. The biggest problem is that no one talks about him and those that do have a very negative opinion of him. It is fairly easy to find articles that smear him offhand using common epithets (and, in my opinion, usually being deceptive as they do so), but difficult to find articles that actually review his work in its' entirety. Perhaps Wikipedia feels it is acceptable to smear a person based on offhand and innacurate comments in supposedly reliable sources, but it is my hope that this would run in to BLP issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphael7 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be this strange notion that being an independent journalist means that established journalism is monolithic and therefor less trustworthy. The "MSM" is a single force that has some supposed vendetta against Pool. I doubt Pool has directly said as much, but it's implied, and his fans seem to share it. When stated like this, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Corporate journalism has some serious flaws, absolutely, but that doesn't mean that it must always be wrong whenever Pool disagrees with it. Pool is not more legitimate just because he lacks accountability to a third party. This would only make sense if we assume that any form of outside editing is inherently bad.

Professional journalists don't agree with each other anymore than any other group, so why would they all, across dozens of platforms, ideologies, and countries, share some nefarious agenda? Why would they also happen to be incorrect? If every source which even remotely criticizes Pool is dismissed as having "an obvious left-wing bias", perhaps that's because nobody else is paying attention, right? That doesn't actually make any of these sources wrong. At the very least, there is no way to define that perspective as "centrism".

If you think editorial oversight is a bad thing, Wikipedia's probably the wrong project for you, but I don't think anyone really thinks that. It doesn't matter what we think, anyway. What matters is reliable sources. If you think anything here is a WP:BLP issue, I would suggest carefully reading WP:BLP first. Then, look over WP:BLPN to get a sense of how that works, and then if it still makes sense, post a comment there asking for outside perspectives. From experience, I don't think this will go anywhere, but I've certainly been wrong before. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about MSM as a whole, or any specific outlet aside from Media Matters (which is very thinly veiled activist organization). Not that it ought to matter, but (as an albertan) I get most of my news from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The National Post, the Edmonton Journal, the Calgary Herald and the British Broadcasting Corporation, all of which are firmly mainstream. My objection to the articles you are using is that the authors are being deceptive. Lets try doing the same here to show what I mean .... Grayfell, who has publicly denigrated a visible minority, blah blah blah blah. None of that is false but I know very well that anyone reading is going to come go the wrong conclusion. This is why I object to the sources you are using.Seraphael7 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

False claims about the Media Matters Article

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

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

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters and "conspiracy" stuff

I have to insist that your persistance itself to misread, misquote and reframe seems pretty much like you are trying to create novel content. The Libel Conspiracy theorist is novel to this article and is unsubstanciated. You have an opinion on those stories, I get it. Because once, or twice a year, a journalist covers fringes content and shares his own perspective doesn't make him a conspicay theorist and if there is no mainstream sources that undeniably and literally describes him has such, well, this is the opinion of who ever edited this part of the article and you happen to share it, not the description or a quote of a source. You use shorthand tactics to delay the inevitable. Yes, the libel will be removed and could be considered as defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, I assume the "you" is you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to document that some people have called Pool a conspiracy theorist, it should at least be in a section on criticism, not a section on his views. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 03:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand it would not respect the BLP guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP has been invoked, but it is not clear how it applies. Please explain in detail. El_C 03:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In short User Greyfell is trying to frame Tim Pool as a conspiracy theorist and is using two different reference to back is claim. Neither reference make this assertion, neither implicitely or literally. Since this libel is potentially defamatory I taught it was a good idea to put a link here to that reference. The whole exchange of the user Greyfell attempting to defend his position is up there. AS far as I read it is one or two users who are reaaaaally attached to put that there one way or another, while instead they could have quoted their source in a section on criticism, how sometime pool did cover unpopular or fringe topics. Using those two source to frame his whole view or his whole practice as conspiracy theorist is pretty much original research on top of using wikipedia to continue off wikipedia feuds it seems to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're paying very close attention to who's doing what. I am not the one who added this info, and I previously removed it. I don't think Media Matters is a great source. That's why I have changed the wording to provide attribution and context so that readers know who is making this claim.

Sources support that he has promoted conspiracy theories, and this is presented with attribution, so I don't see how this is a BLP vio. WP:CSECTION applies, and placing this content in a criticism section would be falsely implying that the these are criticisms, instead of comments on his views. These are not merely opinions about his activity, they are debunked claims which could not be presented as legitimate. Here's an addition I am proposing for discussion:

According to NBC News, Pool had "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks.

I put "pushed" in quotes, because nothing else seems like it would likely be agreeable. This uses sources to document specific comments he has made, based on reliable, secondary sources. Are these claims "views"? I dunno, but what else would we call them? They are not criticisms. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) There is clear inline attribution and qualification of the source, though. BLP does not necessarily mean no critical views of the subject may appear. El_C 03:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeing anything worthy of BLP revdeletion at this time, for example. But maybe I missed something pivotal, so please do feel free to clarify. El_C 03:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't edited in a while, so I don't know whether WP currently considers specifically biased sources such as Media Matters as reliable. I do not think such a source is reliable from a perspective of common sense. As such, if it is used at all it would only be acceptable in a section on criticism, surely not in a section which is -per the section title- supposed to be about Pool's views, not other people's criticism of those views. And that's only if it's a notable criticism from reliable sources. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Becritical: are you aware of WP:CSECTION? El_C 04:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for a criticism section, but the bit just seemed out of place. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Doing a search for tim pool conspiracy theory on Google brings up very few sources, and of those, there is little or no development of the idea that he's a conspiracy theorist. Which leads me to question whether it is even a notable view for inclusion? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The two sources each give zero details, but make the claim that he is a conspiracy theorist based --apparently-- on one single video clip on twitter (literally linking to Twitter) of Pool saying he's inclined to believe a conspiracy theory but has significant doubts about that theory. Apparently that is the extent of it. This is terrible sourcing unless I'm missing something. It's not notable enough for a biography, not developed enough within the sources, and the sources themselves are iffy. I'm not sure why it was included, as no one would think it worth mentioning. Unless there are other sources which really develop the idea it further. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, figuring out what to include and how to include it is going to be tricky.

