If someone legally changes their name, that would indicate to me that the subject wishes to be known by the new name. Yet Wikipedia will still list the birth name.

People change their names all the time when they get married or immigrate and have no problem with their birth name's being available. I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement about this.

And some trans people "have no problem with their birth name being available," even if they have stopped using it. "Blanket statement," and all that...

>Because Wikipedia tends to err on the side of respecting the wishes of the subject.

Unless that subject is right wing.

Wolf Blitzer:

>Wolf Isaac Blitzer (born March 22, 1948) is an American journalist, television news anchor, and author who has been a CNN reporter since 1990, and who currently serves as one of the principal anchors at the network.[1] He is the host of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and until 2021, served as the network's lead political anchor.

Seems fine, right?

Tucker Carlson:

>Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson[5] (born May 16, 1969) is an American television host, conservative political commentator and author who has hosted the nightly political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News since 2016.

But Tucker is labelled conservative.

Founder Larry Sanger: "Wikipedia is Badly Biased" https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

And you don't have to be right wing to see this. I'm a registered Pacific Green.

You've confused Tucker Carlson for a journalist. It's a mistake sufficiently common that his lawyers have had to explain in court that he is an entertainer and his words are to be taken as opinion. Journalists and entertainers are generally held to different standards, especially in court. A better comparison would be to Rachel Maddow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

>Rachel Anne Maddow (/ˈmædoʊ/ (listen), MAD-oh; born April 1, 1973) is an American television news program host and liberal political commentator.

Maddow has used the same defense against litigation as Carlson. The 'conservative/liberal' tag is applied when a person is described as a political commentator.

I've got no problem with your characterization of Carlson, but do you honestly believe Blitzer is an objective arbiter of truth?

I don't, and I think this myth among so many in "news" media has done more to misinform people than any of the pundits who are honest about their biases. See also, Dan Rather and Brian Williams.

I never said anything about believing the news. Wikipedia labels the political leanings of people they identify as political commentators, and they don't label the political leanings of people they identify as journalists.

In this case, both Maddow and Carlson have used the argument in court that a reasonable person would not take what they say as fact. Regardless of our personal opinions about him or his employers, Blitzer has not made that claim.

If we're trying to ascertain whether Wikipedia is biased in how it describes people on television, comparing a political commentator to a journalist is not going to be a very instructive example. Comparing to another political commentator is going to be more useful. I'm not making any assertions about how I feel regarding these people.

>You've confused Tucker Carlson for a journalist.

Having the same bias as Wikipedia isn't evidence of their impartiality.

I'm sorry if that sentence made you think you had enough information to assess my political leanings, and I'm even more sorry if I gave the impression that I care about the politics of TV personalities. I'm strictly speaking in terms of how Wikipedia describes people on television. I may as well have said "You've confused Wolf Blitzer for a political commentator," as Wikipedia doesn't classify him that way, and he's never represented himself that way in court.