![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pool's extremist comments on right-wing mass shootings
[edit]Springee has deleted the edits re-introducing Tim Pool's comments on the Colorado LGBT club mass shooting calling the victims groomers, which were widely reported in reliable sources and by noteworthy commentators, and they have single-handedly decided that the BBC's article about the disinformation being spread by Tim Pool on the Texas shooting doesn't belong. Both these events, however, constitute one of the few times Pool's commentary broke the bubble of technology news media and made it to the highest-ranking news outlets. Unflattering or not, they belong on this entry as much as everything else about him. Can the wider editor community weigh in? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please use the previous discussion rather than starting a new one. Springee (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- We have new edits and events, about the Texas shooting so a new discussion is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the edits I don't think Springee is as much objecting to the coverage per-say they just don't like the language used/meets the very strict requirements of BLP, @Springee: can you suggest summaries of the coverage which you feel are appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when I'm at a computer again (vs on a phone). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) was part of the prior discussion when this same material was added. Springee (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- That user hasn't edited this entry in months. I'm fairly certain that ot's against Wikipedia's rules to canvass specific editors to discuss edit controversies in a Talk Page just because they're likely to agree with you. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You, Springee, and I were the only editors to participate in the last discussion on this topic. Per WP:APPNOTE, it is perfectly acceptable to notify
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic
. Springee did not canvass anyone to this discussion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)- Exactly. Since this is a continuation of the previous discussion notifying involved parties is fine. Springee (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You, Springee, and I were the only editors to participate in the last discussion on this topic. Per WP:APPNOTE, it is perfectly acceptable to notify
- That user hasn't edited this entry in months. I'm fairly certain that ot's against Wikipedia's rules to canvass specific editors to discuss edit controversies in a Talk Page just because they're likely to agree with you. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- If that's the case, it's certainly odd that they only react to such coverage by blanketing them. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- The article you cite says very little about Pool. The content related to Pool himself is at the very bottom and it isn't clear what specifically Pool was saying or referencing. I removed three claims/two sections of text which referenced that single BBC article. One was the "...as been described by the BBC". My issue here is these sort of offhand descriptions are rarely a good source for an encyclopedic claim in large part because they aren't supported by the text that follows. They are meant to set the stage for an otherwise unfamiliar reader. They don't support their claim which is something we would want when dealing with a BLP. The other part was the new, two sentence paragraph that says Pool's claims were baseless (the BBC doesn't say that). It also isn't clear what Pool was saying was a "psyop". Was it the information about the shooter in general or the linkage to Pool etc? Vague statements below the fold aren't good sources for contentious claims about a BLP subject. It's also not OK to take those vague claims and try to strengthen them in a way that isn't clearly supported by the original source. As a final, independent point, listing a bunch of times when some writer decided they didn't like what someone said on social media really isn't a good way to construct a BLP. Springee (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Re: "His podcast has been described by the BBC as covering "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories"."
- The statement is presented as an opinion expressed by the BBC. (In fact, it should say BBC writers since the source is a signed article. If it is an opinion, then weight must be established. This is usually done by showing that the comments by the BBC writers have been widely cited.
- However, this appears not to be a statement of opinion, but one of fact *whether it is true or not.) In that case, intext attribution should not be used. For example one would not say Obama was born in the U.S., according to BBC reporters, we would just say he was born in the U.S. and provide inline citations. Intext citation would add doubt to something that is a fact.
- The comment in the BBC article is not particularly helpful. Yes, he covers "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories," but so does the SPLC and to a lesser extent, most news media when they become newsworthy. I learned about birtherism for example on CNN, because they "covered it."
- I do not think it is useful to throw in one sentence zingers drawn from passing references in news media. It's better to get comprehensive sources about the topic and summarize them. If they don't exist, leave them out or delete the article.
- An article based on the original research of editors is worse than not having an article at all.