Apparently multiple sources think it is worth mentioning, and that's more important, isn't it? If sources say something is significant, even if it's just a single tweet, we do not second-guess that based on our own interpretation of the sources, and especially not WP:PRIMARY sources. That would be WP:OR. Our opinions on how significant something is should be backed-up by reliable sources.

I'm seeing several sources which touch on "conspiracy theory", but as discussed above, sources about Pool are pretty rare in general, so this is relative. He is notable in part for his views, and this is one of the few independently-sourced views available, so this is why I think it should be mentioned. The sources I have found which seem substantial enough to discuss are providing context for his White House visit.

Deadline.com (strangely) has a story which includes a correction indicating that Pool disputes having "pushed" the theory, quoting him as saying that he "didn’t *completely* believe Seth Rich leaked emails..."

New Republic says he "suggests" the theory, while Daily Beast says he "promoted" it. In at least one real sense, Pool factually did "promote" the theory. He shared a baseless conspiracy theory to his audience, and implied, without any apparent due diligence, that it had some merit. This is a form of promotion. Further, since conspiracy theories almost never have any hard evidence, it's extremely rare to find examples of people pushing them without this kind of pseudo-skepticism. It's not particularly surprising that sources described this as pushing a conspiracy theory, and since several sources have commented on this specific incident, it's at least worth discussing.

Most of these sources are about his White House visit. Here is one source (The Hill) which had something a lot more positive to say about it:

Other attendees are also hoping to inject some alternative viewpoints into the mix. Pool told The Hill he’s hoping to emphasize that people on the left, including activists, are also often affected by online censorship.

Pool said many of the attendees will be “conservatives who believe they’re being censored” but “mistake legitimate and algorithmic moderation as censorship.”

I'm concerned with false balance, but it is one of Pool's views which is supported by a reliable, independent source which provides context and contrast, so I think this could be added, as well. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell : I'm new and I'm open to understanding the importance or relavence of this conspiracy stuff. The Seth Rich conspiracy doesn't appear in any way relavent to TP's personal biography or professional career, because 1) reliable sources connecting the two are miniscule by any standard, 2) they all point back to just one clip of just one of his voluminous video uploads (which topically vary wildly from mainstream to fringe), 3) as you state, even those connections don't assert TP's belief or encouragement of other people's belief, just that he pushed, elevated, or promoted them in some way. So what remains? A couple of sources mentioned that TP mentioned something to his followers. What exactly gives it encyclopedic significance?TheRedReverend (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is already citing the video in which Pool refutes the charges of conspiracy theory. Since it's already being cited, his refutation should be mentioned at the same time, with a brief statement of how he refuted it "Pool rejected the charge, on the grounds that he had only mentioned the conspiracy theory rather than endorsed it." Or something like that. However, I agree with TheRedReverend that it is not notable per the sources for this biography. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 20:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

My proposal is to add a single sentence. I do not think sources justify any more than this. Significance is decided by sources, not the opinions of editors. Yet again, we are not counting on individual editors to look at this and say it wasn't a big deal. Reliable sources are not reliable merely because we agree with their conclusions. Dismissing this incident as unimportant or irrelevant is not persuasive, since reliable sources think it's at least a little bit significant.

Here are the already discussed sources which mention this:

• Collin, Ben; Alba, Monica (July 10, 2019). "Conspiracy theorists, far-right agitators head to White House with social media in their sights". NBC News. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
• Sommer, Will (July 11, 2019). "Trump Praises Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorists at White House Social Media Summit". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
• Evans, Greg (July 11, 2019). "Social Media Summit Day: Donald Trump Slams Tech Companies, Mocks Elizabeth Warren's Appearance, Calls Himself A Great Looking Stable Genius". Deadline. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
• Shephard, Alex (July 11, 2019). "Trump Assembles His Gang of Social-Media Deplorables". The New Republic. Retrieved October 21, 2019.

In addition, there are several other brief sources which citing the NBC source. These are not significant on their own, but they suggest that the NBC story was significant.

As for his rebuttal, however we handle this, we cannot misrepresent it out of false balance. At the end of the day, Pool is responsible for his words, and his dislike for how those words were interpreted shouldn't be overstated. Since Pool is a journalist, spreading false information cannot be brushed-off as just an opinion.

As I said, conspiracy theories are built on speculation, not reality. As one example of this, Kim Dotcom was apparently linking to Pool's video as part of... an attempt to explain why he thought it might have been true? Maybe as an attempted bargaining chip against extradition? Pool was speculating about baseless conspiracy theories, while Rich's family specifically asked people not to share this kind of crap. The responsible thing to do is take a breath and check for evidence. A responsible journalist is ethically obligated to perform due diligence on these things. It shouldn't be a surprise that sources comment on this behavior. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, by including the last paragraph you reveal that you feel very strongly on the matter, and therefore that the article include the mention of conspiracy theories. The small mentions in the sources are at most notable, as you say, for a sentence. But it is also not incumbent on us to include these claims. If our own judgment of the necessary balance of sources does tip to the side of inclusion, we also have to consider that the subject of the BLP has denied the claims. One source above says

"(Editors note: An earlier version of this article said Pool claimed that Seth Rich leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks; other publications, including Daily Beast, The New Republic and Medium, have also linked Pool to Rich conspiracy claims. But in in an email to Deadline, Pool denied making the WikiLeaks claim. In tweets today, he wrote that “Media now falsely claiming that by saying I didn’t *completely* believe Seth Rich leaked emails to Wikileaks I “helped push” the conspiracy theory.”)"

So if the sentence is to be included -and I fall on the side of believing it's not notable enough- we have his denial from a secondary source.

