Talk:Tim Pool

Right wing?

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)

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)

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)

he believes in UBI and free healthcare, that's not right wing at all ~2025-43138-42 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's quite a blatant bias to have and is completely unsupported by his earlier podcasts and *public* statements and opinions. It's also potentially libellous regardless of whether you can find a far left source for it or not, and also not relevant to his Wikipedia article since at best it's an attack on his character, and at worst it's a libellous smear. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exist to expose people to your personal, biased opinions. Tim Pool doesn't identify as right-wing and shares many left-wing ideas. Your opinion that "he self-describes as a centrist as a tactic to try and make his views appear more palatable to people who are uninformed" is utterly irrelant. ~2025-39564-96 (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

When defend Trump to the extent that he has you're pretty much puts you on the right wing side. Not necessarily "extreme right" but definitely right wing more then "central" ~2026-43671-6 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Tim Pool is not "far right". He is an Independent with many views that are more left-leaning. Biases should be left at the door when writing an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17923-31 (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If he's "not right-wing" and has "views that are more left-leaning", then how come all of his YouTube videos and tweets consist almost entirely of him mindlessly defending everything Trump does?

Face it, dude. Tim Pool has more than earned the right-wing label. ~2026-20476-90 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

He has stated he defends Trump about several things (not “everything”) because the media lies about him rountinely. He has stated Trump is a very flawed and imperfect man, and hopping on the bandwagon to criticize him for something the media already does is redundant. ~2026-39048-21 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

At a time when numerous other right-wing and MAGA influencers are starting to turn on Trump, Tim Pool continues to defend him on nearly everything. He's also friends with people who are in Trump's inner circle. ~2026-44121-50 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a complete joke that you would label Tim Pool of all people "right wing". Just because you're so far-left right now you don't have a good sense of left and right, does not make him right wing. Take your donation requests and shove them up your ass. ~2026-55322-36 (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Views

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)

Seems very opinionated and does not have an encyclopedic tone. Springee (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I tend to agree that the opening is not encyclopedic and at the very least should say something like, 'he has been described by some scholars as alt-lite', with even that being a stretch. But if we want to include this description of him, which I'm not sure should be kept, we should move it from where it presently is (I got you op). Bgrus22 (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

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)

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)

I've removed it. It's blatant opinionated, biased, and a BLP violation regardless of whether you can find a far left source for it or not. I could probably find a far left source calling practically anyone on the centre or right as a Nazi - It doesn't warrant inclusion in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and it's gutter character assassination. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Issues with sources used for Tenet Media section

"In his response to the indictment on Twitter" does not have the primary source which is the tweet. It instead lists secondary sources for some reason.

Everything else in that sections seems fine. 2600:8801:1014:3E00:E47F:C774:3F18:ACB6 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change to infobox occupation: replace "journalist"

Rationale:

1. Inconsistency: The lead of the article calls Pool an “American right-wing political commentator and podcast host.” The infobox should also have this description, per WP:LEAD and consistency.

2. Subject’s Statement: The article mentions that Pool said in a 2011 interview, “I don’t consider myself a Journalist.” By using a label that the subject does not use about himself creates a problem for the biography of living persons (WP:BLP).

3. Outdated sourcing (WP:RS § Age matters)

Per WP:RS § Age matters, older sources may be superseded by more current developments, more so in politics. The "journalist" label in the infobox is only supported by 2014 reporting of Pool's time at Vice and Fusion. However more current and reliable sources (NYT, WaPo, CNN, The Guardian, NPR) have superseded those older descriptions, consistently using "YouTuber," "podcaster," or "commentator" for his current role.

4. Imprecise labeling (WP:BLP)

Labels that lack precision should not be used unless the person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. The current reliable-source consensus does not describe him as a journalist. The infobox should therefore be updated to reflect the superseding sources.

5. Policy basis (WP:BLP and WP:RS)

As explained in WP:BLP and WP:RS, labeling subjects of a biography with an occupation supported by current reliable sources ensures compliance with biography of living persons policy. Using the label "journalist" for Pool is misleading to the reader.

Proposed new occupation:

"YouTuber, podcaster, political commentator"

Will await feedback prior to making the appropriate changes. ManyFixations (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2026 (UTC)