- Furthermore, the source itself is not rs for facts because it is analysis. TFD (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand, Pool isn't "covering" them as a journalist he holds or is sympathetic to these views and is promoting them. The NYT describes his podcast as "an extreme right-wing podcast" and says that it has "been criticized as a vector for conspiracy theories"[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when I'm at a computer again (vs on a phone). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) was part of the prior discussion when this same material was added. Springee (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like the sort of thing that the far right would say.Tim Pool is far right. 84.69.209.118 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from vandalizing this page with personal opinion bias that VERY clearly violates the Wikipedia neutrality policy. To claim that Tim Pool is a far right activist as a statement of fact is blatantly in violation. Regardless of your personal feeling about Tim Pool, stating his political views based on media outlet opinion pieces go against the very heart of wikipedia. DanMan3395 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @DanMan3395 no, you are in the wrong here. Those are not opinion pieces. We go by what reliable sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- you are incorrect. The first source: "https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/conspiracy-theorists-far-right-agitators-head-white-house-social-media-n1028576" cites a twitter post by a permanently banned user known for spreading false information. It is NOT a reliable source.
- The second source: "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65539698" makes no claim about Tim pool's political affiliation at all. It is an article that shows that a criminal followed him on social media.
- BOTH of these articles rely on social media which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The content in dispute is a CLEAR violation of the Wikipedia policy on neutrality in subject matter. Lastly, the content in question is NOT a statement of fact, but rather a ridiculously biased opinion of SOME editors.
- Please refrain from further vandalizing this page or this will be escalated to senior administration for review. DanMan3395 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- DanMan3395, the BBC source clearlys says "
Mr Pool's podcasts, which cover right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories.
" There is nothing violating neutrality just because you don't agree with high quality, reputable sources. – notwally (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- That quote is not cited, nor is the focus of the article even about the subject matter. This most certainly DOES violate the Wikipedia neutrality policy as you are merely expressing your personal bias with substantially low quality sources. The rules on this are especially strict when it comes to biographical pages about people. Please stop putting opinion on this page. Move that note to the section about his podcast's content and cite the view as the opinion of the BBC writer that published your source. DanMan3395 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That article is already cited, and there are numerous other sources to support the use of "right wing", which has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page. The BBC is about as high quality a news source as one can get and is not "substantially low quality" as you claim. Your POV is not given more weight than major, respected newspapers. You are wrong about the policies and the sources, and you need to stop your editing warring. In the past week, you have been reverted by at least four other editors including me (EvergreenFir, Newimpartial, Ponyo) for your WP:Tendentious editing. – notwally (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- That quote is not cited, nor is the focus of the article even about the subject matter. This most certainly DOES violate the Wikipedia neutrality policy as you are merely expressing your personal bias with substantially low quality sources. The rules on this are especially strict when it comes to biographical pages about people. Please stop putting opinion on this page. Move that note to the section about his podcast's content and cite the view as the opinion of the BBC writer that published your source. DanMan3395 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- DanMan3395, the BBC source clearlys says "
- @DanMan3395 no, you are in the wrong here. Those are not opinion pieces. We go by what reliable sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Pool is NOT right wing.
[edit]
Anyone who has actually listened to him knows this. Wikipedia needs to fix this. A single NY Times article as a citation to prove Tim is right wing is pathetic. At most Tim is a classical liberal who agrees with some conservative policies. Get it right Wikipedia. 2607:FB91:129F:4C56:545A:391D:F7B9:EF0 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been watching tim pool on an almost daily basis for about 10 years. he used to say he was independent, or even socially liberal. he still says he i socially liberal, but when discussing republican policies, he started saying "we" some time in the last year (i think around when he had doug mastriano on his livestream). so while i'd like to be able to take him at his word, i also listen to what he says, and he identifies with right wing positions even if he says that right wing isn't a label he wants. BigMouthCommie (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2023
[edit]In the heading it only says Tim Pool pushes right wing ideas, when Tim Pool regularly pushes traditionally left wing ideas like universal health care, pro-choice, marijuana laws, and many other examples. As an independent voter, I personally consider him traditionally left leaning, but I am assuming most consider him center.
According to allsides.com Tim Pool leans “center.”
It is without a doubt left-wing biased and incorrect to state he is right-wing. 2603:6000:D801:8B8A:5D69:1E2:6E41:9669 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
- Comment: I agree with you that he holds (or has previously expressed) views on either side of the left/right spectrum. However, most if not all described in the article tend toward the extremes of either side. I associate centrism with more moderate, or less radical, ideas that variously straddle the middle ground. I consider centrists more likely to compromise with their opponents than insist it is their way or the highway. So in short I would reject the notion that his leftist views balance out his rightist views, the average being a centrist. It might be more accurate to say that he has more leftist ideas than rightist, but again that wouldn't make him center-left in my view. And then there's this:
Pool tends to reject a left/right political framework for both self-description and in other contexts, instead preferring to divide the public into those who are "discerning" and "skeptical regarding legacy media" and those who are "undiscerning" and "uninitiated".