The other source is based on an interpretation of this tweet. But it's merely the author's interpretation which is highly questionable. Pool does not seem to be promoting the theory, but merely mentioning it is unfortunate that it can't be proven true or false. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 00:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell Please stop trying to make baseless claims ? All you are trying to do is in essence defame an emerging professionnal at the critical moment when he is starting his own personnal startup. You are trying to sabotage his ability to raise funds by defaming him on Wikipedia, of all things, by claiming he is a conspiracy theorist using weasle speak and emotionnaly charged content to bypass people normal reasoning and reading skills. Fuss I hate social hackers. I will re link here the page about wikipedias Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) guidelines to make sure you cannot, and no one, yet again add defamation and continue professionnal feuds outside of their domain of competence, journalism, up to right here, in wikipedia, unless a reliable source clearly mentions pool as a conspiracy theorist. No one wants tim pool to sue wikipedia for defamation, isnt it ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

173.176.159.21, please slow down and proof-read before posting, as this comment is difficult to understand. Talking about lawsuits and defamation implies the threat of legal action, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. It also seems like you're trying to introduce this to suppress speech, since everything we are discussing is supported by reliable sources. Hopefully this isn't your intention, so you should clarify that you do not intend to take legal action. If you really think this is defamatory, bring it up at WP:BLPN and stop making legal threats. Since this has already been discussed, and nobody else seems to think it's a clear violation, this might boomerang on you, but it's your call.

Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping emerging professionals with their crowdfunding. Helping Pool out with his startup business ventures would be a form of public relations. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, per policy. This doesn't matter, unless reliable sources explain this for us.

I'm not a "social hacker", and that's kind of funny as an accusation, but also insulting. Personal attacks are also prohibited, even if I've been called worse. Still, please consider that I'm not actually your enemy here. I'm not trying to damage his career, but I hope it is obvious to you that Pool's activity has been very controversial. Is anyone denying this? It doesn't matter whether or not this is fair, because it's true. If someone hadn't heard of him and reads this article they should read an overview of his activities, and how he is perceived by his peers, include the bad bits, otherwise the article is a failure. Leaving out significant details like this would, I think, damage the article a little. It doesn't matter if right now is a critical moment, or if last week was a critical moment, or if that's been delayed until next year. What matters is sources and WP:NPOV.

Becritical, I had already specifically mentioned Pool's rebuttal, which you quote, above. Again, as I said, however we handle this, we cannot misrepresent it out of false balance. BLP doesn't mean that we ignore reliable sources, or that we presume that they are less reliable because they are disputed. It means we include Pool's perspective in proportion to sources. Sources say he's... presented this conspiracy theory to his audience, and done so in a way that implies it might be legitimate, or might not. His response that he hasn't "pushed" it can be included, but it doesn't invalidate those sources, and doesn't address the issue. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@All I think (hope) I have a resolution! First, the sources don't assert that he's a conspiracy theorist, rather that he "push[ed]," "elevated and promoted" the conspiracy theory. Labeling him such probably lends to Original Research. Second, the subject's career over the last several years seems to be political commentating on various topical headlines. That's why I don't think it's notable that sources state he covered (pushed/elevated/promoted) a conspiracy theory that was in the headlines, despite reliable sources actually noting it. A major problem is the impracticality of including every instance when sources remark on the subject's content, whatever it may be. It is contentious, and I contend that including this--and not every other instance--would itself be unbalanced in a different way. However, it's undeniable that sources do attach significance to his covering of Seth Rich. Therefore, I propose in order to maintain a neutral point of view we do need to include both the source and conflicting source in accordance with Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources AND that we place it in the article on that topic (Murder of Seth Rich), using a "see also" in accordance with Wikipedia:WEIGHT, rather than the subject's main bio article. TheRedReverend (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell Please provide a better proof of your claim. Guilt by association is also covered winthin BLP. I was not treatening you, just adding a friendly reminder of the legal options of the person we are talking about in a public forum, I could not personally do anything about it. Im just sharing my opinion : i would not want tim pool to have any kind of legal basis in that direction. I also think wikipedia is not a plateform to try to have an effect on people personnal lifes, which is why I err in the direction of caution, as mentionned within BLP. I also think that adding the libel you propose, would be beyond that line, unless there is a clear quote, from any source, that you could provide, that states, unambiguously that pool, indeed, is a conspiracy theorist. As long as you dont provide that proof, you can try to invert the burdon of proof as much as you can, as far as Im consern I am not supressing your speech, Im trying to prevent you from conducting vandalism on page that might not have relevance to exist in the first place. Wikipedia should not be a place for public relations, I agree. Neither favorable, or defavorable. Maybe trying to make a bio of someone at age 33 (who could die past 80) is a bit precipitated and presumptious. I could not stresss enough the nessecity for caution, BLP literally means "" HEY, FRIENDLY REMINDER, THIS PERSON IS STILL ALIVE WINK WINK, MAYBE HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A BIO ON WIKIPEDIA EITHER FOR PROMOTION OR DEFAMATION WINK WINK (speak to your friendly local layer about how defamation work in your county before doing stupid stuff on boards. you could be suprised) but again, my personnal line is : please provide a clear quote . So far, both your source do not claim, as you claim, that tim pool is a conspiracy theorist. You say that they cover the fact that he once or twice covered a fringe topic that seems to have been covered by other people they libel without doubt as such, but then expanding that libel to tim is a ) guilt by association and b) Original research, you have to resort to your own opinion of could or may not have been the intended message of the news medias source you use. It is unclear, the same source you try to quote could use plausible deniablity and deny their article ever defined or clearly labelled tim pool as a conspiracy theorist. From your own admission you say it is a complicated topic. That should e a red light in your head you are (maybe uncousciously, i dont know) trying to make original content while convinced that the article you quote means what you are trying to contract in a one or two word libel. I still think you have failed your proof and the sheer volume of your explanations here is enough for me. I will monitor this page and be really hard to convince. You need a better source and a clear quote, not rewrite your interpretation of a maybe. I have no dog in this fight, I would agree with the page being erased so it doesnt help him rainsing funds in any way, it would be better than letting unfouded slander, like graffitis and tags, litter wikipedia and turn it into a useless message board that was once almost an encyclopedia. I mean, it takes a lot of disconnect to pretend what you are pretending while advocating we add a personnnal attack about Tim Pool<s practice on his personnal bio page. Lets not forget that is exactly what you are doing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheRedReverend I think that would be fair. At least more precise, but it is strange to make encyclpedia about present day topics ?? dunno.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

