Talk:Rajiv Dixit

Request changes on 15th-June '13: Criticisms

No criticism found against him in the net.

Dis/Misinformation in lede

Apologies if I'm overlooking something, but having the content about his spreading dis/misinformation in the lede is the one major area of dispute from the discussions above that remains unresolved. I've been waiting for Abecedare to return, but I think we've waited long enough.

[1] "The sources don't appear reliable for the specific information. The content appears to present a minority viewpoint deserving little or no coverage. The information should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice without better sources. The information does not belong in the lede without both better sources and broader coverage."

Basically, I agree with all of Abecedare's concerns, and I don't believe they've been addressed very thoroughly nor in a way that demonstrates consensus for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@AllanNonymous where is sourece for the above content. If no source present then we have to remove this content. Thank you Aditya Bijarniya (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

He was also noted for spreading disinformation.

References

That is the content in dispute. --Hipal (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeating your refuted point of views will not help you. Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, was a conspiracy theorist. This is a permanent fact. If you are really serious about sourcing then take it to WP:RSN because here you are the only person who is unnecessarily disputing the quality of these reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be sourced, I canot verfiy how good those soruces are so that is a question for wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for these soruces to be raised at RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion. After looking closer, I think both should be considered unreliable. Anyone know why LallanTop is duplicated? --Hipal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and trimmed it down given the discussion at RSN. --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion saw 3 editors,[2] which includes you, Ratnahastin (who entirely disagreed with you) and Slatersteven (who only suggested specific focus on the reliability of sources). Nobody would consider it as consensus for your mass removal. I have removed the unnecessary tags since you are still alone with calling these reliable sources unreliable. Orientls (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

RSN was tried and there's no consensus that they are reliable. Work to create consensus, or leave it to others.

At RSN I noted that the LallanTop piece didn't verify much of the information. I'll elaborate more: I don't see how it verifies anything of "He was also noted for spreading disinformation."

At RSN I pointed out the previous RSN discussion about FirstPost, so let's not misrepresent what level of consensus there is against it's use. --Hipal (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you must read WP:1AM given you are the only user opposing sourced content about this fake news peddler.

Secondly, I had already provided you the translations of the text to show how it verified the cited information. You replied: "Verification is not the issue."[3] You don't have to create excuses for removing the sourced content. Capitals00 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Verification is an issue. Can anyone explain how it verifies the information?

Consensus is not a vote. If you're unable to work cooperatively with others and assume good faith, best to leave this dispute to those who can. --Hipal (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The same can be said of you, you are right, there is no consensus as to the status of these sources, but it is long-standing content (as far as I can tell) thus the WP:ONUS is on you to get support for your edit, I do not see that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically Hipal is correct they fail, verification, as they do not say disinformation, rather they say false claim, so let's change it to that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the verification problem.

From what I understand of Abecedare's original cleanup efforts, it's long-disputed, long-edit-warred content. Consensus is based upon policy. We don't appear to have much adherence to policy here when we have to clean up verification problems months after the problems were identified, and to be done by a new editor after the ones arguing against change fail to address it. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It was not dealt with by a new editor, it was identified by a new editor and fixed when it was pointed out, the rest distracted from that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My point remains: Adherence to policy seems secondary to keeping the content unchanged. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it may be time for others to chip in, as I am in danger of bludgeoning, note that untill I say yes assume I am saying no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to find when "disinformation" was first added: It looks recent[4], but this alludes to a previous edit. I'm not finding any earlier addition. Note that the addition was made after a revert to a stable version.[5] --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Related: Refs readded with related content, refs removedref added with related contentref added with related content --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

See version before this all dispute started.[6] That version said Rajiv Dixit is a "conspiracy theorist". Unless you restore that version, you should not be selectively creating your own version.