- TL;DR: The lede should be changed to better reflect that he has, or has had, leftist and rightist views as documented in multiple reliable sources. However, since you did not propose a specific edit to make, an edit request is premature, and I am closing it. Feel free to open a new request when you can propose a specific, well-sourced, edit. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Tim Pool is a glorified right-wing troll whose entire online presence is designed to flatter his MAGA fanbase and keep it in a perpetual state of rage against liberals, LGBT people and, to a lesser extent, non-whites. He's only ever in the news and other reliable sources for supporting acts of violence against gay and trans people, and spreading fake news on behalf of the Republican party. If anything, this entry isn't going far enough in detailing how borderline terroristic and extremely right-wing his views are, due to diligent work from a few posters here in whitewashing this and other entries dedicated to North American far-right figures.
- So the lede should not be changed to include the false information that he's got left-wing views or is somehow too complex a figure to be pigeonholed into either political camp, because that's not how people who matter describe him. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- He used to be very liberal, bur now even respected news platforms (I mean failing far-left legacy media) like NBC, BBC and NYT are calling him “[extreme] right-wing”. But we can’t call him a terrorist or even a troll without similar good sourcing. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, reliable sources don't outright call him a terrorism monger, but they have noticed he not-so-subtly supports acts of violence, including mass shootings, against LGBT people. But acknowledgement of this fact is being removed from this entry by
POV warriorssome rather tireless editors. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)- Then you need to 1: point out who these editors are and 2: take them to a noticeboard. If you can’t do either then you are casting WP:aspersions Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, reliable sources don't outright call him a terrorism monger, but they have noticed he not-so-subtly supports acts of violence, including mass shootings, against LGBT people. But acknowledgement of this fact is being removed from this entry by
- He used to be very liberal, bur now even respected news platforms (I mean failing far-left legacy media) like NBC, BBC and NYT are calling him “[extreme] right-wing”. But we can’t call him a terrorist or even a troll without similar good sourcing. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
More accurate photo
[edit]Tim is bald. Nowhere on this page mentions that. We have a picture of him without the beanie, I think we should use that one in the name of transparency. 76.172.88.207 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Who cares? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I second EvergreenFir's opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- The people have a right to know 76.172.88.207 (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have a more accurate picture to upload, how do I do it? 84.69.209.118 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is the picture free? Dronebogus (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes 185.104.136.55 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know what I mean by “free” in this context? Dronebogus (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes 185.104.136.55 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is the picture free? Dronebogus (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have a more accurate picture to upload, how do I do it? 84.69.209.118 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Why is his Mixed Race missing?
[edit]No entry about his asian roots here! Fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF39:CB00:78AA:59B9:B5F3:ED42 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Find a reliable source and do it yourself. NM 03:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- He has made statements as such on Twitter alluding to his supposed Korean & Japanese ancestry. But is it all that noteworthy? He only brings up this supposed(probably no more than 1/4) E. Asian ancestry when making a point about something someone else said on twitter - hardly noteworthy. He isn't Asian American until he actually identifies as such. And even then...--SinoDevonian (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rather than debate noteworthiness ourselves, I think we should just include what reliable sources say. And none that I can see on a single search seem to mention that he's part Asian, so we shouldn't include it until someone can find that one that does. Btw, I am seeing an X post from him saying that he identifies as Asian American; he made this post on the same day you posted so he's possibly monitoring this talk page lol. Stop being edgy tim 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- He has made statements as such on Twitter alluding to his supposed Korean & Japanese ancestry. But is it all that noteworthy? He only brings up this supposed(probably no more than 1/4) E. Asian ancestry when making a point about something someone else said on twitter - hardly noteworthy. He isn't Asian American until he actually identifies as such. And even then...--SinoDevonian (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
"Hollywood In Toto" website is not a reliable source for information
[edit]Regarding the fact that Pool's song "Only Ever Wanted" reached the #2 spot on the global iTunes chart: The article cites Hollywood In Toto, a far-right "entertainment news" website, as a source. A more reliable source is needed here. 2601:CC:C101:D6D0:4923:F0BE:ECD7:605B (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)