173.176.159.21: Comment should be in order of when they are posted. If you are going to add your comments above comments from other people, you will at least need to also add signatures so we know who is saying what. You should also use paragraphs for long comments, and indent your comments so they are at a different level than the person you are responding to. Please review WP:TPG. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Again, as I said, however we handle this, we cannot misrepresent it out of false balance. " False balance would not apply, as the same sources for the accusation also present the rebuttal. So we can put that behind in the discussion. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 06:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

173.176.159.21, I have already explained that you cannot imply legal threats. This isn't me pulling this out of my ass, this is a real policy.

I have also already explained that if you think this is a BLP violation, take it up with WP:BLPN. Your speculation about my personal motives are an inappropriate waste of time. I have repeatedly removed the part of the article which called Pool a conspiracy theorist. My edits here, and the proposal I made, are to briefly explain what reliable sources are saying, with attribution. If you think this is "original content", then you should review original research and tell me why you think that, based on content, not contributor.

When you say I will monitor this page and be really hard to convince. you are announcing that your not here to work with others, you're here because you've already decided the truth. That won't go over well. If you're interested in improving the article, put that time and effort into consensus.

TheRedReverend: Placing this only in the Seth Rich article would not be appropriate for several reasons. For one, there are orders of magnitude more sources about the Murder of Seth Rich than there are about Tim Pool. Occasionally Pool's work has been cited by other outlets, but this isn't the same as commentary about Pool's activity. The relevant sources are not about Rich's murder, they are about Pool's willingness to repeat a conspiracy theory.

Please review WP:FRINGE, also. Wikipedia cannot imply that fringe theories have legitimacy. This theory about Rich is a fringe theory. As an encyclopedia we work to counter misinformation. This theory was wrong according to many, many sources, which are available at the relevant article, and elsewhere.

Becritical, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. How we summarize Pool's response depends on a lot of things. As I said, we can include this response, but an ambiguous response, which is in only one of the sources, is not equal to all the other sources, especially if it could falsely imply this fringe theory has any validity. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about here. This is not an article on conspiracy theories. It's a biography of Tim Pool. The fact that he responded to the accusations is not something you leave out- if the accusations are notable, the rebuttal is. As you say, context matters, but you don't seem to be thinking much about the context. If context matters, we see clearly that the sources calling him a conspiracy theorist are silly. What you are actually asking us to do here is ignore all context, and include claims which are in sources with little more validity than blog posts, if they are more valid at all. They are not sources with editorial oversight and fact checking such as might have gone on 30 years ago at a major newspaper. Per BLP, we ought to be very cautious about using such sources. Calling them "reliable" is a long stretch. Citing CONTEXTMATTERS is essentially inviting common sense, in which case we would not mention this silliness at all. Including this is covered in the following sentences: " Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." This is exactly that: information provided in passing, not a principle topic. Also clearly incorrect. So we should not include it. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 06:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia does not "work to counter misinformation." It works to present the information in reliable sources. But let's say you're right. It's quite clear that Pool was not promoting a WP:FRINGE theory. So let's counter the misinformation. You're promoting a smear, and your own arguments work against you. You seem to be saying that it's a FRINGE theory that Pool did not promote the FRINGE theory. Because you keep talking about promoting fringe theories. Is there anyone here trying to promote the conspiracy theory? I thought the issue was whether to include the dubious claims that Pool promoted a Fringe theory, not whether the theory itself was valid. How would leaving out any mention of the fringe theory promote it? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 07:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell I dont care of your baseless claims. I'm not the one who have been working here for 4 days trying to convince a flock of strangers that my Fringe opinion about someone I dislike is true and based on a direct quote of a credible source, as would allow you the BLP guidelines, Mind you. As far as I'm conserned there is plenty of traces that you have been working hard here, repeating the same arguments over and over again while using appeal to authority to shut down dissent from random wikipedia users. I think there is a section within the BLP guidelines that explicitely stipulates that if you keep on trying to add an edit and repeatedly argue about it the talk section, just as you seem to maybe doing, could end up being banned from editing on the article. I dunno how it works, I dont have an account to lose like you greyfell, but keep in mind that every thing is here, I can see how many times greyfell tried to place back the potentially defamatory libel and still failing at the burden of evidence while pretending that the BLP guidelines dont exist, are not just written up there and linked on the very same page we use to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

Instead of all this back and fourth by the same editors (which is also starting to become unfriendly), I think either a Request for comment or a report at BLPN would be best. Best to get some outside input to better determine the consensus here. El_C 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes all for it. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 17:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tim Pool a conspiracy theorist?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC withdrawn, and editors have agreed to open a reformatted discussion Nblund ^talk 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Please correct my formatting if needed