You are alone with disputing these reliable sources even after discussing for over 1 month. You should avoid tagbombing this article. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The disputes have been going on for years. Abecedare did an excellent job of cleaning up the article. I reviewed all of Abecedare's changes, discussed a few areas of concern, and now am addressing the one main area of dispute that Abecedare put aside for later. To suggest we throw out all that work at this point is grossly inappropriate. Sanctions apply.

You are misrepresenting the dispute over the two sources. Please stop.

"Tagbombing" indicates assumptions of bad faith. Please retract. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Some edits indicating stable versions:

• 15:49, 2 July 2024 by Hipal, refers to slight modification of April 27 version
• 19:34, 23 June 2024 by Abecedare, refers to April 27 version
• 05:20, 27 April 2024 by DaxServer, refers to March 5 version. Specifically reverts edits by Orientls with the edit summary "rv POV push, unreliable sources", removing "He was noted for spreading disinformation." from the lede.
• 16:38, 10 April 2024 by Ivanvector, refers to March 5 version
• 03:12, 5 March 2024 by SpacemanSpiff, refers to February 18 version
• 04:59, 18 February 2024
• 17:54, 15 December 2017 refers to October 28 version. See archived discussion
• 15:06, 28 October 2017 Talk page discussion notes that this version differs little from March 26.
• 09:20, 24 March 2016

Note the disputed information is in none of these versions. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Why have you totally omitted the versions throughout 2018 - 2023 and very selectively presented the versions from 2024? Ratnahastin (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked through the entire article history for edits indicating stable versions. If I missed any, please identify them. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added the April 10 revert to the list above, which reverted to the March 5 version, and identified the editors for all the reverts after February 18. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Location in the lede

Why does anyone think "He was also noted for spreading false claims" belongs in the first sentenceparagraph of the lede? --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant "paragraph": --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead and on the first paragraph because Rajiv Dixit was noted for spreading disinformation, and was a conspiracy theorist. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

According to two poor sources. The first paragraph should only include information verified by a majority of the very best sources. Otherwise it is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not poor sources but reliable sources stating the facts. What you are doing is called WP:DE. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So you don't care what the majority of the very best sources say? Or you don't agree that they demonstrate stronger weight? --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Which sources say he never spread disinformation? If you don't have those then you don't need to dispute that he is noted for spreading disinformation and was a conspiracy theorist. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Which sources say he never spread disinformation? Irrelevant, and I don't believe anyone has suggested that.

You didn't answer my questions. Please do so. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Then you are simply wasting people's time by pushing your views that have zero basis. Capitals00 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

[7] --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

As editors are unable to answer basic questions about giving proper weight in the lede, we certainly have POV problems. Please stop removing the tags indicating so, or we could just remove the disputed content while we work to form a clear consensus. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. Maintenance tags cannot be misused. Capitals00 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address the content policy concerns. It appears you're dismissing content policy as unimportant. --Hipal (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have no valid concerns. Just calling reliable sources "poor sources" without presenting a rebuttal is disruptive editing. Capitals00 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

[8] --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it to the end of the lede, only as a compromise while we see if anyone can come up with a policy-based argument for it being in the lede at all. --Hipal (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You should simply drop the stick now. Capitals00 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your three answers are all versions of WP:IDHT. You don't appear to respect content policy at all, so I'll be reverting. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not the one who is calling reliable sources "poor sources" and edit warring against every editor to sideline the biggest facts about this fake news peddler. You are engaging in that WP:DE and you are alone (see WP:1AM). Capitals00 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

fake news peddler This personal opinion of yours seems to be what's driving your comments, rather than content policy. --Hipal (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I will be starting an RFC, do not make any changes until I do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I was going to discuss the content in the article body, then go to NPOVN, but getting the lede addressed by an RfC would be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC can we say he peddaled false hoods in the lede

