Talk:Brian Rose (podcaster)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DoB

It looks like Rose's birthday has been deduced from an instagram post on his birthday. I feel this is not a WP:RS but WP:OR Rankersbo (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; thanks. WP:BLPDOB applies, which is quite restrictive, and we should err on the side of caution. There's an interesting discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_Members_of_Parliament_-_Date_of_Birth. It's not the same situation, but it goes through some of the issues here. @Bemland:. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Instagram? It's Companies House as stated in the ref. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rankersbo and I have both reverted an edit that added a day of birth that was sourced to Instagram. Companies House only gives a month of birth and we've left that in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess if there is a will there is a way, even on Wikipedia. I have carefully checked Brian Rose's official and officially confirmed Instagram account and he – and so many others' congratulating posts – state in several subsequent separate postings from 17 May 2020 very clearly that 17 May is his birthday, and apparently many people must know about that, too, considering the incoming congratulations: https://www.instagram.com/p/CASbX2npfwD/ + https://www.instagram.com/p/CASanETJJWn/ + https://www.instagram.com/p/CASmgbRpCWz . Finding sources of published information can certainly not be deemed "original research", then most things would be in that category, as "original research" means you are not entitled to publish articles about your own private theories or your scientific kind of research here, if it has not been "authorized" and published by others elsewhere before. Articles on politics/politicians is always a "hot potato" (especially in election season), but I can't see why giving our readers full information when available would be such a problem? Why would people and a public person running for office claim a false birthday on an official account (when it comes to year of birth, that may sometimes be another issue, as it's a matter of age)? It's not a matter of hearsay or unsubstantial rumors after all.--Bemland (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPDOB is a policy and we have to follow it. Instagram posts do not appear to satisfy WP:BLPDOB. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, none of those Instagram sources give a full date of birth (day/month/year)- they all give a date but not an age, so don't give year of birth. And we shouldn't be mixing one source which gives day and month with another source that gives the year, in order to get a full dob. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Candidacy

Is he really standing? He has a bus but is the official list of candidates out? As Americans can't vote in the election, how can he stand? Or is he a British citizen now? Companies House filings in 2020 say he is American. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

According to this papers to stand aren't due until 30 March. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

He is clearly reported by RS as a candidate. As you note, papers aren't due for a bit. Lots of people say they'll stand, but then don't manage to complete the required paperwork, with a substantial deposit, so with all such candidates, I think it's important that we phrase text as something like "intending to stand". Bondegezou (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The question remains about his nationality. He is getting a lot of publicity for his channel from his announced candidature but is he even eligible to stand if he is American? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And in all that publicly no one has said he cannot stand, so I am going to say its not relvelant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, but it wouldn't be the first time that Wikipedia noticed something others hadn't. I guess we can wait until 30 March. He's notable either way. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

To stand for Mayor, you have to be a citizen of the UK, Rep. of Ireland, EU (yes, still) or Commonwealth. We know Rose was born in the US; the article makes zero claims about his current citizenship. I think you're worrying unnecessarily. Anyway, Wikipedians may notice something others haven't, but WP:OR and WP:RS are clear. We write articles based on what reliable sources say, not our own original research. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to reliable sources overlooked by the media because they sometimes reuse agency copy from Press Association, AFP, etc which may have been prepared without interrogating all of the reliable sources there are (foreign language, offline books, etc), but that is a separate matter. As far as Rose is concerned, we do claim in four categories that he is an American and nobody could read the article without inferring that he is an American citizen and indeed he has stated as much in filings with Companies House as recently as last year - but we can wait for it all to become clear in due course. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Brian Rose has lived and worked in London for more than 20 years and is a dual citizen, American and British, since about 13 years back, according to his information given in several places/talks. Here is i.e. an pod-interview with Dave Asprey from 2014 where it's stated (about in the 7th paragraph of the transcript) and those facts can surely be confirmed by some official registers, at least that's how it works in my country, Sweden. https://daveasprey.com/121-brian-rose-from-london-real-its-about-the-journey/ .--Bemland (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would note that the current British Prime Minister was also born in the United States, so is presumably a US citizen by birth, and that hasn't stopped him holding that role... Robofish (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

He renounced it. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

So after he was twice elected to be London Mayor. Robofish is right: dual US citizenship isn't an impediment to being elected London Mayor, or an MP, or other posts. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, but being solely American is, which is why I raised the topic in the first place. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Betfair article

ConManKilla offered this article as a citation. It's an article by Betfair, a betting company. I think it's an interesting piece and I agree with what it says. However, do we think it satisfies WP:RS? Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In any discussion of betting on the race, possibly, if Paul Krishnamurty is an expert in that area which he might be. Not outside that. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

question of whether to add Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

The introduction of this article notes that the subject "has promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic." This statement is multiply sourced (for example, one source, Politifact, says that "Facebook and Instagram posts with the term 'Plandemic' have received tens of thousands of combined interactions since Aug. 17. 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."). Yet another source, The Guardian[1], describes Rose explicitly as a "conspiracy theorist" in the context of an article about disinformation concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, a consensus achieved on 8 January 2021 on the talk page[2] for a related article describes Brian Rose as "a podcaster and COVID-19 conspiracy theorist."

Given these circumstances, I think it is appropriate to add the category "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" to this page. Do others have any alternative perspectives?--Biblib (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I welcome input from Bondegezou, who was involved in a related prior discussion.Biblib (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we get the text of the article right (including citations), then worry about categories.

So, do we have the text right? We currently say Rose "has promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic"; we don't say he is a conspiracy theorist. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but we should err on the side of caution given WP:BLP.

The current wording goes back to discussion at Talk:2021_London_mayoral_election/Archives/2021/January. The final conclusion there and the version of the text that stuck stopped just short of describing Rose as a conspiracy theorist. That was because reliable sources noted Rose's promotion of misinformation, but didn't call him a conspiracy theorist.

However, the recent Guardian article Biblib cites above does now explicitly describe Rose as a "conspiracy theorist".

So, is one explicit reference in an RS enough to change the current wording? I think that is sufficient, but what do other editors think? Bondegezou (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there is only a question of subtlety here, how baldly the anti-COVID sentiments can and need to be presented. I don't think the substantive point that Rose is a Covid denier is in question, at least among the participants here. I am reminded of articles like Graham Linehan and Vanessa Beeley where there are constant attempts to water down the descriptions of their behaviours, mostly by adherents to their respective conspiracy theories, and by being too bald we may risk stirring up a similar hornet's nest. Rankersbo (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I think whatever we put, there will be unhelpful edits from one quarter or another. This article has seen both Rose supporters and Rose critics try to push biased edits. Our best defence is following policy, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS.

What about including a sentence under "Podcasting career" saying, "The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist." citing the new article? Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable.

Would it make any sense to try and integrate that statement with the thematically-related the third sentence in the "Podcasting career" section, which currently reads: "The podcast is known for spreading conspiracy theories and it has promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic."

So, an extended/integrated version of this sentence might go something like this: "The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist^{[The Guardian ref]}, and his podcast is known for spreading conspiracy theories^{[Turvill, Press Gazette]} and promoting misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic."^{[existing three refs: #1, #2, #11]} Biblib (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure about COVID-19 conspiracy theorist, but more than one RS say he has spread Covid misinformation and hosts COVID-19 conspiracy theorists.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been pending for a sufficient amount of time now to allow for community input. I invite existing participants (Bondegezou, Rankersbo, Slatersteven) in this discussion and any other editors to weigh in so we can arrive at a conclusion, especially regarding whether to amend/revise the current prose as discussed above, and whether to add the relevant category to the article.Biblib (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Biblib, you are correct - we should wrap this up. I am happy with: "The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist^{[The Guardian ref]}, and his podcast is known for spreading conspiracy theories^{[Turvill, Press Gazette]} and promoting misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic."^{[existing three refs: #1, #2, #11]} and then with adding the category "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists". Bondegezou (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't exactly true according to the reference either. You propose "The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist" when the reference only describes Rose (in one sentence mentioning his interview with Icke) as an "American conspiracy theorist and podcaster." I think something in the body saying that The Guardian has described Rose as a conspiracy theorist would be more accurate--CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC).

The Guardian article is talking about COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. I don't see a coherent interpretation whereby it's describing him as some other flavour of conspiracy theorist. However, as I said above, I accept that there may be a case that we should wait for a second RS that says he's a conspiracy theorist. That said, we have plenty of references around how his podcast promotes conspiracy theories and how he profits from this. I see no need to water down the current text. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I can understand your rationale for waiting. In fact, looking at the reference, I am not so sure they did their fact checking. They call him an "American" conspiracy theorist when in fact he is a British citizen. However, even if the reference was accurate, what you describe is WP:SYNTH which we need to stay away from, especially when it comes to a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

He is American. He was born in the US. He has acquired British citizenship. Calling him "American" is clearly not a failure of fact-checking. Indeed, it would be WP:SYNTH to dismiss The Guardian article on such grounds.

