Talk:Tim Pool

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Right wing?

[edit]

I'm assuming he is labeled right-wing because he doesn't agree with leftist ideals? 2603:8080:B102:489A:24B4:F3DB:9AC5:8677 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask the folks who wrote the cited sources, Wikipedia just follows along with what they say. MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While wikipedia cites only 2 sources here, because you cannot spam sourcing infinitely, there is an overwhelming consensus that Tim Pool as an person is right-wing. His online presence also skews right-wing to far-right.
142.207.84.182 (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is self-described as center left and a moderate, Congressman Ro Khanna said that Pool isnt a conservative (ie right wing). He has been affiliated with a menagerie of political organizations and events from libertarians to occupy to conservatives. Bgrus22 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He self-describes as a centrist as a tactic to try and make his views appear more palatable to people who are uninformed. His talking points are far from centrist. And this is why wikipedia doesn't use primary sources for this. -Voidkom talk 11:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Views

[edit]

Should the Views section begin with: "Like several other 'alt-right gateway' or 'alt-lite' figures, Pool presents himself as a disaffected liberal to convey authenticity"? Shouldn't views first be described, including a history of changes with self-identifications first, before interpretations by commentators and scholars? Isn't this first sentence too far removed from a neutral point of view? Marcin Rychlewicz (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very opinionated and does not have an encyclopedic tone. Springee (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how the content is "opinionated" or not neutral. It appears to be taken directly from a well-written, peer-reviewed article, published by an academic journal of the American Sociological Association, which also cites four other studies regarding "alt-right gateway figures". – notwally (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how academically reputably the source is, presenting inferred conclusions about internal motivations as fact is problematic, especially when those conclusions inherently include a value judgment. It is not non-POV. The only exception might be quoting a person saying that was their intent which still might not be accurate to what their real intent was and in any case should be presented as "x has said that their intent was". Mind reading has no place in an encyclopedia. 2603:6011:2D02:D8E0:EC03:78C2:B281:76A0 (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paper cited says "Lewis (2018), for instance, showed how popular alt-right gateway figures (i.e., the “alt-lite”) (Hawley 2018a; Ma 2021; Ribeiro et al. 2020) like Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Tim Pool used narratives of being disaffected liberals—and highlight liberal progressive bona fides such as having voted for Bernie Sanders, supporting same-sex marriage, or supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement—to demonstrate objectivity and authenticity.", however their source does not support that claim. The only place Tim Pool is mentioned in Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube is in a section on relatability (page 18) that talks about how alternative influencers try to be more relatable and accessible by not being a part of a legacy brand (e.g. The New York Times and The Washington Post) with an established reputation.
Nothing I read in Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube supports the claims made in Unsorted Significance: Examining Potential Pathways to Extreme Political Beliefs and Communities on Reddit or on the wikipage. 2601:281:CF7E:D622:0:0:0:E8B (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivermectin - "known to be ineffective" with no citation?

[edit]

Change: "known to be ineffective against the virus"

To: "largely determined to be ineffective against COVID-19 by leading medical researchers"

Source: [European Medicines Agency: EMA advises against use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials](https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-or-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials)

For Discussion: When Pool contracted COVID-19 in November of that year, he told his audience that he was prescribed and had taken Ivermectin, known to be ineffective against the virus, along with monoclonal antibodies, an effective treatment.

This statement is a bit broad without citation. When was it "known" and to whom? Isn't it still the official standing of the FDA that there is a lack of evidence to recommend for or against using it as a treatment for Covid-19?

One could certainly cite a number of studies that show it is ineffective, but it seems like an unnecessary detail beyond that Tim Poole was using an experimental treatment (in line with many conservatives). I think the relevance is how the treatment aligns him with others in the conservative movement, conspiratorial thinking, and using experimental treatments over and above medical professional recommendations.

It seems more appropriate to say either that it was not approved as a treatment for Covid-19 by the FDA or EMA. Or just say that it was largely determined as ineffective by leading medical researchers. Or some combination thereof. I cannot do any edits myself as I have only ever done 1 edit. KPaulBaker (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2025

[edit]

Stop lying 2600:4041:7A73:F700:85A1:9BF0:715E:BDC7 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Day Creature (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well

[edit]

Like several other "alt-right gateway" or "alt-lite" figures, Pool presents himself as a disaffected liberal in order to convey authenticity.

Why include this line? Seems like Wikipedia’s snide way of injecting its own bias into the article. 73.171.252.68 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May seem like that to you, but only because you are not aware that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and there is a source given for that sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]