Talk:Brian Rose (podcaster)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Images

I have uploaded images of Brian Rose at this link but since I am an associate of the subject I do not want to upload them directly to Wikipedia. Is there a specific place other than here to make that request? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarkaLR — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkaLR (talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

No, this is fine. Actually, it's refreshing to see someone declare their interest in the matter and ask. BD2412 T 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

YouTube removal of London Real

It might be necessary to see if any of the facts in the article were supported only by information on the (now deleted) channel. Localandnationalnews (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

We only add information from reliable sources. Can you provide the reliable source for the channel removal as there was not one added to the page with your edits? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The very first reference links to his Youtube channel where a notice states it very clearly. It is a bit curious that it has not been picked up in the news, but perhaps he is no longer considered notable. As for the page, though, it would make it bizarrely incorrect if you don't. How can the actual LondonReal YouTube page itself not be a RS about this particular question? The page was otherwise content to link to it to prove its existence. Why not, to demonstrate its non-existence? Localandnationalnews (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources or do original research.. I appreciate the paradox where something may be notable at one point, but drop off the radar before things change. Rankersbo (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is now saying something that's demonstrably not true... They page links directly to the evidence, which seems to be valid for some things and not others. If you want to say that it is a valid source for the other information taken from it, that's fine, but that would surely lead you to delete the whole page rather than just an update that says it no longer exists. Should I do a deletion request instead? Localandnationalnews (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A bit problematic, we can only go b y what RS say, this may be an argument for no lasting notability. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that historical things can be notable. The articles about this defunct vlog are still in the references. People may still want to read about the impact that London Real and its interviews had during the COVID times even if the channel no longer exists. It seems to me, though, that it is important to say that it no longer exists. How can the actual site not be considered evidence? I think there is a total misunderstanding of the original research policy here. We know it existed because the sources referred to it existing. That is no reason to say that it still exists when it doesn't because those references have not reported the closure.

Let's ask the question the other way around. Please point to your references that show, in the now incorrect version that has been restored, that the very first sentence, "He is the host of London Real" in the present tense is correct? Please post your reference that shows that the line "As of 2020, he remains its host and CEO, with the channel having two million subscribers" is correct in the present tense? The references quoted refer to the point in time that they were written and say nothing about now. What is wrong with putting them in the past, even if you don't like reporting the closure directly, since the sources support only the statements in the past tense and we know for a fact that in the present tense they are wrong. The tense in those sentences is actually incorrect OR. Localandnationalnews (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We have a primary source saying the channel has been terminated. It is acceptable to use primary sources in some contexts, as per WP:PRIMARY. The bottom of the infobox has a section on YouTube information with numbers on subscribers and total views, and that was all only ever sourced to YouTube, so I don't see a problem with updating that information. I will update accordingly. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was worried about jumping the gun, but I think I was approaching the channel through the wrong route. I could only see an error message from google, but clicking on the reference in the article shows it is definitely terminated for service violations. Rankersbo (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP is clear that notability is not temporary. If it was notable, it remains notable.

London Real was more than a YouTube channel, so just because the YouTube channel is kaput doesn't mean it's wrong to say Rose "is" a host of London Real. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

How can you be (present tense) the host of something that doesn't currently exist? Localandnationalnews (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The article says that London Real is a podcast and a YouTube channel. The YouTube channel is no more. I don't know about the podcast, but until we hear otherwise or find some sort of evidence to the contrary, I presume London Real still exists as a podcast, with Rose as host. If you can find something more on this, do share. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, are you content for the article to actually say it is kaput? Localandnationalnews (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, it's just my opinion, I'm just another editor like you. Yes it does seem the youtube version of LondonReal is now offline, and I think enough of a case has been made to say this is an OK situation to use a primary source. I think Bondegezou has a handle on how we can take this forward tho. Rankersbo (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A few issues here which I think most of us agree on (with the exception of one). Just want to spell them out to make sure I am not missing anything.

1.Primary sources and YouTube is okay to use in certain circumstance. However, they are limited and we need to be careful when doing so, especially with a BLP.

2. The OP asked about facts on the page being supported by the YouTube channel. Since the YouTube channel is not live, anything sourced to it should be removed unless it can be supported by a different source. In fact, anything that cannot be verified through a reliable source should be removed based on WP:V.

3.The is/was should remain "is" per Bondegezou's comment above. Looks like it is up on Apple Podcasts so regardless of platform, it still seems to be current absent a secondary source that says so.