Simple enough can we say "He was also noted for spreading false claims." in the lede or words to that effect? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - The subject is known for spreading disinformation and it is a totally undisputed fact. Orientls (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• No - The two references used are poor (summary below, Vishal(2016) unreliable, Dwivedi(2017) an opinion piece). Neither should be used, let alone be used in Wikipedia's voice in the lede. As no other source currently used even suggests something along the same line, it appears to be a minority viewpoint that is not due any weight, especially when stripped from the political context that is apparently driving it. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  What content belongs in the lede should be a WP:POV discussion, where editors point out the quantity of high-quality sources clearly verifying the content in question, and how they clearly demonstrate it is of high prominence to the subject of the article. If this is a prominent but minority viewpoint, then the proper context is needed in addition, so we can determine if Wikipedia's voice should be used, and/or some context is needed to present the minority viewpoint properly. No such discussions have taken place. --Hipal (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - Not with current formulation and not on current placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - This information has been confirmed by at least 5 reliable sources that he was a profilic a fake news peddler. To state otherwise is disruptive. The lead before this recent content dispute said for years that he was a "conspiracy theorist".[9][10] More whitewashing is not needed. Capitals00 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• No: What is this even about? False claims about what? Needs more context. The way it is currently is useless --FMSky (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per Capitals00. A quick Google search also shows that promotion of fake news is the modus operandi of this individual. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• No per UNDUE, the sources are weak and questionable/unreliable. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It is already detailed on the section "Ideology and rhetoric". Those who are disputing the sources have clearly no idea about this topic area. Azuredivay (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) UNDUE, the sources are weak and questionable/unreliable. per Isaidnoway. Insufficient and insufficiently clear sourcing for such a damning but vague, condemnation of a BLP subject. Pincrete (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Per discussion below. Looking at the opposes above, many of them have been already addressed by Slatersteven right here. As for the rest, it is absurd to deem these reliable sources as unreliable without any basis and it is also absurd to wrongly label this subject as a "BLP" despite the fact that subject has been dead since 2010. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Discusion

(invited by the bot) The underlying question is whether the material and characterization in the body of the article is correct. Is this just ginning up a few instances where somebody interpreted what he said as false? And regarding what he said was it intent to deceive or just careless hyperbole? And in all cases was it enough to be an overall characterization of him? I tried looking into it but had trouble translating the sources and ran out of wiki-minutes. If answer to all of this ends up that what's in the body of the article is correct on this, then in that hypothetical case, it would be appropriate to have a sentence in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

THis is the biggest issue (and why it may not have ben dealt with at RSN, trying to judge sources in a language we do not speak. It makes verification all but impossible. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The first source in the lead, Firstpost does verify the content, but on the other hand, our article about Firstpost says in the lead - It has posted misinformation on multiple occasions. The second source from The Lallantop is sketchy and appears to be tabloid journalism; a couple of headlines from that source: In this village, girls automatically become boys at the age of 12 - where previously there were female parts, testicles start growing - and - Brothel Madam: I have saved 5 thousand marriages from breaking, am proud of being a prostitute.