Certain sources 1 2 3 4 mention Tim Pool as a conspiracy theorist, either in passing or as part of a list of others. At least one source also includes a refutation from Pool, stating that he did not promote the conspiracy theory, although he did mention it and said he needed further evidence about it. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS States that " Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." We disagree on whether these sources, while traditionally considered reliable by WP, are reliable in this case, as I think we would agree here that common sense shows Pool did not actually promote the theory as really true. We also disagree on how notable for inclusion the sources are relative to Pool's biography. And we would like clarification as to whether it is appropriate per the special protections in WP:BLP to include accusations which are mentioned by the sources in passing and have been denied by the subject. We are also in need of clarification as to whether if we include a sentence stating that Pool has been accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, whether we should also state that he denies the charge (per one of the secondary sources and his own statements). B^e ⊢ C^ritical 18:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thus Far the 4 source cited refer to only two events, and three of the four sources dont explicitely refer to Tim himself, rather ettempt to use guilt by association and plausible denyiability to make it seems so. BLP guidelines assert that we need a clear and direct quote, but also tht we should caution, make sure we respect the law of the US and make sure that no part is contentious. Thus far, it seeems to me by reading older comments that describing Tim Pool as either "far right" or a "conspiracy theorist" is highly contentious. Would this be a normal page, not a biography, @greyfell argument would stand and yes, I believe a Critique section could be a good idea. Unelss the BLP changes, To add "conspiracy theorist" you need a clear quote, not an article that speaks about many people and on the way mention tim. It is not clear if they are framing tim as such or trying to make a point as to why conspiracy theorist are bad for society as they end up misleading indepent journalists, here is an example. It seems pretty clear to me that the political commentary psovided by tim (as a first source) act as a motivator for many interventions here. There is a clear effort to try to frame his character and use the most damageable attack possible. TRying to frame ANY journalist, or News Organisation, as conspiracy theorist, should always be highly contentious and hopefully a rigourous burden of proof review process should prevent this device to be used as a mean for provate companies competing against one each other to freely use Wikipedia asa black PR firm either to promote themselves or attack their opponents. Conspiracy theorist should be considered as a potential attack on ANY of those Article, including but not limited to Tim Pool and Subverse pages. Again, I repeat myself : Wikipedia should not be a place where we try to affect peoples lifes outside of wikipedia. LAstly, I would also admit that the amount of stuff in this article for someone who has done barely nothing but happen to like drones and cover news himself. I think the argument of Tim Pool<s notability is just as much stretched as the idea that he is either a conspiracy theorist or a russian asset (that one is a joke refering to the latest clinton comments. wanna speack about conspiracy theorist ? maybe it should be added to clinton bio. I wont go there and try because i think we should wait that she dies and have at least two source directly saying so, but that is my own treshold) So I would like to propose we close and remove the article completely. I am not convinced that the notabilty is there and it is bound to create a page that swings from being alomst a promo page to an almost tabloid article aimed at defaming someone, which tend to happen time to time on wikipedia, it takes a while before on some pages people realise that BLP guidelines exist and raise naturally the treshold of the burden of evidence being met for an edit to make its way to the article and remain there as hundred of annonymous viewers pass behind and review for their own. This is what is happening here. Many people follow tim news so attacking his brand here is unlikely to go unnoticed and remain. Since the rules are clear, they tend to apply. Other youtubers dont have this approach and let their personnal bio become littered with defamation, but thus far it doesnt as much damage the person as much as wikipedia itself. Remember that wikipedia depends on the public donation. Using it for political purpose is unlikely to have a positive outcoume for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thus far here is the 2 best sources on that point IMHO (Thx BE critical BTW) : https://deadline.com/2019/07/donald-trump-social-media-summit-elizabeth-warren-stable-genius-1202644883/ https://newrepublic.com/article/154467/trump-social-media-summit-assembles-gang-deplorables

and here are two direct quotes, that could be used, but I still think it is Highly contentious and do not meet the BLP guidelines.

From the New Republic : So did Tim Pool, a YouTube conspiracy theorist who has suggested that Seth Rich, the former DNC staffer whose 2016 murder remains unsolved, was collaborating with Wikileaks on anti–Hillary Clinton releases. Earlier this week, Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff revealed that conspiracy theory was created by Russian intelligence officers seeking to disrupt the 2016 presidential election and provide cover for their own election interference efforts

From the Deadline : Editors note: An earlier version of this article said Pool claimed that Seth Rich leaked hacked emails to WikiLeaks; other publications, including Daily Beast, The New Republic and Medium, have also linked Pool to Rich conspiracy claims. But in in an email to Deadline, Pool denied making the WikiLeaks claim. In tweets today, he wrote that “Media now falsely claiming that by saying I didn’t *completely* believe Seth Rich leaked emails to Wikileaks I “helped push” the conspiracy theory.”

In other words All sources refer to 2 events. The Ilham Omar story is blatantly false as proove the StarTribune article which preceeds both tim and Media Matter and the claim that Tim Pool is a conspiracy theorist because he covered the Seth Rich Story (to which BLP Guidelines also apply, he is a recently deceased person) is contered by the editor's note of the deadline. In short, I haven't found yet one instance where Tim is reported as a conspiracy theorist and this claim not being crontradicted by other sources of equal or better quality.

Lastly, I would like to contend that the vandalism has started the 18th of october and seems to have something to do with the Fact tha Ms Clinton is probably gonna run, the fact that Tulsi is an active critique of her resume and the fact that tim unambiguously shared his preference about tulsi over any other candidate. I would suggest we extend the locked state of the article until the end of the US elections in 2020, but again just deleting the page completely would prevent wikipedia altogether to be used by either parties of this political struggle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Try harder, please - RFCs should be brief and neutral. They are intended to attract outside contributors to a specific issue. It's not realistic, or polite, to expect someone to read these comically lengthy walls-of-text before commenting. Further, this RFC poisons the well by implying that anyone who accepts the accuracy of multiple reliable sources lacks common sense, and this strikes me as bad faith. If you cannot make this short and neutral, this RFC is not going to accomplish anything. Do not filibuster, and do not disrupt a process just to prove a point. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. You should stop posting for a while, 50% of the whole texts here are your creation greyfell. please take a break and come back november third when editon is re-allowed or if you have found a new, better source, that could substanciate your claims that tim pool is a conspiracy theorsit and alt right. Policing the talk page wont get you freebees to say what you want in the article. It just demouunstrate your tendency to authoritarism. Thats your personnal choice, I dont know if I would like to behave this way personnally, I think it is sub optimal and potentially destructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