What about, as a compromise, using the text, "The Guardian has described Rose as a conspiracy theorist"? That deals with your objection above. Bondegezou (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

He may have been born American, but he is no longer American according to the sources. My wife was born in Mexico but later became a US Citizen. She is not referred to as Mexican. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I am unclear quite what edits you are arguing for or against with that comment. If you are claiming that the Guardian article should not be used because it referred to Rose as American, I think that's a dubious, WP:SYNTHy argument. If you're not arguing that, then perhaps we should focus on the topic at hand. Did you have a comment on the wording I suggested? Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou's text sounds reasonable. In particular, it's made clear exactly where the 'COVID-19 conspiracy theorist' appellation is coming from, both via the footnote and by textually attributing it to The Guardian. If in the future additional RS support this, we can add the relevant footnotes/citations and remove the specific Guardian attribution; or if in contrast future RS dispute or otherwise contradict the 'COVID-19 conspiracy theorist' appellation, we can note this, with textual attribution as appropriate. Biblib (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the current BLP makes it seem like Rose himself is in fact promoting Plandemic. However, the references state that he simply hosts those who do so (e.g., David Icke). We need to be careful about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, especially when it comes to BLPs. Stating the has hosted these people would be appropriate, but to say that he himself is one wouldnt be appropriate with multiple reliable sources saying so. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

For instance, the Vice article says "Brian Rose has raised nearly £1 million to fund a "free speech" platform where he'll host video interviews with conspiracy theorists and other guests." It doesn't say that he is or that he promotes the topic. Yes, having these guest does promote the topic but saying so is original research lack the proper sourcing.

The Politifact reference in the lede says "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." It is referencing the traffic to the term Plandemic on social media but only says the website hosted the video. The link in the article to "airing falsehoods" links to another Politifact article which doesn't even mention Rose by name.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This reference from the Press Gazette, used to cite the content " The podcast is known for spreading conspiracy theories" in the Wikipedia page is misleading. Unless I missed it, no where in that reference does it say that the channel is known for spreading conspiracy theories. It is speaking about a specific guest who was talking about a conspiracy theory. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We have paraphrased what the RS says, namely "Most of that engagement appears to have been driven by Brian Rose". Other RS clearly destroy the Rose apologist notion that he simply hosts conspiracy theorists, like The Salon article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at this point this is rather clear. It seems unlikey that further parsing attempts will be constructive.Biblib (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of this article is an attempt to demonise. It is clear Rose is a bit of a chancer, especially in the business sphere, but some some people here seem to buy into the totalitarian line that "misinformation" is anything that disagrees with the authorities. If the UK has any pretence to being a liberal democracy anymore, people in it have to realise free speech and the right to disagree are part of that... especially when policies are being set by psychologists rather than virologists. Rose is right in the sense that immense harm has been done to the public, economically and psychologically, possibly outweighing the problem.

Using biased "fact checkers" whose fundinf is often a conflict of interest is not the answer. Rose has every right to broadcast a variety of viewpoints not just repeating the government/WHO line like the BBC or Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1407:621F:A026:E075:9D23:58F8 (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So, in the name of "free speech" and the "right to disagree", you want to curtail the speech of the fact checkers who disagree with Rose? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Urine Drinking

That he drinks his own urine is one of the most notable things about him, seems odd that it would be removed. [3] Berocca Addict (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No its not, if it was you would have a better source. It's at best trivia (assuming it's in fact true). Given the derth of valuable information including this is massively wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What Slatersteven said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Its several secondary sources that include him.. from his own Instagram account.. stating that he is drinking his own urine. I've added three sources, the press gazette (which includes reference to the original urine drinking), a report on an interview with Tim Shieff (Whose own Wikipedia page makes refernce to the urine drinking alongside Rose) and the GF article, which is more about his deleting the videos because of the mayoral race. Berocca Addict (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is still massively undue, as it is not what he is known for, rather it's a small aspect of his life.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The original attempt to include this was massively WP:POV, putting a value on whether the act was a reflection on his judgement. Personally, it's not something I have or would do, but I don't feel it is worse or more significant than, say, his COVID denial. Rankersbo (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The prose added also does not match the sourcing at all. There is no mention of urine therapy, or that the videos were deleted ahead of his running for mayor, so that is fully WP:SYNTH. It's a pretty clear cut BLP violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

And the only half decent source says he only appears to be (not is) drinking his own urine, in a one-line mention. None of it looks like some major issue RS give a damn about.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"London mayoral candidate drinks his own urine: ‘It’s really not bad’" - [4] - whats wrong with this source ?

Politics Relaxed Podcast Incident

On May 3, 2021 Brian Rose recently ended an interview with members of the Politics Relaxed Podcast, a YouTube channel ran by a group of young teenagers.Rockguy 91 (talk) 01:33, 04 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rockguy 91, I'm not sure of the context or significance of this event? Rankersbo (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy

While there is a discussion about categories above, how does this page fall into the "vaccine hesitancy" category?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that's mainly based on this citation. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you show specifically in that reference where it says he is a vaccine denier or vaccine "hesitant?" Hosting a show with a vaccine hesitant guest does not make the host anymore of a vaccine denier than having a guest like Gary Vaynerchuk makes the host a businessperson.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The citation given clearly describes how Rose didn't just host a vaccine hesitant guest, but actively agreed with her. Bondegezou (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an assumption, but not an accurate one. He says, "I'm just a little hesitant to put untested things in my body without knowing. Is this just another thing we need to be wary of going forward?" He doesn't say he is against vaccines, he says he is against a particular vaccine that he believes has not been tested. Do you have a reference specifically saying that he is anti-vax? If not, it is SYNTH to read a statement made by him, translate it into our you POV, then present it to Wikipedia readers. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The article states, "Rose, the show's host, framed the question with an allusion to baseless conspiracy theories about sinister motives behind the companies, investors and public health officials contributing to the worldwide project to fast-track a vaccine." It continues, "Rose leapt from there to Orwellian government-assigned citizenship ratings." And, ""And, you know, I don't like this potential future," Rose continued. "It's 1984. It's Orwell. And it's happening right in front of our eyes, Judge. And I just worry that no one's watching it and seeing it for what it is."" There's no WP:SYNTH here: the article has done the interpretation for us. Bondegezou (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Scamming

The vice article says (headline) "The YouTuber Accused of Using Coronavirus to Scam His Followers" its hard to see hoW "and had been accused of using the Coronavirus to Scam His Followers" does not accuratly reflect that. As this is one of the main sources of his notability then surely we should mention this accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:HEADLINES. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So you are saiyng that the Vice source does not support the claim? Does this "A total of 20 complaints against Rose and his course have been published on Scamguard, a website where consumers can "share their experiences regarding the suspicious or deceitful activities of organisations and individuals". Every commenter reports monetary damages of up to – and, in a few cases, above – $3,000. Eighteen of these complaints are marked as unresolved."? Or "exploiting the worst public health crisis in living memory for clout and financial gain by hiding behind the shibboleth of absolute free speech."? Its clear the source is indeed saying he has "been accused of using the Coronavirus to Scam His Followers", yet for some reason, we can't report this why?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I will say it. I read the article a few times and it basically tries to draw an association to the headline but the context of the reference does not state he is a scammer. Again, this is all WP:SYNTH like much of what is in the Wikipedia page. We do not draw conclusions in Wikipedia. We write what the sources say, keeping in mind things like WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The Vice article has a lot of content that is not used in the article at present. I concur that Slatersteven's initial edit was too simple a phrasing, so can we work out some wording that sticks closer to the text of the article?

What about "Vice accused Rose of "exploiting the worst public health crisis in living memory for clout and financial gain by hiding behind the shibboleth of absolute free speech.""?

And, "Multiple complaints about Rose's course have been made to Scamguard."? Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Promoting COVID-19 information

I will start the discussion for anyone who feels that the sources support that the podcast or YouTube channel has "has promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic." Saying this would be the same as writing that the channel has "promoted entrepreneurship" because he had Gary Vaynerchuk on the show. None of the references say that the channel has promoted it. Again, just because it has a lot of press around some of the guests who have (most notoriously David Ike) promoted it does not mean the show promotes it. As stated, it has had many other guests on the show. Trying to include this information as opposed to anything else is WP:POVPUSHING. Furthermore, this is a BLP. If the podcast is notable, create a page for it. Otherwise, we need to focus about the subject's role in the podcast (Founder and host). Outside of that, it doesn't belong in a biography. Per WP:ONUS, those seeking inclusion of the content will need to gain consensus ("the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"). I see there has been discussion but nothing that would constitute a consensus. If consensus is achieved, we can certainly add it back to the page. Until then, I am going to remove it as I did the other day. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We've had a reasonably stable version of the lead section for some time now, demonstrating WP:CONSENSUS. We have repeatedly discussed the WP:RS here and they supported the text you removed. Thus WP:ONUS has been satisfied. It is rather WP:BRD that applies. Dont just repeat the same edit. Bondegezou (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Having something in a page does NOT establish consensus. The content is being disputed and per WP:ONUS, it can be discussed here. The sources do not support the SYNTH but if you can make a case and gain consensus, then we certainly can add it back. Also, see WP:BRD-NOT. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We should take WP:BLP concerns seriously and tread carefully. However, there's been discussion of the wording used here before there was even an article, as at Talk:2021_London_mayoral_election/Archives/2021/January. It is impolite to start crying WP:ONUS and unilaterally pushing one version of the text as if the community of editors working on a page have never considered any of these issues.