I would look for better sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO anyone who asserts "He was also noted for spreading false claims." needs to make the case for that, for inclusion in either the body of the article or the lead. And if there is no decision for inclusion, then it should not be in either. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: It has been covered on the second paragraph of Rajiv_Dixit#Ideology_and_rhetoric. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I had already seen that. IMO if that's all there is,such a broad claim should not be anywhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You can see the sources that have provided him significant coverage. For most, he was not known to anyone anything better than being a fake news peddler. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Evidently, this article from the FirstPost was added to this article when this media was independent and reliable. Since last few years, it has been forced to spread disinformation in favor of the ruling government (see Godi media). That's why that article from the FirstPost that we are talking about was also deleted and today we use archived version. Such old articles of the FirstPost are still usable but the new ones are not. Just like Lenta.ru who's old articles are still WP:RS. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For a claim like this - "He was also noted for spreading false claims" - I would expect to see it widely reported in multiple reliable sources, and if they can't be found, it shouldn't be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: That old FirstPost article is one such reliable source. Another one is LallanTop who mentions many false claims by Rajiv Dixit including that "9/11" was an "inside job" and concludes that many of the claims he made are false. It is not "tabloid journalism" like you assumed above but an IFCN verified fact-checker.[11] Then we also have some more reliable sources,[12][13][14] that have fact-checked false claims of Rajiv Dixit. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made my position clear, it shouldn't be included. Don't ping me again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• RSN discussion. If I relisted it, I'd note that the author of the LallanTop piece does not use a last name, and uses a gmail address. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  It appears that LallanTop's fact-checking is an independent unit (about us), and they became IFCN certified in 2023 (IFCN application), so it has no bearing on the reliability of the LallanTop ref. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  You are free to find WP:RS which can certify your claim that Rajiv Dixit was not a fake news peddler. Capitals00 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  No one is making that claim, and the ONUS is on those who seek to include. Stop disrupting this talk page with misrepresentations while ignoring content policy. --Hipal (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  ONUS is on you to prove how any of those sources are misleading with the help of WP:RS. Your own POV is totally ineffective, no matter how much bad faith you assume to deflect attention from that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's nonsensical and hostile. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  LallanTop debuted less than a year before the reference was published, and was publishing in a highly amateur fashion at the time (not providing author's full names nor a copyright, amateur descriptions in the about us and about the author pages, no fact-checking team). There's no evidence offered that it met WP:RS criteria. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @DaxServer: (re:05:20, 27 April 2024) and @Ivanvector: (re: 16:38, 10 April 2024), both of whom removed the disputed content and references from the lede prior to the discussions started by Abecedare in June. (Abecedare has been on break since Aug 1). --Hipal (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I reverted the addition back in April because the sources provided were grossly inadequate to be calling someone a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's voice. Orientls reverted me less than a day later. I'm not familiar with the subject and haven't been following the discussions, but at a glance this article does read to me more like a hit piece a hostile government would write to discredit someone than it does a neutral Wikipedia biography. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The only candidate for a "hostile government" here actually depends on the fake news invented by Rajiv Dixit.[15] Capitals00 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It reads like propaganda, is what I meant to say. I wasn't meaning to suggest that any government actually wrote it (although a lot of Indian media is suspect) but that if a hypothetical government was going to write a negative propaganda piece about an activist they didn't like, it would look like this. What concerns me about it is that the claim that he was "noted for spreading false claims" has no context, and reads like a news comment troll dropping "this is fake news!" on something they don't like. In the body we say that he is "noted for pioneering the trend of disinformation in India", but his name doesn't appear in that target article even once. It doesn't reconcile with my sense of verifiability, and seems like an unsupported opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The content is entirely verified by the cited sources that have existed on this article since mid-2019.[16] Not every fake news peddler has to be notable enough to get a mention on that article. More notable fake news peddlers like Swarajya (magazine), Organiser (magazine) and more are not listed there either. Have you checked the lead of Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others? The lead of this Rajiv Dixit article is not any different from those articles but in fact, it is watered-down in comparison. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the politics here: Rajiv Dixit was known primarily as a proponent of swadeshi-economics, which the Modi's party originally embraced but then shifted from (Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Economic_policies). Dixit appears to be a scapegoat for justifying or attacking the policies and political shift. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That made no sense. You can cite a single BJP member who has criticized Rajiv Dixit, just like I have cited where they rely on the fake news invented by Rajiv Dixit. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't identify who was making the comments, nor is it relevant, beyond that much of the attacks and praise about Dixit are politically motivated. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector You might also want to take a look at the R. C. Majumdar page. There's a similar issue, with three or four editors pushing the same narrative and misrepresenting extremely poor sources. The problem isn't limited to just two or three pages. Their way of arguing is also uncannily similar: labeling X as 'something' and then asking, 'Can you provide any source that says X is not 'something'?' This is known as the shifting the burden of proof fallacy, also called an argument from ignorance. I trust you'll ultimately do the right thing. 2409:4089:8283:54F2:84D8:1B27:B011:E793 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The argument from ignorance fallacy is parodied well in WP:GREENCHEESE. The opinion of internet news sources shifting to follow the changing opinions of whoever's in power at the time is good evidence for why articles constructed by cherrypicking from those sources will always fail NPOV, especially for people who any state might ever have had any incentive to try to discredit. Articles like this should be based on the highest quality scholarly sources, and this one isn't. That's really my only input here: bad sources = bad article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) This RfC is malformed, as it just gives a binary choice, yes and no. Other wording may be appropriate. My view is that the wording proposed, if necessitated by WP:LEAD, is of insufficient length, is too jarring,and requires more elaboration for a lead sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm removing the separate sections for support and oppose opinions. That is almost never an appropriate format for a content question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am very much inclined to vote No. It should definetelly not be in the first paragraph and should probably be rephrased as "Dixit was accused on multiple occasions of spreading misinformation regarding x and y topics." Vague accusations should never be used. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Cinemaandpolitics: Vague how? Nobody has refuted the fact that he was a fake news peddler. Can you find any WP:RS which can certify that he was not a fake news peddler? Capitals00 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Because it should be stated what fake news he pushed for. Similarly to MOS:CRIMINAL, make it specific. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Cinemaandpolitics: See the 2nd paragraph of Rajiv Dixit#Ideology and rhetoric. It is stated there. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00:: You claim, This information has been confirmed by at least 5 reliable sources that he was a profilic a fake news peddler. What are those sources and where is the consensus that they are reliable? --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