More helpfull, I think you might appreciate a read. It is called rules for radicals from Saul Alinsky. Enlightening, a good read especially if you apply skepticism ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of Alinksy, and am not interested. Please review WP:NOTFORUM. My proposal was to add a single sentence, with attribution to NBC News. You are the one introducing "alt-right" into this, and that misrepresent the entire discussion. As has already been explained, you should stop using insults and inappropriate personal speculation. If you think my behavior is inappropriate, take it to a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't mean to poison the well, and if I genuinely did I apologize. But just as anyone with common sense reading conspiracy theories knows what to do with them, the validity of the opinions in these pieces do not pass the test. This is just the kind of thing that the authors of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS were probably thinking of when they asked us to question otherwise reliable sources. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this RfC is too lengthy and also lacks clarity. Try to condense it to one concise, intelligible question that offers a clear choice, would be my advise. El_C 23:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well sorry, not everything lends itself to "clear choice" and "one question." That of course is the reason for the RfC. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 00:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Just trying to help. From experience, I don't think you'll get that much outside input this way, is all. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll find out. El_C 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@greyfell No, I just read your previous comments from the talk page and reviewed past versions of the article since 2011. AS far as I can read your NBC source does not provide a clear quotation. I finally found, thanks to be critical editor, that The republic give us that quote and that the deadline also provide a clear, unambiguous rebuttal. Sourced and clear. You have been here for two things so far as I can read : the alt right libel and the conspiracy theorist libel. I still strongly disagree and observe that you are not helping to reach consensus since many alternative options have been raised, thus far you have rejected them all. AS far as I<m concerned, since we have now clear usable quotation, we could have a section on criticism with two source quoted, no need of weasle speak, one being the republic, the other being deadline editor's note, butt still reading BLP guidelines, if it reach my personnal treshold it doesnt seems to respect the call for caution and for a conservative approach, as stipulates unambiguously in the BLP guidelines. I was just trying to help you stop waisting a rare and precious ressource called time by referring you to an author known to advocate the kind of tactics you have been displaying here with great ostensibility, so you know that we are not newbees at this. I<m sorry to find out that you have been trying so hard for so long to end up having anonymous wikipedia users deliver a systematic rebuttal to what seems, on a common sens basis, biased sourcing and OR, if you ask me. IM not accusing you of doing it intentionally, but I dont mind being honest about what I think either. Look, if you have a journalist friend, ask him for a news article labelling tim pool as couspiracy theorist on another topic. If no other news source offer a rubuttal, maybe you could have it your way, but until then you have failed to meet the burden of proof to add what you want on the article and failed to convince about every other editor on this talk page thus far. Its funny to read you bring those rules while blatantly trying to circumvent them, You should probably read the comments left to you by other users. You seem to think I<m the one who invoqued BLP and locked the article, but thats not the case, it looks like many other people have a similar opinion on your take and describe it as ridiculous claims (see "False claims about the medias matters" talk section. been locked since you have repeated there the same content you have been pushing the previous days on the previous talk sections, Im not the one who took the call to block it). I have too much fun fencing with you to call an admin and try to get you locked out of wikipedia. It would be conterproductinve since I<m convinced you could appreciate the new propositon I<m bringing here, one that was brought up by at least 2 other users, or similar variations of the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Becritical and @El_C Do you think a Crticism section referring to both the claim of the Republic https://newrepublic.com/article/154467/trump-social-media-summit-assembles-gang-deplorables and Tim's rebuttal in the editor's note section of the Deadline https://deadline.com/2019/07/donald-trump-social-media-summit-elizabeth-warren-stable-genius-1202644883/ would pass the test of the BLP guidelines ? I dont think the two other source could be used, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well if this is the only thing to be covered, I don't think so simply because I don't think this criticism is notable in the first place. Acontroversy section might be a different story, since Pool is all about controversy. But at the same time, I doubt there are third party sources sufficient to fill it up. Still, if this is the only way WP can cover it fairly, it's a possible way to go. I don't know why we're here really. Seemed like just saying "Pool's been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, which he denies on the grounds he merely talked out them and asked for more evidence," should have been a rather uncontroversial way to do it. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