We have discussed before (at 2 AfDs) whether to have an article on Rose or on his podcast. We have decided (to date) to have an article on Rose. It is entirely standard to discuss Rose's podcast on his page. He is its creator and host. It is not some large organisation distinct from him. Bondegezou (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It is also impolite to respond in a manner that isn't WP:CIVIL. Can you show me the specific place where this has been "repeatedly discussed" as I only see a proposal and a single suggestion from another editor on a page that isn't a BLP? As far as two separate pages, I am not discussing if one should or should not be created. I am saying if the podcast is notable, feel free to create a page for it and discuss it in detail. We don't backdoor BLP guidelines to include information about companies. I have already said above that it can be discussed, but we cannot use a BLP to masquerade for the podcast. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is discussion above on these topics involving multiple editors. There is discussion at Talk:2021_London_mayoral_election/Archives/2021/January involving 4 regular editors.

The podcast is not a company. It's something created and hosted by Rose. It is entirely appropriate to discuss his editorial choices with the podcast, what he says in the podcast. Multiple RS do this. Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that Bondegezou has not been civil. Rankersbo (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed and the consensus was reached. Now there is nothing wrong with asking again if you have not asked it before. My take is he is pushing covid misinformation (see the thread above).Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth I am happy to reiterate support for the existing consensus in keeping the description Rankersbo (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the sources, it does seem like most of them discuss the views of his guests and not necessarily his own. That is to say, they don't explicitly refer to Rose as a COVID denier or what have you. Gargleafg (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not yet cited in the article, but the most explicit RS is this recent piece in The Guardian that explicitly describes Rose as a "conspiracy theorist" in the context of an article about disinformation concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Other RS have discussed his role in promoting COVID-19 misinformation while not describing him as a COVID denier, which is why we ended up with the current article wording of "promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic". Is there some wording you prefer? Bondegezou (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I would suggest, as a compromise, the article should say something along the lines of: "his podcast guests have included conspiracy theorists who have made controversial claims about topics including COVID-19". Per Gargleafg, there is an absence of sourcing for the explicit assertion that the subject is a COVID conspiracy theorist, and one can host discussion of such people without actually being one. With respect to WP:ONUS, CNMall41 is correct. Where a WP:BLP article contains contested content, including where the specific interpretation of the source material is contested, that content should be removed from the article until a specific consensus is developed for its inclusion and appropriate wording. Quite frankly, looking at the page views, interest in this subject has cratered since the election, so it hurts nobody to clear it out for now and take some time to clearly establish such a consensus. BD2412 T 00:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken in your review of the sourcing. For example:

• The Guardian referred to "conspiracy theorist and podcaster Brian Rose" in an article on COVID-19 conspiracy theories.
• Politifact described the Plandemic conspiracy theory video and says, "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."
• Salon wrote how "Rose, the show's host, framed the question with an allusion to baseless conspiracy theories"
• El Confidencial said, "Las teorías de Mikovits y otros antivacunas son tratadas asiduamente, sobre todo desde el inicio de la pandemia, en un canal independiente británico llamado “London Real”. Fue fundado en 2011 como un podcast por un ex banquero estadounidense llamado Brian Rose [...] La plataforma [...] está dando especial protagonismo estos días a David Icke".
• Vice reports, "On his London Real channel, Brian Rose has interviewed guests ranging from social media marketing motormouth Gary Vaynerchuk to "Iceman" Wim Hof [...] Post-pandemic, however, the channel has homed-in on coronavirus misinformation to sate the appetite of a growing following of conspiracy enthusiasts." The article concludes, "The reality is that London Real has not only provided access to misinformation, but actively promoted it, exploiting the worst public health crisis in living memory for clout and financial gain by hiding behind the shibboleth of absolute free speech."
• The Press Gazette wrote, "London Real produces an eclectic range content – from interviews with politicians like former London mayor Ken Livingstone to videos of Rose apparently drinking his own urine – but one of its specialities is conspiracy theory." It went on: "In recent weeks, Facebook and Youtube – under pressure from public health authorities, politicians and publications like Press Gazette that have flagged up various pieces of Covid-19 content – have cracked down on Icke, London Real and some other conspiracy theory outlets." So it is referring to London Real as a "conspiracy theory outlet".
• The Telegraph said, "But since March its content has been dominated by coronavirus-related material, including interviews with Judy Mikovits and Rashid Buttar [...] But London Real's star turn has been the veteran conspiracist David Icke."

Thus, I feel the article has to be clear that Rose and his channel are not just naively hosting discussions, but are actively promoting misinformation, with The Guardian explicitly calling him a "conspiracy theorist" and the Press Gazette calling London Real a "conspiracy theory outlet". Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, I think we can both agree that this guy is an anti-vax, conspiracy theory pushing piece of work. I don't like him any more than you do. I also conclude the same as you about everything you are trying to say, but I make my own conclusion by compiling the information from the sources. The sources don't expressly state that which is required for a BLP. That is the very definition of SYNTH. I would love to include everything you have discussed, but absence references explicitly stating such, we cannot include the wording the way you have it. Of course, we can discuss here and hopefully reach a consensus, but as stated below, ONUS applies and it can't be there until such consensus is reached. BLPs have very strict guidelines in that regards. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

An additional source I don't believe we've considered before is this, which refers to Rose, saying "The former banker utilized the pandemic to grow his YouTube channel London Real, which regularly promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories." And goes on: "In 2020, Rose crowdfunded nearly £1 million for a “Digital Freedom Platform,” a video-hosting space exclusively for conspiracy theory videos, such as the viral “Plandemic” film, which was banned by Facebook and YouTube." Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User BD2412 is correct that WP:ONUS absolutely applies here. There has been not consensus about the inclusion of the information ON THIS PAGE and it is being contested. You cannot say that consensus was reached on another page (a Non-BLP page) when in fact it was only a few editors who agreed with specific wording for that page and not here. BLPs have different standards where ONUS applies.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"his podcast guests have included conspiracy theorists who have made controversial claims about topics including COVID-19" - That is more along the line of what it says now. Everything else is SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very important and we must follow it. We do need to be careful with WP:SYNTH. But I remain of the view that you are making a mistake and have gone overboard with your concerns here.

However, to find a way forward, below I've tried to craft text that uses direct quotes from the sources given. I've indicated these with quote marks. Thus:

Rose is described by The Guardian as a "conspiracy theorist". Since the COVID-19 pandemic, his London Real channel has "homed-in on coronavirus misinformation to sate the appetite of a growing following of conspiracy enthusiasts." A "conspiracy theory outlet", it has "actively promoted" misinformation and "driven" engagement with the "Plandemic conspiracy theory video". "In 2020, Rose crowdfunded" a new "video-hosting space exclusively for conspiracy theory videos". He has alluded to "conspiracy theories" when interviewing guests.

How is that? Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Concerns over sufficiency of past consensus

CNMall41 has raised various concerns above about WP:BLP/WP:SYNTH. Moreover, they argue that sufficient consensus has not previously been established, therefore WP:ONUS applies, justifying their substantial removal of material in recent edits while discussion is still ongoing here. I am happy to discuss whether we have the text right, but do not feel, as I've said above, that WP:ONUS can really justify such an edit given past discussion here (and elsewhere) demonstrates support for the text as was.

We're going round in circles a bit here, so input from others would be useful. I've suggested before that past discussion at Talk:2021 London mayoral election is relevant here. CNMall41 says not. So I hereby invite the people who took part in those discussions to input here: @Ralbegen, Doktorbuk, Bwian Wose, and Anachronist:. I will also invite input at the UK politics WikiProject. Happy to see the invite extended to any other WikiProjects people feel are relevant. All views welcome. Hopefully, many hands can make light work of determining how best to write this article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Have we had an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No. We could go for one. I like to think we can reach agreement without having to! Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bodegezou and Anachronist on this one. An RfC would be the logical next step but I am sure that we can reach a consensus (at least with most of it). If there are finer points we cannot then RfC would be good. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My only involvement in Talk:2021 London mayoral election was to respond to an edit request and to semi-protect that article. In the edit request, we agreed on a sentence that explicitly refrained from saying he's a conspiracy theorist, instead saying that he hosts a show in which he actively promotes conspiracy theorists. Other than that, I have had no involvement and have not followed the evolution of this article. All I'll say is to be mindful of WP:LABEL: Just because a few reliable sources can be found that label him a certain way, does not automatically give Wikipedia a free pass to do the same. The labeling should predominate in reliable sources, not just be present in a handful of them. Otherwise, we should attribute the labels to the sources without applying the label in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder of WP:LABEL. Discussion of conspiracy theories and COVID-19 misinformation predominates in reliable sources about Rose. However, clearly we need to be careful what precisely they are saying about Rose. Since the creation of this article, we have usually steered clear of describing Rose as a conspiracy theorist. I think that remains the right decision. However, we have a recent Guardian article that does describe Rose as a "conspiracy theorist", more explicit language than previous sources (although previous sources come close). I suggest we add something like, "Described by The Guardian as a conspiracy theorist," so we are making use of the new article, but not in Wikipedia's voice.

