Talk:Brian Rose (podcaster)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lead phrasing[edit]

For a few months, we've had a stable version of the article, where the opening sentence read, "Brian Rose (born May 1971) is an American-born podcaster based in London whose programming was most notable for the promoting the conspiracy theories of David Icke." The part from "whose programming..." onwards was recently removed by CNMall41. I tried restoring with an amended version (omitting "most"). CNMall41 removed that too.

I contest that the lead should reflect the content of the article and why Rose is notable, as per WP:LEAD. The largest parts of the article are about Rose's COVID-19 stances and the Icke interviews. My evidence for this is the article itself. There are 16 unique citations in the article (12 to secondary sources demonstrating notability). These are about Icke and COVID-19 stuff (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17), his mayoral campaign (1=4=5, 3, 15, 18), or other (2, 14). So, 10/16 citations are about COVID stuff. 9/12 secondary sources are about COVID stuff.

The article consists of 6 longer paragraphs and 2 short paragraphs. The longest is about his Icke interviews. The second longest is about how the Icke interviews and other COVID stances impacted his mayoral campaign.

If we look at the article text (ignoring headers), it has 422 words. 169 words are on Icke/COVID stuff. 69 words are on politics. 62 words are on London Real more generally. And there's 122 words on everything else.

The largest parts of this article are about Icke/COVID. The second largest parts are about his mayoral campaign. The current lead CNMall41 wants mentions neither of these and is just about his podcasting. This makes no sense to me. I think the lead should revert to something like its last stable form + have a mention of his 2021 mayoral campaign. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this, but given the history of debate about this article, I would agree that it is best to have a discussion and consensus process for substantial changes. BD2412 T 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We did, the last stable version was consensus by acceptance. The lede should reflect the article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A stable version never supersedes ONUS. But, if we want a stable version, we can go back to the one that was agree upon previously and was stable for quite some time (more than a year I believe) prior to when this was added. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we actually stand on what's better? As I understand it, me and Slatersteven favour the version mentioning conspiracy theories while CNMall41 opposes. Does anyone else have an opinion?
Those of us in favour have given a policy reason (the lead should reflect the content). I can't see any actual reasoning against the content from CNMall41 (as opposed to discussion of process). CNMall41, you've mentioned WP:ONUS, but that clearly doesn't apply here. We're talking about material that everyone accepts should be in the article and is in the article because it is well verified. So what's your actual objection? Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of the version that mentions promoting David Icke.
As I understand it WP:ONUS is about the burden of showing that inclusion of information is WP:DUE falls on the person including it. But it also falls on the community of editors to accept it. As I see it one person is disputing the change, and is objecting, while most other contributors are in favour. I don't think one person should be able to hold an article hostage because they personally are not convinced. Rankersbo (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the "lead should reflect the content." If that is the case, the lead should include everything. That is not the purpose of the lead. The purpose is to summarize the most important points of the page. We have previously discussed this and you yourself agreed to the current wording. He runs a podcast, that simple. He has also run for mayor (twice) where there is a lot of press but I believe that was previously removed from the lead (and I am not advocating that it should be there). Its also a NPOV issue if you wish to include one without any other points made on the page. We have discussed this to death on the talk page. At this point, maybe another RfC would be in order if you feel that mentioning Icke in the lead is "reflect[ing] the content."--CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everything, per wp:lede it summarises the most important parts of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rose's association with conspiracy theories is the most important point of the page. It's what gets most RS coverage. It constitutes the largest part of the article.
We don't need another RfC if it is clear from Talk page discussion that editors largely support one or another version. Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few weeks and we've had no further comment, so that's 3 editors is favour of the version mentioning Icke and just 1 against. That meets WP:CONSENSUS requirements. I will go edit the lead now. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a numbers game. You do not have consensus. I simply stopped replying because of reading the circular arguments. And, his standing as mayor was also previously removed so you will need consensus for that. The argument being made about that being removed is in no way a support of adding it in. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also curious of how the references say that he is know specifically for "whose programming was most notable for the promoting the conspiracy theories of David Icke." You are stretching things way beyond NPOV.