All it needs is one motivated user. Hence my previous systematic criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(sorry) I also think your uncontroversial take woud fit the job perfectly BTW, with The republic as source for the fact tim is being called conspiracy theorist and the Deadline as the source we can use for his rebuttal. It would also mean that if in the future Tim start seriously to go full flat earth we can trust @Greyfell will keep this article accurate and updated ASAP ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL, yes (: Apparently people think this RfC is too complicated. But funnily enough that's why we need an RfC. If it were a simple question why would we need help? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 02:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@173.176.159.21 and @Becritical — I 100% agree that it's just not notable in the first place. Becritical's points are concise. The subject's only relevance to the topics of the respective articles is that he is listed, among others, as an invitee to the summit. The articles stand regardless of his inclusion, so I have to think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS precludes using them to source anything about the subject except perhaps an entry that he was invited to the summit. I like Becritical's solution or variant: "Pool has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, which he denies on the grounds he merely talked about them and expressed the need for more evidence." The subject's career choice at the moment is covering controversial headlines and I think including this sentence could be a justifiably fair and balanced reflection of what is being reported as a result. The problem is, if WP:CONTEXTMATTERS nullifies these sources, there's little to support the statement. They're splitting hairs. We're splitting split hairs. lol TheRedReverend (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheRedReverend Yes we are splitting splitted hairs but in the meantime that might be just good enough to reach consensus. If as you mention WP:CONTEXTMATTERS nullifies it, at least we have a beginning of a solution that can be re worked as new sources covers our topic and it would at least remain in the history of the article and could be recycled until it reaches WP:CONTEXTMATTERS treshold of acceptability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@173.176.159.21 Threshhold of acceptability. Works for me! "Be a Wikipedia editor," they said. "It'll be easy," they said. LOL TheRedReverend (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@173.176.159.21 @TheRedReverend: That works for me as well. If we are willing to accept that additional, reliable secondary sourced that specifically commit to a statement, such as "Tim Pool is a conspiracy theorist" are required to add any more comments, I think that is acceptable. My contention as always been that the sourced quoted were attempting to misrepresent the facts and we need more solid evidence before someone states or implies he is a conspiracy theorist.Seraphael7 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As to whether we really ought to be mentioning that Pool has been accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, perhaps we should review the article on Hillary Clinton, and see if they include such accusations against her. [1]. These offhand accusations or list-inclusions about Pool might be proportionally similar to Hillary being accused of promoting a conspiracy theory by major news organizations, and other news organizations writing dedicated articles about it. But I think we all know they aren't going to include it. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 03:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I applaud your Naivete. The people who disagree with you have no intention of presenting balanced arguments. They are about to point out that the way that Hillary or Don Lemon are presented should not be allowed to interfere in their attempts to smear someone they don't like.Seraphael7 (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OMG wikipedia is getting serious ! So, I have to make a donation now... we should, its great :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Rfc are supposed to be short and concise. This is clearly not and thus no reasonable conclusion will come from this.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you guys even talking about? What is the use of an RfC if it can only be used for simple questions? Simple questions are the kind one can solve easily. Complex questions are the kind one needs outside help with. If that is what Wikipedia does these days, it's asinine. And what are you opposing? Complex RfCs? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 18:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle Ideally I understand your point. But your colleague @Greyfell worked really hard against the consensus. Again, appeal to authority here is likely to backlash and make the page even more popular and used. Also, it seems clear to me this page is unusually popular with non regular wikipedia users, hence why it doesnt bend to political correcteness or with the groupthink of certain online crowds ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree or disgree with the following proposition : That we add a Criticism section containing the following "Pool's been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, which he denies on the grounds he merely talked out them and asked for more evidence,"3 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• malformed RfCs should be concise, ask a clear question and be neutrally worded. This is none of those things. There's clearly a dispute over some specific content here, so it should be fairly easy to simply ask "can we include X"? Nblund ^talk 20:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect: the dispute isn't over content per se, but over sourcing and BLP issues, as very, very clearly stated. Please do read before posting. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Funny. Just so you know, @grayfell wants <<conspiracy theorist>> to be added. I guess thus far the consensus is : No, unless in a criticism section with his sourced rebuttal. It is pretty questionable to see you, @Greyfell and and @Spy-cicle coordinate and try sabotage a consensus found by untrained wikipedia random users. We are many and you are few. You are trained and we are wild. Good luck with it. Trying to police us by using qualifiers in an attempt to unlegitimate an honest conversasion is laughable at best. Get back on Carl's Benjamin page if you want to participate to the slander of someone. It wont work here, not when you have an organic movement of users coming it with volume. It is not short of concise because of sheer volume of participant. You cant control or police the swarm, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Break

If editors commenting are going to insist that the question be reformed into something it is not- namely, a simple issue which doesn't need any thought or research, then there's no point in pursuing it any further. If anyone would like to do another RfC and make it what the commenters want, maybe they can do a better job. So since I stopped editing RfCs are only for simple no-thought issues? I don't know what WP has come to. Used to be editors could think deeply about things. But anyway, as I understand things, we do have a consensus between myself and the new editors. If I can put it simply enough, it is that there's no need to include anything about the conspiracy theory accusations because they are exactly what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is trying to prevent us from using. But if we do include it, we have a secondary source which presents a response. I would also like to address Greyfell's talk about WP:FRINGE. This is not relevant, since no one is trying to promote or discuss a fringe theory, including Pool. And contrary to what Greyfell said, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe you can claim to have found a consensus by posting a wall of text and then refusing to make any effort to correct the problem or address reasonable complaints from other editors. If you're interested in finding a consensus, you need to offer a concise summary of the issue so that other editors can offer additional input. Nblund ^talk 23:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So, what is your suggestion ? that we add stuff ? thus far BLP says the burdon of proof is on adding stuff, not removing it. It is to the people who wants to add to reach consensus on adding and how. Thus far the argument of adding has failed. up to you to reach consensus on what to add and where and how. God i Love those BLP guidelines. Simple and effective. People should apply them. Its beautifull as it forces to keep things clean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A single paragraph is not concise enough? I literally broke it down into numbered questions for them- after the complaints. We don't need answers to questions that are as simple as they want. If editors can't deal with any complexity, then we'll just have to forgo outside help. Also, what "wall of text" did I post? Are you referring to the single paragraph of the RfC? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 00:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it really isn't short enough. It's going to discourage uninvolved editors from attempting to answer the question. Your breakdown also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but there's no specific information about the sourcing or the content, so it isn't possible to to answer the question. The best thing to do here is probably to withdraw this RFC and then create a reformatted one. But simply saying "we don't need em" isn't going to work, and it comes off as actively undermining the process of consensus building. Nblund ^talk 00:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I already requested that if someone thought they could do it better, they give it a try. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I said we don't need them, because not only was no one willing to take the time to answer three related questions... they actively complained they shouldn't have to. We don't need help like that, and saying so isn't undermining consensus, since no consensus was in the process of being reached. Unless you mean the consensus that Wikipedians aren't able to answer. But I edited for years, and I know the complexity of questions which Wikipedia routinely deals with. I merely meant to convey that in my opinion, these are the questions that need answering, and if people are unwilling to engage with them we'll have to try to form consensus without comment. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Becritical: a little self-introspection instead of casting blame onto others is due here. El_C 04:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that's true, but I need someone to show me how a proper RfC is done. Would you be willing to help? B^e ⊢ C^ritical 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought I did when I wrote [t]ry to condense it to one concise, intelligible question that offers a clear choice. Now, I can't write the RfC question for you, but I would advise you to submit a proposed text as part of the RfC (e.g. should the article include or exclude the following <blank>?) — while with regards to any BLP concerns, if you consider that a pressing issue, I would submit a separate report at BLPN for further clarification. Hope this helps. El_C 04:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but that doesn't sound to me like it would be helpful. The questions when taken separately would have different answers from what they would have if they were considered together. We would be left with the same questions as we started with. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 05:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a crack at a new RfC, but you would need to agree to withdraw this one first. I would recommend that we go ahead and do that since this one is not going anywhere. As far as I can tell, this is the contested edit. So it should be fairly straightforward to ask if some version of that edit is acceptable. Your other RfC questions present your preferred framing of the content dispute, but we really shouldn't be telling editors how to frame things. Nblund ^talk 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great, but how do you withdraw it? B^e ___ C^ritical 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. So, is it a simple "yes" or "no" regarding whether this version or something like it is preferable to the current version? Is there another version you might want to offer as an option? And @Grayfell: are you on board as well or are there changes you would want to make? Nblund ^talk 15:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't blame anyone for missing it, but as I have said several times, my original proposal is to mention this conspiracy theory with attributions to NBC news:

According to NBC News, Pool had "pushed" the false conspiracy theory that Seth Rich had leaked Clinton's emails to Wikilinks.