As for text describing Rose's role in promoting COVID-19 misinformation, I think we had the balance right previously, before CNMall41's recent chop. Bondegezou (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with everything the text I removed. The only problem is that BLP doesnt allow it stated in that manner. I agree that we are all over the board and have numerous back and forth in multiple subheadings. How about we start a new thread JUST for discussion of points for inclusion? I am happy to see that we are on the same page (I think) personally about Rose, just need to get there Wiki-wise. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion on WP:LABEL. I'd like to think that we are on the same page with Rose and his podcast (POV-pushing, anti-vax, conspiracy theorist, etc.) and I would love to state such in the page. However, Wikivoice is not for that. We state what it says in reliable sources, keeping in mind things like WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH amongst others. I think we can find a way to include the information in a way that doesn't draw "our" conclusions and let's readers draw "theirs" without having to lead them down that road with SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It would help perhaps if you engaged directly with the quotations from reliable sources I supplied above. There are multiple sources, satisfying WP:UNDUE, that are clear in what they state, so WP:SYNTH not a problem. As above, here's an example of how we could craft some text using direct quotes from reliable sources to make clear that there is no WP:SYNTH going on. I'm not suggesting this exact wording, but offering this as a base to work on that addresses your concerns:

Rose is described by The Guardian as a "conspiracy theorist". Since the COVID-19 pandemic, his London Real channel has "homed-in on coronavirus misinformation to sate the appetite of a growing following of conspiracy enthusiasts." A "conspiracy theory outlet", it has "actively promoted" misinformation and "driven" "engagement" with the "Plandemic conspiracy theory video". "In 2020, Rose crowdfunded" a new "video-hosting space exclusively for conspiracy theory videos". He has alluded to "conspiracy theories" when interviewing guests. Bondegezou (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Thanks for pinging other editors. The more voices the better. If we start to get stuck on consensus, I think pinging the WP:BLPN would be a good idea as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

7 choices

I think we agree that the discussion above is getting confusing. So I've tried to split out here 7 points of disagreement over the text for people to discuss and have an informal vote. Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Great job with this. I will response in kind. Some may require a little extra time for research but not much. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy category

The article is currently in the category Vaccine hesitancy. This is mainly on the basis of this article in Salon. Myself and CNMall41 have discussed this on Talk, but I'm not certain we reached a conclusion. Should we keep the category or remove the category? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up above because it was puzzling but would value everyone's opinion obviously. There are only a few people in this category and they are all openly anti-vaxers and called so in reliable sources. I believe it is true that he is, but WP:VNT. I just don't see any sources explicitly saying that it is. They obviously lump him in with the topic, but nothing specific stating he is so. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have little objection to the category being removed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Y Two of us agree; no-one else has said anything. Am removing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Scams

Based on an article in Vice, do we go with CNMall41's version, as currently in the text:

Vice reported that Rose's "Business Accelerator" programmes have been criticised by past customers. In 2020, the only active company registered in Rose's name was Longstem Limited. Longstem, at the end of 2018, reported debts of over £374,000.

Or this longer version (which was me editing Slatersteven's suggestion):

Vice reported that Rose's "Business Accelerator" programmes have been criticised by past customers. Multiple complaints about it have been made to Scamguard. Vice accused Rose of "exploiting the worst public health crisis in living memory for clout and financial gain by hiding behind the shibboleth of absolute free speech." In 2020, the only active company registered in Rose's name was Longstem Limited. Longstem, at the end of 2018, reported debts of over £374,000.

Longer or shorter? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Longer, we go with what RS say and what they consider him notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We also go by WP:WEIGHT. As far as what he is notable for, is he ntoable for his business accelerator program? I believe he is most notable for being the host of a show. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says nothing about only covering what an individual is notable for. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that we only talk about what an individual is notable for.

What is Rose notable for, anyway? Looking back at the first AfD, he is notable under WP:GNG, multiple articles about him. The Vice article was one of those discussed in the AfD. Therefore, he is notable as much for what is talked about in the Vice article as anything else. Bondegezou (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed the first AfD. No-one is arguing there that Rose is notable as a Youtuber. He is clearly not most notable for being the host of a show. That's a serious misunderstanding. Two arguments are put: WP:GNG and his mayoral candidacy. At the time, as Slatersteven notes, the bulk of the RS coverage (and particularly in-depth coverage) about Rose is negative: it's about COVID-19 misinformation and grafting. The most in-depth article discussed is the Vice article.

While some arguments are made about his mayoral candidacy demonstrating notability, they clearly fail WP:NPOL. What persuaded me to vote "keep" was the number and quality of articles like Vice's, Salon's and the Press Gazette's. We have had more coverage since about his failed mayoral candidacy, but then we've also had additional articles about COVID-19 misinformation. So, why is Rose notable? Chiefly, it's because he's been making money off the back of conspiracy theories. Secondarily, it's because he stood for mayor. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Notable is notable. We don't just cover what he is notable for. Yes, there are many references that talk about different things regarding his life but you seem to be honing in on the podcast. I would consider this similar to Joe Rogan. While he shares some controversial views with his guests, we don't use his Wikipedia page to make it seem like he supports their views as he doesn't actively promote them (like a Steve Bannon or Alex Jones do). When I talk about WP:WEIGHT, I am saying that there is too much focus on the podcast and not enough on other aspects. If the podcast is notable, create a page for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Above, you said, to argue that we shouldn't cover the business programme, As far as what he is notable for, is he ntoable for his business accelerator program? I believe he is most notable for being the host of a show. Now, you're saying, We don't just cover what he is notable for. Yes, there are many references that talk about different things regarding his life but you seem to be honing in on the podcast. So, forgive me, I'm a bit at a loss what you are arguing for or against.

This article, unlike Joe Rogan, is pretty short. There's no need for a WP:FORK. About half the reliable sources about Rose are about how he promotes COVID misinformation. Ergo, by WP:WEIGHT, about half this article should be about that. WP:WEIGHT means following those reliable sources. I have listed those sources and quoted from them at length. If you have lots of reliable sources talking about other things, feel free to share them. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking closer at the reference (Vice), it says, "A total of 20 complaints against Rose and his course." In one part it attributes the programs to being his, and in another attributes them to being London Real's programs. We cannot use SYNTH to say they are one and the same. The only other source I can find that talks about this is BuzzFeed (I am unsure of the reliability) which attributes these programs to London Real. Since there are a lack of other sources (there are many but none that would be considered reliable) talking about the programs at all, I believe that WP:WIKIVOICE would come into play, particularly "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." I think most of the information that was in this page is relying heavily on the Vice reference despite there being lack of support for the same in other reliable sources. I would actually recommend removing it altogether. The Vice article is a clear hit piece and BIAS should be considered. However, out of both the options above, I would go for the former, but include a statement based off "London Real's business academy charges $3,000 (£2,448) for its courses, up to a reported $10,000 (£8,162) for "inner circle" access" which is in the Vice article. Without some context, people won't really have background on what it is. Finally, saying the program is a "scam" as the heading indicates is subjective and shouldn't be done. There is no reliable source explicitly calling it a scam --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The Vice article clearly links "Rose and his course", so there are no WP:SYNTH concerns.

The longer wording under discussion clearly puts these claims as being made by Vice, so WP:WIKIVOICE is satisfied. I don't see any reliable sources making "conflicting assertions about" this matter. I don't see an RS saying his "Business Accelerator" programmes are all hunky dory. But, yes, there is only the one source on this particular topic.

I used "Scams" as a subheading here for the Talk discussion: I was not meaning to suggest that we would use such a subheading on the article itself. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and that makes sense. It is still subjective and points in the direction you'd like the discussion to go. If 2 million subscribers is irrelevant, then how is a single reference about his business accelerator relevant?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think 2 million should be in the lead. I don't think this should be in the lead. I do think 2 million should be in the article. I do think this should be in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

N Two of us support the longer version, one supports the shorter version. We should perhaps err on the side of caution with all WP:BLP, so I'll leave the text at the shorter version. Bondegezou (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

We have to date largely avoided directly calling Rose a conspiracy theorist. However, Biblib found this recent Guardian article that is not currently cited in the article. Based on that, I suggest we should add: "The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist." Yes or no? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's attributed, again notability means we go with how the RS that establishes his notability consider him notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I concur with Bondegezou's suggested text, and support updating the article accordingly. Biblib (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Y Three of us agree; no-one else has said anything. Will add. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

In the lead section, we long had:

he founded London Real in 2011, a podcast and YouTube channel with two million subscribers, on which he has promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

CNMall41 has changed this to:

He is the host of London Real, a podcast and YouTube channel he founded in 2011.