I tend to agree with CNMall41 here. Again, I have no particular opinion here, but we do need pretty specific and consistent sourcing to say that a BLP subject is "most notable for promoting" someone else's conspiracy theories. For a subject with several loci of notability, one of which is media production, association with any one interview subject would need to be fairly substantial relative to all coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, I take your point. How about a slightly different wording? Would you be OK with "whose programming included the promoting the conspiracy theories of David Icke"? That reflects the requirements of WP:LEAD (that the lead reflects the article content), but avoids claiming that this aspect is the "most notable"?
The sources cited in the article certainly support that the association with Icke is "fairly substantial relative to all coverage of the subject". I believe that's true for coverage of Rose more generally. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We always need to be conservative about making such associations for BLPs generally. If Rose's podcast started in 2011, and the content with Icke only originated with the COVID-19 pandemic (beginning in 2020), then who were Rose's most frequent/controversial guests in the preceding nine years? I think that to make a particular association, we would need some kind of source analysis reflecting who was on the podcast generally over time, and perhaps list the top four or five names, unless there really is one who demonstrably dominates appearances over the life of the podcast. BD2412 T 19:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already repeatedly makes the association between Rose and Icke, supported by numerous RS. We satisfy WP:BLP. The question is about how we summarise the article content in the lead and WP:BLP says nothing about special rules for the lead sections of articles on living people. The guideline relevant here is WP:LEAD.
If you look at the RS coverage of Rose's podcast, it is overwhelmingly about the Icke/conspiracy theory stuff. That is all documented in the article. RS had little interest in Rose before 2020 (as seen in the deletion discussion about the article). Rose was not notable as a podcaster until the Icke stuff and his mayoral candidacies, yet both of those have been cut from the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a pretty strong statement to put in Wikipedia's voice. If there is a source that specifically says that "Rose's programming is most notable for promoting Icke", or the like, we could just quote that source. When I do a Google News search for Icke from 2011 to 2019, I find plenty of coverage of Icke with no mention of Rose. A comparable search for Rose is rather drowned in results for the boxer of the same name, so it will frankly take more work to pick out coverage just of the podcast. A basic Google search for "Brian Rose podcast -Icke" yields several times as much coverage than "Brian Rose podcast +Icke". I'm looking for an examination of sources beyond "If you look at the RS coverage" (which is something of a "do your own research" statement). I would consider that burden to lie on the editor advocating the claim that the subject's "programming was most notable for" something. BD2412 T 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been down this road. The wording on the page was decided through RfC. At this point, we have crossed into ad nauseam territory. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, have you missed my earlier suggestion of 20 April? I suggested a different wording, namely saying "whose programming included promoting the conspiracy theories of David Icke". That way, we are not saying something is "most notable" in Wikipedia's voice, but we are following WP:LEAD and writing a lead that reflects the article content. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss it, I just don't think that it is functionally any different. More generic wording suggests that a broader list of guests be indicated, to give a general sense of what the subject's programming included. I have looked at numerous other articles on podcasters who have had notable or controversial or even lauded episodes, e.g., Scott Adams, Adam Carolla, Gavin McInnes, Joe Rogan, Charlie Webster, and am not finding podcast guests mentioned in the article ledes (though they do mention co-hosts). BD2412 T 16:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also looked at the articles you mention. Their leads don't mention specific guests, but they mostly do mention the controversies around those individuals. So, shouldn't this article's lead do the same?
Scott Adams is not a podcaster. He is someone who has had controversies around him, and they are included in the lead of that article. That would argue for covering COVID-19 stuff in the lead of this article.
Adam Carolla's article has some discussion of more controversial events, but there's nothing in his article that dominates in the way that COVID-19/Icke stuff does here.
The Gavin McInnes lead also covers his controversies and how he has been banned from some platforms, so that also argues for Rose's controversial content being included in the lead. Ditto the Joe Rogan article. I don't see anything particularly controversial on Charlie Webster's page.
So, Scott Adams, Gavin McInnes and Joe Rogan all mention controversial content in the article leads. From that I think we can conclude that this article should mention controversial content in the article lead. If you don't want Icke mentioned, what about wording like "whose programming included promoting the conspiracy theories around COVID-19."? Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)&oldid=1221333381"