This would include the specific context from the sources, not just as a vague accusation. This statement could also include a sentence to indicate Pool disputes this, citing the Deadline source. I'm not sure how to phrase that, since it's fairly cryptic as a response. It could also be rephrased to include the other sources which mention it. "According to NBC News and others..." or similar. For what it's worth, I was not the one who added Media Matter. I don't think it's worth edit warring over, and I don't think it's a BLP violation, but it's also relatively weak. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Agree with Grayfell, if we include it. That is a good way to write it, including Pool's response. I suggested phrasing for his response. I think it's also quite obvious that the sources are wrong about Pool (in a recent video he said how much he hates conspiracy theories, and in the videos I've watched I've never seen him promote any), and I think that it's within our editorial purview to decide it doesn't merit inclusion. For various reasons, such as that it's not notable, or that he's only mentioned in passing and isn't the subject of the articles. But Greyfell's course of action is good if we do include it. B^e ___ C^ritical 00:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Vandalism

This page have been the subject of vandalism since october 18th and forced admins to put it in protected mode. Here is the potential vandalism, as you can all find it in the history of the precedent versions : Criticism Media Matters for America, a left-wing media advocacy organization, has classified Pool as a far-right commentator[32]and a conspiracy theorist[33].

This specific line of claim have been heavily contested by many users. Thus far, neither Mediamatters or NBC sources can be used since neither affirm that im is a conspiracy theorist or far right. However another source, The republic, provide this direct claim that could be directly quoted, and a fourth, the Deadline, providing a rebuttal, proving the libel conspiracy theorist as UNFOUDED SLANDER until better sources cover the topic.

As such I propose we consider the addition of the libel conspiracy theorist at this stage with these two refences as vandalism and the repeated action to revoque the deletion as an edit war. To prevent further acts of vandalism I propose an extention of the protected state until 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be heard, you're going to need to familiarize yourself with some basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For starters, you need to sign your statements on the talk page, and you need to indent your posts when you're responding to someone. The inclusion of sourced material - even if contested by other users - is not WP:VANDALISM. "Slander" and "libel" are legal terms, and they're best avoided in Wikipedia discussions because they can be construed as legal threats. You are not going to get anything accomplished by going around insisting that you intend to overwhelm editors through sheer numbers rather than through policy-based consensus building. In fact, you're far more likely to get blocked for that kind of rhetoric. Take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:FIVEPILLARS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Maybe create an account. But please stop this. It is disruptive. Nblund ^talk 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Said sourced material does not refer to Tim neither as conspiracy theorist or far right. Since it is charged and seems to be used for its shock value, I respectfully disagree with you. We also found two alternative sources but it would have to include his rebuttal that was published within the deadline. We have time, I'm just proposing we keep things the way they are until 2021 and still believe the therm vandalism is correct and precisely describes what is happenning. You can continue to work on Carl's Benjamin bio in the meantime, we'll join you there later on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:INDENT and WP:SIG. The page was not protected due to vandalism —please see what vandalism is not— I know that for a fact because I'm the one who protected it. El_C 22:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

say what you want. When I see a Cat, I call it a Cat. And no, I dont want to help a tabloid, so sorry, I have to respectfully decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This page have been the subject of vandalism since october 18th and forced admins to put it in protected mode — again, I'm the admin who protected the page, so I think I'm pretty well positioned to know why it was protected! El_C 22:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GREAT ! please enlighten us on the specifics, I am curious. Sorry if I was mistaken

I still think it is vandalism and still think it is why, in essence, why this page is locked and propose you to extend the situation to 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Imfrom the outside world you know. In real life, on the streets and in worplaces, words already have a sense, I could understand that for wikipedia, maybe its not vandalism, but in real life, it is. UNAMBIGUOUSLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't real life. It's Wikipedia. If you want people to listen to you here, you need to familiarize yourself with how things work on this site.Nblund ^talk 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand enough and I'm pretty happy on how much I'm getting heard, but appreciate the feedback. I will sleep on it, thak you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Y'all should brush up on what WP considers vandalism, and should also stop talking about libel. Brush up on the definition of libel as well. I haven't edited in a while, but I still remember how futile it was to try to help new editors this way... but for what it's worth. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 23:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So, no censensus on adding those 4 references, a criticism section and "conspiracy theorist" to the article. I still think if we want to reach consensus, those who wants to have "conspiracy theorist" added will have to accept the rebuttal contained in the editor's note of the Deadline and accept not to use neither the NBC reference, nor media matters, and will have to provide a sentence that respects both BLP guidelines and context matters. Also, important note, if new sources could be found and used, if things change sensibly, I think this debate could healthily be re-open. But you guys will have to meet the burdon of proof to have your additions. The text of the BLP guidelines is what you are fighting, subtily, if you haven't figured out yet. Therefore if those guideline changes, that is the other scenario where this debate could be re-open healthily with the same sources. with love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) Grayfell is the only one that wanted it in. Nobody else that has weighed in does. Can we get a determination that consensus has been reached, wait until better sources present, and all go out for coffee? TheRedReverend (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what Greyfell has to say about it. He hasn't been around. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 06:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)