Do we go with the longer or shorter version? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Shorter, not sure 2 million is in fact a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. The 2 million number is trivial information unless that number can be shown to be significant (first platform to reach such, etc.). The lede should be a brief summary of the body so saying he is the host and when it is founded is good enough in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to omit "with two million subscribers". However, I think we should include "on which he has promoted misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic". WP:LEAD states It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. A large chunk of the RS coverage of Rose is about his role in promoting misinformation relation to COVID-19, so it should be in the lead section. The current lead section is very short (WP:LEAD talks about up to 4 paragraphs; we currently have 3 sentences). Bondegezou (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So you are okay with adding something negative while omitting a positive. Both are about the podcast so I am not sure why one and not the other. Frankly, this doesn't belong in the body let alone in the lede. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am OK with following WP:WEIGHT. We have lots of reliable sources that focus on the podcast's role in spreading COVID misinformation, so that's what we should say in the article and in the lead. Reliable sources aren't fussed by the 2 million number, so we shouldn't put that in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Y/N We're agreed on leaving out "with two million subscribers". It's 2 v. 1 for the shorter version more generally, so I'll leave the text in that form. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Digital Freedom Platform

I previously added this:

In 2020, Rose crowdfunded what he called a Digital Freedom Platform as a space to exclusively host conspiracy theory videos, such as the film Plandemic.

CNMall41 has removed. Should we have or not? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I just examined the source in question -- First Draft, a journalism integrity organization -- and am satisfied that it appears to be reliable. Specifically, it professes editorial independence, explicitly states its funding sources, has relationships with leading academic institutions, and appears willing to update articles post-publication when new information becomes available. Moreover, the article in question explicitly states the methodology it used to arrive at statistical conclusions. None of these attributes alone guarantees reliability, but all of them together give at least some sense of confidence. And in the absence of any indications that this source should be doubted, I feel it's appropriate to cite here on Wikipedia. Therefore, I support reinstating the text above that was removed, per Bondegezou's inquiry. I would, however, urge that the source be fully documented (beyond just specifying the URL). I think the following should work:

<ref name="John & Morrish, First Draft 2021.05.10">{{cite news |last1=John |first1=Bethan |last2=Morrish |first2=Lydia |title=How fringe candidates use misinformation to gain outsized online influence |url=https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/how-fringe-candidates-use-misinformation-to-gain-outsized-online-influence/ |access-date=9 June 2021 |publisher=First Draft |date=10 May 2021}}</ref>

Biblib (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

N It's 2 v. 2 here, so I'll leave this out. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Veganism

CNMall41 restored a chunk of text I had previously removed:

In 2018, he competed in an Ironman competition while living on a plant-based diet and has hosted vegans on his YouTube channel.

This seems like a puff piece and I question whether Living Vegan is reliable. Should we have or not? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's puffery, remove.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it puffery, but it is clearly trivial information and should be removed. I apologize as I am not sure why I returned it to the page. It was likely part of a bulk revert. Either way, it shouldn't be there. I am also unsure of the reliability of Living Vegan (never heard of it). If is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, then the only real thing to include from the reference would be a quick blurb about John Joseph being a guest on the podcast. Since it seems like others are hammering on his conspiracy theory guests, it would only be proper to list some of his non-conspiracy theory guests. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Y All three of us agree: paragraph removed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Main text on conspiracy theories

This is the main area of disagreement. I think both CNMall41 and myself would be happy with some new wording and there's some discussion above on that. But I offer the past alternatives. For a long time we had:

Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories. The podcast is known for spreading these conspiracy theories and promoting misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose has also sought to cast doubt on COVID-19 vaccines. He has described the UK government's COVID-19 response as "disproportionate".

Rose has conducted five interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke. In one interview, published in April 2020, Icke falsely claimed that there was a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks, without being challenged by Rose. This video was among those from London Real which were removed by YouTube, who tightened their rules to prevent the platform being used to spread conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The April 2020 interview was later also deleted from Facebook; Spotify also removed the interview. Rose has said about the interview: "I'm proud we broadcast it. We fought against censorship last year because I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open." But he added, "By no means do I agree with everything he says."

CNMall41 chopped this down to:

Rose has also conducted interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke, one of which where Icke claimed a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks. The video was later removed from YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify.Rose has said about the interview: "I'm proud we broadcast it. We fought against censorship last year because I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open." But he added, "By no means do I agree with everything he says." Rose has also described the UK government's COVID-19 response as "disproportionate".

Suggestions for new wording welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I did a bullet point list of key quotations from WP:RS about halfway done Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#Promoting_COVID-19_information above for further reference. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the former, again we go back to say what he is notable for such as "homed-in on coronavirus misinformation to sate the appetite of a growing following of conspiracy enthusiasts." "and has a history of airing falsehoods about COVID-19.". But maybe change "and promoting misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic" to ""and spreading misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic".Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an argument in a section above that we report everything that is in a reliable source, despite what he is notable for. Your argument seems to be we only include things that you feel he is notable for ("again we go back to say what he is notable for"). The wording I used is more than neutral as it doesn't pile on SYNTH in an attempt to make the reader agree with our personal points of view. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing to only include material he is notable for. That was your an argument you made above. Feel free to suggest additions if there's something about Rose we're not covering. The question here is over cuts you made.

You have raised concerns about WP:SYNTH before. I have sought above to provide verbatim quotes from reliable sources to demonstrate there are no SYNTH problems. My apologies if I've missed something, but I've not seen you respond to those. Alternatively, perhaps you could be more specific about what and why you think certain text constitutes SYNTH? Bondegezou (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not detect any SYNTH problems in the text under discussion. Furthermore, the verbatim quotes from RS are consistent with solid encyclopedic article writing. Biblib (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Y That's three in favour and one against, so I will go ahead and revert to the older text. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Late June discussion

WP:DEM, consensus is not a vote count. This has been raised numerous times. Please show me a reference that says "Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories." For the record, I don't see a huge issue with adding back "The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist" as that is a factual statement supported by the source. The rest will still need consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It is also disheartening to see how editors have tried to paint a picture of him being a COVID denier because of a guest on his show, despite The Times reference clearly stating he disagrees that COVID is not a scam. We need to edit from a WP:NPOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

CNMall41, you edited the article and brought up concerns, we left the article in your preferred form while we discussed the issues, we've had plenty of time for you to respond or others to chip in. This isn't a vote where one side edged out the other: rather, nobody agreed with your interpretation. WP:CONSENSUS is a process of discussion -- we've had that discussion. WP:CONSENSUS explicitly does not require unanimity. You don't WP:OWN this article. You can't perpetually insist on your version.

I am not insisting on my own version. I am challenging your additions for the numerous reasons already stated in this section and previous sections. As far as ownership, I am not a fan of the lack of civility on Wikipedia. So, before making unsupported accusations, make sure you are correct in your assumption. Feel free to take this up at the appropriate noticeboard if you feel that ONUS is ownership.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant references have been given, and your engagement with them has been requested. To give these two quotes for the fifth time, Vice said, "Post-pandemic, however, the channel has homed-in on coronavirus misinformation to sate the appetite of a growing following of conspiracy enthusiasts." And The Telegraph said, "But since March its content has been dominated by coronavirus-related material, including interviews with Judy Mikovits and Rashid Buttar [...] But London Real's star turn has been the veteran conspiracist David Icke." They clearly justify, "Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories."

I am restoring the edits. Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the lengthy discussions until now to agree text, CNMall41, I suggest you seek consensus here first before repeating any major changes you wish to make. Bondegezou (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"Lengthy discussion" is not consensus. I have provided my objection many times. Not only here but in response to the numerous WP:TEXTWALLs in previous sections. Again, this isn't a vote count. You have failed to gain consensus for your inclusion, despite canvassing. Until consensus is reached, ONUS is still on you. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does not give you, a solitary editor, a veto over everyone else. No-one else supported your position on these points. We went through all your concerns in detail. On other points, you have got your way. In this subsection, four of us have expressed opinions. Three of us agree on the text, you alone oppose.

To quote from WP:CONSENSUS, A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal. All proper concerns raised have been taken into account. For example, you recently said, Please show me a reference that says "Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories." I provided two RS quotes supporting that. We have not been able to achieve the ideal of an absence of objections, so we settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. Your concerns on other points have been accepted and the article has been adapted.

