Talk:2021 London mayoral election/Archives/2021/January

Description of Brian Rose - consensus required

I had asked for semi-protection for this article, but it has now been fully protected. While fully protected, in order to request a change to text that has been involved in edit-warring, evidence for consensus should be presented. In order to make that as clear as possible, can I ask for input on the below on how we describe independent candidate Brian Rose?

(1) The current text reflects an edit by an IP editor, which describes Brian Rose thus:

• Brian Rose, podcaster and host of the popular London Real platform is standing as an independent.

(2) The alternate version I, Ralbegen and Doktorbuk were reverting to was:

• Brian Rose, a podcaster and COVID-19 conspiracy theorist, is standing as an independent.

(3) That was a recent change I'd made. The prior stable version was:

• Brian Rose, a podcaster and conspiracy theorist, who claims 5G causes COVID-19, is standing as an independent.

I wasn't convinced that the details of Rose's conspiracy theorising were adequately supported, thus the change to (2).

Can editors indicate which form, or some other wording, they prefer? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think (2) is the most suitable for the reasons you have laid out. Ralbegen (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not like the inclusion of "popular...platform" so that's out. I prefer two, maybe expanded/merged with 3. doktorb _words^deeds 12:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning his business history? Thanks, Bwian Wose (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Could you please change, under "4.6 Other Candidates"...

• Brian Rose, podcaster and host of the popular London Real platform is standing as an independent.

To...

• Brian Rose, a podcaster and COVID-19 conspiracy theorist, is standing as an independent.

This reflects consensus, as per the Talk discussion immediately above. An IP editor was edit-warring and the article has been frozen, under full protection, in the IP editor's version. The proposed new text had not been up for long, but is close to the prior stable version, as discussed above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Declined. The only edit summary I see from an anonymous IP address is: "Brian Rose explicitly states in his interviews that he does not agree with everything the people he interviews say. What he does say is that he will fight for the rights of these people to express their views and be heard." Apparently he is providing a platform for conspiracy theorists, but none of the cited sources actually state that Brian Rose is a conspiracy theorist, as far as I can tell. Therefore, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, Wikipedia should not apply labels to a living person when the cited sources themselves don't go that far. I have no objection to including the fact that Rose's show is a platform for cranks, but that isn't what's being proposed in this edit request. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thank you for your review. Happy to hear suggestions for phrasing, from you or other editors. I am concerned that it remains the case that the current form of the text in the article is what an edit-warring IP editor wanted and seems inappropriate.

It seems to me sophistry on the part of Rose and supporters to offer such arguments anyway. It's the sort of thing conspiracy theorists always say! WP:BLP does not require us to abandon common sense, as numerous discussions about conspiracy theorists have established. I went back to what the citations say. From the Vice article:

• "the channel [i.e. Rose's London Real] has homed-in on coronavirus misinformation"
• "Neither [conspiracy theorist] interviewee was challenged by Rose over the credibility of their claims, either out of ignorance or by choice."
• "Wilfully spreading misinformation during a pandemic has the potential to cause harm; [...] But the harm test is a principle that Rose and his followers seemingly either do not grasp or, worse, choose to ignore."
• "The reality is that London Real has not only provided access to misinformation, but actively promoted it"

From Politifact:

• "Most of that engagement appears to have been driven by Brian Rose and his organization London Real, which is behind the website that hosted "Plandemic 2" and has a history of airing falsehoods about COVID-19."

I personally remain of the view that that is sufficient support for a summary to say "is a conspiracy theorist". I understand that a sentence saying "Rose is a conspiracy theorist" would be neater! Citations clearly support that Rose and London Real are actively promoting COVID-19 falsehoods, if that would be a useful phrasing? What about...

• Brian Rose, a podcaster who has actively promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, is standing as an independent.

Does that work? Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Yes, that's better. I made the change.  Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)