4.The one thing I disagree with which will need consensus per ONUS is the original research in the body. We don't use the absence of the show or the disclaimer at the link to say that it was banned by YouTube. We also don't write content such as "On September 4th 2023, the London Real channel was terminated by YouTube for violating its Terms of Service. As of 10th September 2023, Rose had not commented publicly on its deletion" or "As of September 2023, YouTube has terminated the London Real channel according to a notice that it has posted at the channel's former URL." This is a based use of WP:PRIMARY per P4 and creates original research. I am willing to speculate that there would be a secondary source that discusses this in the near future which can then be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to add that although ONUS applies, I have not removed the sentence in the body as of yet. I think it would be fair to wait a little bit to see if a secondary source does come out. But, absent a secondary source or consensus, it would need to come out. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already changed the article text to something simpler and shorter, but I have kept in that YouTube has closed the channel. I suggest this is appropriate under Wikipedia rules and guidance. We have a primary source for that. We can use primary sources for simple statements of fact. But we shouldn’t interpret what that means or go beyond what the primary source says, or give undue prominence to the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

And...I would say the way you wrote it is the most NPOV wording possible so kudos on that. I still question the use of the source however. Playing devil's advocate, how would we write it if YouTube returns the channel? Would we also include that it is available on Apple Podcasts using Apple as the primary source? I am against doing either but wondering for comparison purposes. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If YouTube restored the channel, we would no longer have the problem of the rest of the article appearing misleading and there would be no real need to refer to a short period of outage. However, termination is not suspension. It's, well... terminal. Localandnationalnews (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There is more than merely "the absence of the show or the disclaimer at the link". The link leads to a clear message stating that it has been removed and the reason for the removal. There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY that suggests that that cannot be used as a source. I am content to leave the sentence in as it is. The important thing is to state that it is no longer there. If that is not stated, then the earlier paragraphs could lead a reader to be misled into thinking that the references on the page are pointing to a live channel. In my view, the fact that YouTube states the cause of the removal is also important and would be worth adding, but that is of lesser importance than ensuring that the WP page is not misleading.

Personally, I think that my previous wording removed the element of OR in terms of the termination date. The page itself does not give September as the month of removal. By using the "As of [the date of referencing the page]" wording, we are referring to the primary source on the date of reference showing the message of its then current status and therefore the actual date of removal is not OR. A previous statement in the text is quite similar in that approach. Having no reference to the date of removal (either "actual" or "noticed") would be very confusing also. It is fine as it is for the time being. As you say, once a secondary source notices it, it can be replaced. It is quite strange that the forced shutdown of such a big channel has not been mentioned by a secondary source. Perhaps the comings and goings of new media personalities has slipped down the news agenda in terms of importance. Fashions change... Localandnationalnews (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

On 3 above, I was not aware previously that London Real was on Apple, so fair enough that the wider existence of the podcast is in the present. Localandnationalnews (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The article previously used YouTube as a primary source for the London Real channel's subscriber numbers. If we were happy with that, then I think we have to be happy with using YouTube as a primary source for saying they've nixed the channel.

We seem to be have consensus around the current wording. Good! We can look out for some secondary source reporting and react if and when that appears. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Using YouTube to cite subscriber numbers is something that is done on a regular basis. It is not right to say that since we use it as a primary source for numbers, then we can use it as a primary source for anything. For the wording, note that I don't complain about the current wording, but I don't agree with it being in there. As stated above, I simply have not removed it per BRD or ONUS so we can give it some time to see if a secondary source appears. The wording isn't egregious, but it still shouldn't be there based on a primary source. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"If YouTube restored the channel, we would no longer have the problem of the rest of the article appearing misleading and there would be no real need to refer to a short period of outage." So if we add and remove based on the primary source of it not showing up, then this would be WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR in my opinion. We are here to write what is included in reliable sources, not keep tabs on the channel. As far as my other question, would you use a primary source such as Apple to say that the channel is available there? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." It also cautions against interpretation. I believe the current text satisfies this. There's no interpretation. It simply repeats what is stated at the primary source. I can't see how the current text violates standard Wikipedia rules. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for restating your contention. However, I am hoping you can help me understand it better by addressing the question I posed above. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your question or why you've posed it. I also don't see any other editor raising concerns. Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I explained previously but will try to make it straight forward. Based on your logic about PRIMARY, would you object to an addition in the lead saying "He is the host of London Real, a podcast on Apple and former YouTube channel he founded in 2011." - Supported by this PRIMARY source?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We have a lot of secondary sources talking about his work being on YouTube, so an update on his YouTube (non-)presence seems WP:DUE. I can't recall any secondary source talking about his work being on Apple, so I see less reason to mention it. However, we did have this confusion over whether he still has a podcast in the present tense, and that Apple URL does serve to demonstrate that he does. So, what about adding that URL to the sentence "He is the host of London Real, a podcast (add Apple URL) and former YouTube channel he founded in 2011."? I don't see the need to add the words "on Apple". Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about his work on any platform other than YouTube. There's no need to go into every little detail about his business that no reference has considered worth mentioning. The current wording is fine. Localandnationalnews (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, Thanks for the reply. I would be against adding any platform that hosts it (e.g., Apple, Spotify) as it would violate PROMO in my opinion, absent secondary sources that talk about it. I was asking in order to get a better understanding of your contention as it relates to PRIMARY. I now do based on your response. I did link to website for the show since I cannot find any personal website for him. I think that's about the only link that would be acceptable without running afoul of guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Localandnationalnews:, Not everything has to be notable in order to be included on a Wikipedia page. Outside of that, he is notable for his podcast, not hosting it on YouTube. If that were the case, he would not longer be notable since the YouTube portion of it does not appear to be live at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

He would still be notable. Notability is not temporary: WP:NTEMP. Can we put this canard to rest? Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking. My comment was to the SPA about their logic for not adding a link to the podcast, not notability. Link to the podcast was already added so if anyone would like to challenge that feel free to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)