I have sought to bring other editors' input into the discussion through appropriate processes. I reject your accusation of WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I will make this as simple as I can as I have stated many objections and am not the only editor to disagree with what you want added. Everything you are proposing is WP:Cherrypicking and fact picking. Like I stated on your talk page, feel free to create a page for the podcast but it is a BLP violation to make this page a WP:COATRACK for the podcast simply because you don't agree with what some of his guests are about. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

BD2412 suggests a breather

Comment: I still have this page on my watchlist from the AfD close, and it is becoming irksome to see the back-and-forth played out in the article. As I noted in my previous comment, interest in this subject has ebbed to a fraction of its peak. There is WP:NO DEADLINE, so it is no great harm to leave out disputed content while the dispute is worked through towards a clear consensus. With more heat than light being shed by the discussion, I do not see such a consensus having been arrived at here on many of the issues that appear to be under contention, and this remains a BLP article, for which more stringent care must be taken to achieve consensus with respect to contentious claims. I'm sure it will all be resolved before the subject's next mayoral bid, or whatever they do next for attention. I would go so far as to suggest that everybody involved take a breather from this topic for a few weeks and return with a fresh perspective. BD2412 T 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, we have had lengthy discussion. All bar CNMall41 agreed on text. I waited 15 days after the initial discussion and 8 days after the last comment before reverting to the older version of the text that everyone else agreed on. I don't think anyone else is going to weigh in. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS do not give a single editor the right to veto for eternity. I have struggled to get CNMall41 to engage with what the reliable sources actually say; I just get WP:WL back. CNMall41 reverts to their version again and again, accuses me of WP:CANVASS and threatens me with WP:ANI on my Talk page. Forgive me, but I do not see what another breather will achieve at this point. As per WP:NODEADLINE, View three: Don't postpone dispute resolution.

The only new idea I have is to reach out to some new WikiProject that hasn't been previously made aware of this discussion to get a fifth opinion. Given the contentious issues are around COVID-19 conspiracy theories, that would be Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism, but having been accused of WP:CANVASS, I am trepidatious. Your input is welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering why you want to reach out to noticeboards other than WP:BLPN which is where it should have been in the first place. So, maybe saying canvassing was a little too strong but this is cherry picking. A formal RfC can be included on numerous noticeboards, not just the few mentioned by you above. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

To progress discussion to a conclusion, it is useful to have more editors inputting. A common way to achieve that is to reach out to WikiProjects. The WikiProject I reached out to was Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom because Rose had just stood in a UK election and initial discussion of Rose and how to talk about him had been on 2021 London mayoral election. As per WP:DR, Discussions can be advertised to noticeboards and WikiProjects to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors. As per WP:CANVASS, An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

Reaching out to a relevant WikiProject is not cherry picking and is not WP:CANVASSing. I suggest you withdraw your accusation and strikethrough your earlier comment. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not here to argue with you or get personal. I am here to ensure that Wikipedia appplies our policies correctly, especially when it comes to BLP. I appreciate your suggestion but will decline to do so. If you feel that my statements were out of line, I will gladly stand before ANI to have that judged. As far as the content removal, I have asked you twice now for your reasoning and you have not provided one. If you can do so that would help move this along. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

NOt sure there was a formal RFC, maybe we need one.Slatersteven (talk)

You're right, there wasn't. Happy to go down that route. My concern would be it would be exactly the same people saying exactly the same things, but if that's what it takes, sure. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And? at least we will get to see who supports this cleatlry.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into the weeds here, but I can tell you as an admin who has closed some thorny discussions that it is most helpful to those who review and close such discussions when editors with competing understandings of the relevant policies use the talk page to hash out specific proposed text for inclusion in the article, and to work out a clearly stated consensus for specific wording. A well-worded RfC would be useful for that. BD2412 T 17:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that RfC would be the next route. I agree with BD2412 that it should be well-worded. Otherwise, we will get the same back and forth as we have above. I would be more than happy to assist with the wording if you like. Let me know. In the meantime, what is your formal objection to the wording you removed here? You haven't stated one despite the request in my edit comment. Stating "stable version" is not a reason for an objection. If you do object to the content, let me know why. I will leave it as-is for now and give you time to respond before reinstating it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts on an RfC are to offer the two versions of text, as we have discussed above. The longer version (that was in the article for some months) or your shorter version. I don't see that it needs to be any more complicated than that. You, me, others can then explain our reasons for either version in the subsequent discussion. I will mock up something. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't think we really got too in-depth about this but what about creating a page for the podcast? I think it would be easier to include some of the information we are arguing over here due to BLP. Let me know your thoughts as I would be happy to start the page in draft form for everyone to work on. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Pointless WP:CFORK. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Drafting RfC

Above discussion favours moving to an RfC, but suggests we work on the text for that first. I suggest wording an RfC something like...

There has been prior discussion above about how to describe Brian Rose's podcasting work during the COVID-19 pandemic: see Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#Main_text_on_conspiracy_theories in particular. The article currently has version A, but has previously had text close to version B. With due respect to WP:BLP, which version do you prefer? Or you may suggest something else.

Caption text

Version A

Version B

Rose has also conducted interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke, one of which where Icke claimed a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks. The video was later removed from YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify. Rose has said about the interview: "I'm proud we broadcast it. We fought against censorship last year because I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open." But he added, "By no means do I agree with everything he says." Rose has also described the UK government's COVID-19 response as "disproportionate". The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist.

Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories. The podcast is known for spreading these conspiracy theories and promoting misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose has also sought to cast doubt on COVID-19 vaccines. He has described the UK government's COVID-19 response as "disproportionate". The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist. Rose has conducted five interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke. In one interview, published in April 2020, Icke falsely claimed that there was a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks, without being challenged by Rose. This video was among those from London Real which were removed by YouTube, who tightened their rules to prevent the platform being used to spread conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The April 2020 interview was later also deleted from Facebook; Spotify also removed the interview. Rose has said about the interview: "I'm proud we broadcast it. We fought against censorship last year because I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open." But he added, "By no means do I agree with everything he says."

Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Only suggestion would be to change "which wording would you prefer" to "which version meets BLP guidelines." But just a suggestion as you can word how you choose. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am possibly overthinking this, but... yes, the article text should meet, of course, WP:BLP, but it should also meet all other policies & guidelines, WP:5P, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:V, WP:MOS &c. That's why I went for a phrasing that seeks to remind editors of BLP, but doesn't define the problem only in terms of BLP. An editor might feel both versions meet BLP (I certainly feel that), so then it is a question for that person of which is better in terms of other considerations. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Your explanation makes perfect sense and after re-reading it I don't see any issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, can you please take a look at your last revision where you reverted my additions. If there is a policy based reason for you objection please let me know. If not, please restore the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I haven't forgotten any of this! Just been very busy. I will try to pick this back up this month. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, thanks. Can you also respond to my question about your content removal? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Still no response from you and yet you continue to edit war. See WP:ONUS.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies that I was distracted from this proposal. I will get to in within the next few days, I hope. You made a bold change recently, I reverted it: that is not edit warring. It is unhelpful to throw around such accusations casually. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't consder the change bold. It was made a while ago (regarding his political opponents). You reverted it about 6 months ago and you were ask to provide your objection reasoning (at least three times above) and did not response despite leaving comments about other content and this RfC. As far as unhelpful, I'll just say WP:POT as I have been extremely patient and waited for your response which have not yet come (still have not come) despite having plenty of time to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as an outside observer, I do think that "With due respect to WP:BLP, which version do you prefer?" is reasonable wording on Bondegezou's part. However, I also agree with CNMall41 that the onus is on the proposer to demonstrate a fairly clear consensus to add content and contextualization to which a BLP objection can be raised. I am no stranger to that issue in this area. I wrote the article on Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19, which had its own instant firestorm of controversy over the question of whether an article on this concept should exist at all, and whether names should be named/listed. The current approach being taken on the page is not to name any of the subjects at all, unless coverage basically makes it impossible to avoid (so, of a dozen people who could potentially be named, I believe we actually name one or two). It is, of course, a very, very touchy thing to characterize someone as a conspiracy theorist, particularly where the subject is an interviewer who might entertain guests with unconventional views without explicitly sharing those views. BD2412 T 03:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have started an RfC below. I realise there were some additional points of disagreement. I have chosen to focus on the main points of contention; I in no way wish to stop anyone else from starting any additional RfC or disagreement resolution process as they see fit. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

American-Born or American?

Hi, an anonymous contributor (82.5.6.36) has tried to change the term American-Born for American, citing "accuracy" but does not state why they feel this is more accurate. The article establishes that Rose has British citizenship, but born in the USA, American-born seems to reflect this. I am unclear as to why the editor feels it doesn't.

Is it:

1. They question Rose's claim of taking up British citizenship. 2. They disagree that people change nationality by adopting the citzenship of another country.

If 1 we need to find more reliable evidence on whether Rose has British citizenship. If 2, this is a WP:POV edit and not supported by the sources.

