Talk:Lorenzo G. Vidino

Recommend locking page for editing
Subject of this article features in media articles that are likely part of a state-backed influence effort in retaliation for an alleged influence effort subject was allegedly involved in. Page edits and mischaracterizations unquestionably advance influence themes. Key example is ascribing a quote to Vidino alleging he said the Muslim Brotherhood were like a "Trojan Horse" when per the C-Span video of the hearing, Vidino was quoting what MB critics say and MB apologists say and never actually said that his own analysis is that the MB were a "Trojan Horse".

The Wikipedia article fails to caveat for readers that per the New Yorker article, Alp Services presented itself as a consulting firm representing a London-based law-firm to Vidino. A consulting firm representing a law-firm would have a legitimate interest in mapping suspected Islamists for risk mitigation purposes.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article mis-characterizes Vidino's role vis-a-vis Islamic relief. Per the New Yorker, Vidino provided a journalist of Facebook screenshots from the public account of an Islamic Relief executive. The Wikipedia article obfuscates this and leaves the reader to conclude that Alp laundered hacked/leaked or fabricated information through Vidino to target Islamic Relief. Furthermore, the Facebook posts that precipitated the downfall of the Islamic Relief executive were well publicized and not something Alp uniquely uncovered. The FB screenshots in question were first posted by Sigrid Hermann in 2017 https://vunv1863.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/gottes-bodenpersonal/

Recommend locking this page for future edits, as well as all Wikipedia articles related to individuals named in likely Qatari and Emirati backed influence efforts leveraging "hack and leak" tactics. Nerkersh (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Be cognizant of black hat tactics
If a user on here goes to a biography and mischaracterizes a quote by a figure, that would be libelous. In this case, you need to take time to review the edits. For this specific issue with the quote, you need to go back and listen to the video if you take what you're doing seriously. If you do further research you will see that there are a set of characters targeted in an ongoing influence campaign and counter-influence campaign.

I will move on to the others mentioned in these articles; however, this article stood out due to the sheer level of unprofessional and targeted edits such as the "Trojan Horse" quote. The article has been clearly ransacked by black hat tactics by actors who think they're retaliating for the Subject's perceived role in assisting a black-hat effort by Alp Services.

At minimum, we need to discuss the Trojan Horse quote. After watching the hearing, do you still assess that the characterization made in the Wikipedia article is something consistent with the reality of what was said during the hearing? Let's tackle this one first and move on to the rest. While keeping in mind, this page and potentially others are at the center of an influence campaign. Actor A who may have an interest in doing this to this page has as a grievance that Alp Services used black hat tactics to damage their reputation. So, in retaliation, it appears either Actor A or parties sympathetic with Actor A have retaliated with their own black hat tactics.

I should clarify, the "black hat" tactics referenced is an allegation that Alp Services manipulated Wikipedia by editing the pages of their targets to intentionally mischaracterize or exaggerate allegations against them in a biased fashion. Thus, how Wikipedia articles are edited and how information is characterized is at the center of this. It means setting a precedent that that individuals involved in this such as Alp Services or Mr. Nada/potentially the Qataris who "hacked and leaked" Alp which does its own "hack and leak" can influence the general public by being first to edit Wikipedia articles of their targets and using citations that suit them. It sets a dangerous precedent if Wikipedia does not either monitor, do independent review, or close pages of individuals who are named as targets in influence campaigns. Nerkersh (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Revirvlkodlaku I understand your desire to move the discussion here. I hope this doesn't mean we'll ignore the comments I made.
 * Please address my edits pertaining to the Trojan Horse quote. As it stands, you have removed my edits without review and without addressing any of the points I've raised.
 * This Wikipedia article as it stands has factual inaccuracies and mischaracterizations that may constitute libel, specifically in the case of a fabricated attribution for a quote.
 * Regards. Nerkersh (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nerkersh, I'd like other editors to pitch in on this discussion, so I recommend leaving it here for a few days, but once I have more time, I'll take a closer look at the points you are making, and we can discuss them individually. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nerkersh, I've reviewed the edits you made and found none of them usable. As far as I can see, you deleted a section of the lead paragraph and one paragraph at the end without clearly explaining why or supporting your actions with credible references. Instead, you added an inline link to Alp Services—inline links should be avoided on Wikipedia—and a link to a wordpress site—need I explain why that is not a reliable source? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Revirvlkodlaku This is yet another single purpose account. We've had far too many editing the article, clearly organised from off-wiki. Doug Weller  talk 12:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @ Doug Weller, I agree, and it's telling that after my last comment, they didn't bother engaging further. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lorenzo Vidino and Frontpage Magazine
Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku. I very much think that's important information. The Bridge Initiative claims that Vidino is spreading conspiracy theories. If he now claims to a far-right magazine that Muslims will soon be the majority, then that is very much an Islamophobic conspiracy theory. So please add the paragraph back in. EasterBunny456 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @EasterBunny456, what leads you to conclude that a simple claim about a religious majority is necessarily Islamophobic? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Revirvlkodlaku,
 * 1. The assertion is not correct, since two decades later (=2025) Muslims are not the majority of the population.
 * 2. This is clear from the context. Video posted on the Middle East Forum by Daniel Pipes. Steve Emerson also wrote the foreword to one of Vidino's books.
 * 3. In the present interview, Vidino answers the question of whether one is now witnessing the end of Europe with yes. "The European would have to do their job: "For Europe it is crucial to find its soul and once again be proud of its history, tradition and values.” The immigrants would know otherwise not what they should integrate into. But the Europeans are afraid to offense other cultures and would therefore the brutalities of minorities as tolerate honor killings and female genital mutilation.”
 * 4. The book I quoted earlier is called "Networked Islamophobia" EasterBunny456 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @EasterBunny456, none of Vidino's statements that you quote here strike me as being particularly Islamophobic; rather, it seems you have an axe to grind against him. Anyway, I'm not convinced that the paragraph we are discussing is important to include in the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing the protection level of this article so unbiased readers can add missing info
I note that the editors have instituted a change in this article's protection level to "semi protection" to prevent extreme biased modifications and vandalism. I appreciate the work by the editors to institute this change, taking down some of the most egregious falsehoods added by some readers. I think, however, it would be best if Wikipedia could change the current classification to one where readers who are interested in adding context and truthful information can edit the current article substantially, as needed, such as the "pending changes" classification. This effort is not designed to censor anyone's ability to present reasoned views, but rather would add context and material to create a more balanced view of the individual, Dr. Vidino. If "pending changes" is not the best classification to protect all involved, please suggest a better way so that reasonable edits can take place quickly and efficiently. Thank you. Defender 70 Defender70 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024
The last section on the dispute btw. Vidino and Hafez states that no lawsuit has been filed yet against Vidino. This is no longer true and needs to be updated, a lawsuit was filed in march 2024 https://theintercept.com/2024/04/20/farid-hafez-muslim-lorenzo-vidino-gwu-uae/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68380187/hafez-v-vidino/ Diet.of.data (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)