They are [17][18][19][20][21]. Four them of them are fact-checkers. Consensus exists across Wikipedia that they are reliable. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• @FMSky: See the 2nd paragraph of Rajiv Dixit#Ideology and rhetoric. It was fully described there. Capitals00 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

The Lallantop reference is not reliable for reasons given. Those reasons are uncontested, as discussed above #RS summary.

FirstPost ref is not reliable for the reasons given. Those reasons are uncontested as discussed above.

The Quint article does not verify the content in question.

The BoomLive article does not verify the content in question.

The Factly article does not verify the content in question.

The last three articles only discuss specific claims that Dixit made. While we might cover those claims and state they are incorrect, it would be an V, OR, and POV violation to use these sources to support the topic of this RfC. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You are all still discussing this as if the definition could be added in this form, but it really shouldn't. "spreading false claims" should be specified, similarly to MOS:CRIMINAL. What false claims are we talking about? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the lead paragraphs of Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others. This article was not doing anything new. Capitals00 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: We cannot make changes to this encyclopedia based on Google search results. Instead, we need reliable sources. Can you please give us your search results so we can determine if they contain any references that we can use? --Hipal (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I will remind everyone, that is is down to the closer to determine the strength of the arguments, not any of us. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The question is already flawed, you cannot use a vague definition as "spreading false claims". You have to be specific about which false claims, per wikipedia policy ( MOS:CRIMINAL ). Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is specific about that on the lead of many articles like Graham Phillips (journalist), Peter C. Gøtzsche, John Honeyman and others. In any case, do you agree with this new edit? I am sure it addressed your concerns. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• @FMSky exactly, talking about sources without even noticing the glaring mistake in writing. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• @Raymond3023 then be specific about which fake news, MOS:CRIMINAL is clear about this. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Cinemaandpolitics: Could you explain why you think MOS:CRIMINAL applies here? I'd understand if the (alleged) falsehoods here were, e.g., libel or perjury, but as far as I can tell that's not the case. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  First of all because spreading false claims can indeed be a criminal charge. Point of it not being specified is that this is also not clear. Second because of the rationale of the guideline, editors should write trying to be specific about facts and not just throwing around negative labels on people, regardless of the gravity of what they committed. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis is misleading. See how the article on False or misleading statements by Donald Trump is written. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What's misleading is ignoring the facts presented on why sources are unreliable and/or fail verification, and making comparisons to articles where such source problems do not exist. The facts remain uncontested. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)