Rankersbo (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It does appear this has been discussed above and "American Born" was either the consensus or compromise position Rankersbo (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. "American-born" is accurate. He has British citizenship now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So should be say "British" since its referring to citizenship? I don't really have an opinion either way but just a thought. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on text around conspiracy theories

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This long RfC concerns Brian Rose, a naturalised British podcaster and YouTuber who has expressed some unorthodox views about the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Rose's own COVID-19 views have been thoroughly debunked in the literature, they are relatively moderate by denier standards. But as part of a series of broadcasts on the matter, Rose has interviewed blithering confabulationist David Icke, whose views on this and almost every other subject are not moderate at all. At issue is how to phrase a paragraph in Rose's article about this.

Editors in this RfC divide into two camps, neither of which gives any credence to David Icke. The "Version A" camp prefers a shorter, high-level summary that still gives all the reasons for dismissing what David Icke thinks, and the "Version B" camp prefers a longer, more in-depth paragraph that gives all the detail. Both versions are well-sourced, and there is no consensus. Both sides cite various Wikipedia rules, and I can find no clear rule basis on which to choose between them.

Therefore my reading of the discussion below is that there is consensus for neither version. The platonic ideal of a paragraph that could gain consensus would be a super-concentrated version, containing most of the information and sources from version B, distilled down to as close as possible to the word count from version A.

I hope this helps. Any complaints, criticism or comments about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There has been prior discussion above about how to describe Brian Rose's podcasting work during the COVID-19 pandemic: see Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#Main_text_on_conspiracy_theories in particular. The article currently has version A, but has previously had text close to version B.

Caption text

Version A

Version B

Rose has also conducted interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke, one of which where Icke claimed a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks. The video was later removed from YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify. Rose has said about the interview: "I'm proud we broadcast it. We fought against censorship last year because I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open." But he added, "By no means do I agree with everything he says." Rose has also described the UK government's COVID-19 response as "disproportionate". The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist.

Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories. The podcast is known for spreading these conspiracy theories and promoting misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose has also sought to cast doubt on COVID-19 vaccines. He has described the UK government's COVID-19 response as "disproportionate". The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist. Rose has conducted five interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke. In one interview, published in April 2020, Icke falsely claimed that there was a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks, without being challenged by Rose. This video was among those from London Real which were removed by YouTube, who tightened their rules to prevent the platform being used to spread conspiracy theories about COVID-19. The April 2020 interview was later also deleted from Facebook; Spotify also removed the interview. Rose has said about the interview: "I'm proud we broadcast it. We fought against censorship last year because I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open." But he added, "By no means do I agree with everything he says."

With due respect to WP:BLP, which version do you prefer? Or you may suggest something else. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• B The longer version has robust citations and is more specific than the shorter version. The main secondary RS reporting about Rose, prior to his election candidacy (which brought various interviews and routine election coverage), was about his entanglement with conspiracy theories (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Rose (podcaster) for details). While we should step carefully with all BLPs, we should also follow what RS say. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• A As the person who rewrote this, I would aboslutely go with A based on the same reasoning for why I did the rewrite. I think it sums things up with the statement "While we should step carefully with all BLPs, we should also follow what RS say." In actuality, that needs to be flipped around - "While we should follow what RS say, we should step carefully with all BLPs." This page has a history of introducing what people want to say and putting it together in WP:SYNTH. Even the Vice piece, which is the most reliable of the sources here, does not specifically call him a COVID conspiracy theorist, nor does the Salon article say that he "has also sought to cast doubt on COVID-19 vaccines." While he has hosted not so favorable characters, he has also hosted many others (even Vice points out his interview with Gary Vee and others). We as an encyclopedia cannot use SYNTH to paint someone as a conspiracy theorist because we don't like their guests. Otherwise pages such as Joe Rogan would become hit pieces such as this one was.

I have previously cited WP:ONUS several times in the past. - "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article" - Nothing presented in "B" improves the article, but instead is full of WP:Cherrypicking and a WP:COATRACK about the subject's podcast. All other comments for support A have previously been given in the many discussions above and in edit comments on the actual page. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• A Interesting discussion, and thank you for laying it out so clearly. The version A is what I hope and expect to see in an encyclopedia. Version B has more of a tabloid feel to it. Take for example the phrase, "without being challenged by Rose". Who determined that's what happened on the podcast? The cited source says nothing of whether Rose challenged or did not challenge Ickes on that interview, so what the heck is that sentence doing in a Wikipedia biography? Wikipedia editors aren't tasked with the job of listening to podcasts and analyzing whether the host makes a rebuttal of his or her guest. We summarize what the sources say, in a proportional and respectful way. Anyway, that's just a specific example, but my overall impression is that version A does a much better job of being an appropriate summary of human knowledge, not an off-mission list of human information. - I am dis big (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  The phrase "without being challenged by Rose" causes a real issue as far as WP:NPOV. It creates an ad hominem argument (guilt by association) by inferring "since he didn't challenge the statements, he must agree with the statements." This is a very bad idea for Wikipedia to include such a thing. Show hosts rarely challenge their guests. They have them on to make their opinion and then let the viewers decide. It also creates a false Dilemma (if he didn't say he's against it, he must be for it). That is directly contradicted with statements given by Rose stating in fact "I want people to have these discussions and I want to have them out in the open... By no means do I agree with everything he says." Finally, "B" is a form of "leading the witness," a drawn conclusion fallacy. It is basically SYNTH put together in a way that leads readers to only once conclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  CNMall41's view that Show hosts rarely challenge their guests. They have them on to make their opinion and then let the viewers decide. is odd and contrary to UK broadcasting requirements. Wikipedia follows what sources say, not the views of individual editors. Here's Ofcom, the UK regulator on such matters, on the video in question: "we considered that for the vast majority of this lengthy interview [...] David Icke was allowed to set out his conspiracy theories about the current pandemic. In light of the extended nature of the interview and its sensitive subject matter, we considered that the challenge and context required to ensure that this programme adequately protected viewers from harm would have been significant. However, David Icke was allowed to set out his highly controversial and unsubstantiated views on the Coronavirus and the public policy response to it in significant detail with very little challenge or context. We also considered that the impact of the limited challenge that was present in the programme was minimised by Brian Rose’s final comments to David Icke. In particular, after shaking hands Brian Rose said that David Icke had “amazing knowledge and amazing perspectives about what’s going on here”." Sources given draw on Ofcom's conclusions, but I acknowledge I am dis big's concern and we can make the sourcing clearer. We can add a citation to the Ofcom report as well, at the end of that sentence? Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  So your view is that we bring in another reference to create even more SYNTH? I don't even known what to say at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your reaction. I am saying that RS note that Rose didn't sufficiently challenge Icke, so that's what we should say. No SYNTH involved. We can quote directly from the Ofcom report if you want to be extra careful that we're representing the source correctly. Bondegezou (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I was actually more puzzle by your initial response. "...bring in another reference to create even more SYNTH" does not say the reference is SYNTH. Quite the opposite. The reference says what you want to include. However, bringing in yet another reference to try to lead readers to a conclusion is SYNTH. Not sure how else to explain it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My problem with version A, I am dis big, is that it doesn't explain why the video was banned very well. Instead, it gives more space to Rose's complaint of censorship. Version A describes one video being banned, when actually multiple videos were banned (as version B states). RS describe multiple Rose interviews with different COVID conspiracy theorists, whereas version A just mentions Icke. But happy to discuss alternate wordings. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• B Contains important explanation and detail missing in A. Rankersbo (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is not our job to explain things to readers. That is the issue outlined previously. We allow them to draw their own conclusions, not lead them to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Bondegezou: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 7,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is much too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. It also uses a table, contrary to the aforementuioned directions. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Redrose64 and the bot! I didn't realise, but I see the problem now. Will this do? Where should I put it?

Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It must be between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp, per WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• A - After a brief review of sources on Mr. Rose; it seems to me Rose is someone who panders to or promotes conspiracy theorists under some misguided crusade for "free speech". It's not clear to me that he's an actual conspiracy theorist himself. It's a subtle difference, but one that I think is reflected better by Version A. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• A - The customary role of a podcaster who features guest speakers is to generate interest for the topics related to the guest. It's not common for a podcaster to specialize in confronting their guests and voicing disagreements. I think Version A better reflects that. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The interview was broadcast on UK television, it wasn't just a podcast. Ofcom, as above, explicity said that Rose broke rules by not sufficiently challenging Icke. The view that It's not common for a podcaster to specialize in confronting their guests and voicing disagreements. is your opinion of the situation, i.e. WP:OR. We should follow what RS say about the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And while we follow reliable sources, we need to ensure we don't group those sources together in a way to paint a picture that draws a conclusion, also considered WP:OR.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that I engaged on seven different Requests for Comment a couple of days ago, but this was the only one where my opinion was harangued within 20 minutes by the editor making the request. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies that you felt harangued, Here Under The Oaks. I felt there was a point that needed to be made. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• B Icke is a special case and should be second to COVID denial. Also, more detail is good. Omitting the fact that the link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G is false is WP:FALSEBALANCE, and the same is true other omissions in A. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

If the page was about Icke, absolutely agree. It's not. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• B Far more encyclopedic and informative, well grounded in a range of good sources. There is no SYNTH, and no danger of it by using more reliable sources that mention Rose. Agree that we can't say "without being challenged by Rose" without adding a source for that, but the additional BBC source proposed above is a good one. Also note that B does not say that "he's an actual conspiracy theorist himself" but rather attributes this view to the Guardian. The sentence "Since March 2020, Rose's channel has focused on COVID-19 conspiracy theories" stops short of making the allegation that he is a conspiracy theorist, and is well grounded in the two solid RSs cited. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• A (invited by the bot) I don't know the topic in depth and so I'm going just by the fact that "B" has some ginned up vague innuendo wording typical of hit pieces like "is known for" and "did not challenge". North8000 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Neither. Ross said during his mayoral campaign that he would encourage people to take the COVID vaccine but had no plans getting one himself. (The Times is more reliable than Salon, that's all I know - and it even appears in the refs but apparently they haven't read the article. An outline of the article is available here). CNMall41 is right to say that the policy is strict as regards BLPs, therefore we should outline that what he hosts on the channel is not the same as his opinions. We should not attribute opinions he does not hold. At the same time, it is worth to make a short overview of his podcast (e.g. that he promotes conspiracy theorists) and the role it played in spreading misinformation, as identified in RS. It is probably also worth mentioning that his approach to treating guests is that of non-confrontation in general. See this quote: So why doesn’t he say: “David, you’re talking nonsense?” “I don’t think that’s my role. I would rather have more information than less information” (even if that information is bullshit).

In spirit, that's more version B than A, but both are flawed and must be rewritten. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Szmenderowiecki. This RfC has rather stalemated, people split down the middle, so it's useful to have another voice. Given a split position, some sort of middle path seems in order. If you'd like to suggest some text, go for it. If not and if I find time, I'll try doing something along the lines you suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I will make a rewrite and post it here. It will take me a while. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'm doing this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There you go:

Since March 2020, Rose's podcast, London Real, gave platform for misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and was one of its most prominent sources in the United Kingdom, according to logically.ai. The Guardian has described Rose as a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist. Notably, he held five interviews with conspiracy theorist David Icke. One of the interviews, in which an unchallenged Icke falsely claimed that there was a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks, was deleted from YouTube and prompted a tightening of COVID-19 misinformation policies on the platform. Facebook and Spotify also deleted the video, while Ofcom, the British government media regulator, censured the podcast for it. Rose said he did not regret hosting Icke, stressing that he was "fighting against censorship" and that he had a hands-off approach to his hosts and would not confront them if they were advocating conspiracy theories, but also noted that he did not agree with everything David Icke said. While Rose said he would encourage people to take the COVID-19 vaccine, he said he had no plans to get one. Rose is an opponent of lockdowns and has described the British government's COVID-19 response as disproportionate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me (except for a typo: should be "a platform"!). Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: The source, logically.ai, says "Some homegrown channels spreading COVID misinformation include London Real, an outlet run by agitator and London mayoral candidate Brian Rose...", but that source does not say that Rose was "one of its most prominent sources", and does not really speak to prominence at all. We need to be careful about this, not just in terms of appearing to overstate asserted wrongdoing on the part of the subject, but also in terms of not overinflating the importance of the subject relative to the field. BD2412 T 21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, my reading of the paragraph as a whole was that it enumerated the most important conspiracists:

COVID-19 skepticism has united followers of other conspiracies, with one of the most influential being QAnon, the U.S.-imported right-wing narrative about the “liberal elite” and child-trafficking. Some homegrown channels spreading COVID misinformation include London Real...

but yours is also fairly reasonable. We can drop this in fact and simply mention it alongside the Guardian as sources saying he's a conspiracist. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasonableness in approaching this. It is always best with BLP articles to avoid interpreting the sources to support something beyond the letter of what the sources say. Strictly speaking, logically.ai does not itself say that the subject is "a conspiracist", but that claim is already adequately supported in the article by the cite to The Guardian. As far as I can tell, a great deal of the discussion above is about whether there is a consensus to represent this more aggressively, or whether the detail is excessively minute. BD2412 T 05:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We can simply attribute it to two sources. I think that's no big deal and you can interfere in the text yourself (cross out the fragment which you intend to substitute). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• B provides a much better base for further work than A, presenting significant summary of various sources. The second paragraph second sentence in particular should cite to OFCOM sanction against his show, and should be reworked accordingly. Alsee (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• A and trim more. I agree with CNM that this is seeming a bit like a hit piece. Ofcom also said We acknowledged that Brian Rose’s views expressed briefly at the start of this programme were broadly in agreement with mainstream scientific thinking and supported the current measures imposed to suppress the spread of the Coronavirus. It detailed these, which include support for vaccines, natural occurance of the virus, and agreed with social distancing measures etc. This is an article on Brian Rose, not David Icke. I'd support content which focuses on Rose's role in all this, including a mention of Ofcom's inquiry/results, but not excess focus on Icke, or excess speculation. I also think the use of The Guardian piece is a bit cherry-picky; the source doesn't justify how he's a conspiracy theorist, or discuss his activities or podcast at all. The only mention of Rose is an aside comment along with the actor Laurence Fox, the London Assembly member David Kurten and the American conspiracy theorist and podcaster Brian Rose, who interviewed Icke in March. As such, I'd remove that sentence too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be rather cherry-picking from the Ofcom report there. It is overall highly critical of Rose. It weighs up the arguments for and against, but it has a clear conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not “highly critical” of him at all. You quoted the report yourself above, and I’m guessing you quoted the ‘worst’ parts. It’s focused on the comments of Icke and the fact that they were broadcasted. It has only a few references to Rose’s role in all this: it mentions the lack of challenge by Rose and Rose’s concluding remarks, and it mentions Rose’s personal beliefs. Ofcom’s report is neither focused on Rose, nor is it “highly critical” of him. It discusses thoroughly the actions of the broadcaster, but the broadcaster is not Rose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ofcom regulates broadcasters. By virtue of that role, it focuses on the broadcaster. But the problematic material that concerns Ofcom is in an interview conducted by Rose and produced by Rose's production company. Editors can read it for themselves: it is clearly highly critical of Rose.

WP:BALANCE means we reflect what RS say and the main independent secondary reliable sources on Rose, i.e. [5] in particular, but also [6], should be appropriately represented. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Editors can indeed read it for themselves. It obviously isn't highly critical of Rose. Note this is not the same as saying it's praising Rose, it's just not focused on him at all. I suspect that's related to the fact that Ofcom regulates broadcasters and not individuals (incl hosts), as you pointed out, but regardless you can't extrapolate the source to say something other than what it says.

I don't know Rose, and I found this article from WP:RFCL, but my point here is that some previous diffs show editorialising happening. It's one thing to add relevant and reliably sourced content, such as RS commentary on the state of his podcast, even if it's negative. It's another thing to add negative information for the sake of adding negative information, or adding information that implies negative things when the same implication isn't made in the source. I suspect there are examples of the former that could be added, including from the two articles you mention, but the previous diffs show mostly the latter being added. And the latter isn't really appropriate. Some of the history suggests editors are trying to look for sources that say something negative and adding that, rather than looking for sources and adding what they say (regardless of whether that content is positive or negative). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You are right that we should start with what the sources say and build from there. If you have time, please do dive further into the sources. I think the article is currently unbalanced. It uses the Whitworth Times interview more than any other source, but that's an interview and thus should be counted as largely a primary source. While we should report what Rose says about himself, we should prefer what RS say about him. The Vice article is the most detailed in-depth secondary source coverage we have, but a lot of material based on it has been removed from this article. The Press Gazette article has been completely expunged, despite again considerable reliable secondary source coverage about Rose. But I'm glad for fresh eyes on the article -- see what you think! Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I don't object to using that source is because of balance. Since "some of the history suggests editors are trying to look for sources that say something negative and adding that" (which I agree with) that provides more context. At this point, there have been plenty of "fresh eyes" on the article and as you stated in the discussion below, this RfC "isn't exactly converging around consensus so far." Time for a close. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, the RfC isn't exactly converging around a consensus so far! It's 4:3 on a straight count (although of course it is not a vote). Is there some compromise position possible? Would anyone other than me and CNMall41 like to have a go at suggesting some text? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with the assessment that there is no consensus here. The content as currently formulated is not in clear violation of any policy (comment aside, describing Icke as a "conspiracy theorist" provides sufficient context for the statement immediately following that Icke "claimed a link between the COVID-19 pandemic and 5G mobile phone networks"). I wouldn't lose any sleep over this remaining as it is, and I frankly don't see editors clamoring to spend additional time on the question. BD2412 T 04:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

More input is coming in. Hopefully, in due course, a non-involved RfC closer can provide some way ahead. I'm not precious about the exact text used. I can see how "B" could be shortened and tightened up. I think the important distinction is that "A" gives the impression that Rose did one problematic interview, whereas B makes clear that the whole channel was focused on conspiracy theories, which RS clearly support. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to detail that last sentence, it's this and this that give the most in depth coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.