Talk:Brendan Eich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bias

Having 'opposition to same-sex marriage' in the known for section is hugely biased considering it's far far overshadowed by being the creator of the JavaScript. I don't think i've ever seen another article with a personal view listed there. 173.177.183.115 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the multiple international reliable sources it's cited to, which list it literally in the headline of the cited pieces, it really does appear to be the thing Eich is actually famous for in the wider world - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, it's not at all clear that Brave is something that Eich is famous for; if anything, it's the other way around: Brave's press coverage is mostly from it being Eich's next project - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The average person does not know who 'Brendan Eich' is, even if that person is from the LGBT community. There are more computer science students who know him as the creator of JavaScript and for his contribution to Mozilla than those who know him for his personal views. A few articles talking about his personal views does and should not overshadow his contribution to his field. We may as well do the same for every other scientist. By that logic, lets add "Marriage to first cousin" as one of many things Einstein was known for and reference the many articles and books on that topic. Or Alan Turing's lifestyle and unfortunate death which he is also very well known for (it's one of the first things we are taught about him in addition to his great contributions to computer science). Or Mel Gibson's infamous views? It feels like this is a low key attempt at discrediting the guy because someone does not agree with his views. It is very unprofessional and a shame that this is allowed to happen in Wikipedia. --203.40.2.216 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

by your logic, you may as well remove javascript from known for, for i doubt any layman would know he was the prime creator of javascript. in fact, you might as well apply the same logic to any low-key personality who has made significant but unknown contributions to tech/science/others and instead associate them with some inflammatory statement (which is basically, at the end of their day, their own personal view and is something better off mentioned in 'personal life' or 'controversies') just because you disagree with their views. for the record, i don't care either way about same-sex marriage and i come from a culture where our 'gods' were 'gay' and are still fervently worshipped to this day, so kindly do not interpret my action as a biased one. i firmly believe i am as neutral as one can get in this regard. it is unfair to put a personal view in 'known for' and feels like it was done vindictively, with an ulterior motive to create an unnecessarily high negative image of him and destroy his life. its not as if he invented opposition to same-sex marriage. had he founded a group that opposed the notion of same-sex marriage, that would be of note. this is better off placed in 'personal life' or 'controversies'. 60.243.100.92 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) (too lazy to log in)

I think this is one of the situations where the truth is something that can be hugely biasing. Given that this is an article about a living person, I think it would be great to get this checked over and see what Wikipedia's established policies are here. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP, which requires controversial claims to be verifiably cited to reliable sources. The claim is multiply cited to such sources, and the controversy appears to be that someone doesn't like this - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to add 'Firefox' and 'Brave Browser' to the 'known for' section and remove the 'opposition to same sex marriage' bit, as there's just no way Eich is more known for opposing gay marriage than his browsers that they haven't even bothered to mention. Alas, the biased mods at Wikipedia changed it back. Apparently opposing gay marriage is more important than inventing an immensely popular web browser, let alone two. Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias is showing badly here, regardless of how they might attempt to defend this decision. It has to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.160.205 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The claim is multiply cited to high-quality mainstream reliable sources. I suggest you review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

he did not invent 'opposition to same-sex marriage' nor did he found a group that opposed it, so it is illogical, petty, vindictive & bullying behaviour to mention the same in this box, whether there are citations are not. furthermore, it means nothing in the large scale of things as some people will always oppose it, some will always support it, and the rest will not care either way as long as it does not directly affect them. 60.243.100.92 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) (too lazy to log in)

This is incoherent, and I strongly suggest you reread WP:BLP and stop trying to edit-war Reliable Sources out of a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but what part of it is incoherent? I would like to understand what exactly is present in the WP:BLP of which I am a contributor that states you can add this? Why not add Brad Pitt is known for his marriage and divorce to Angeline Jolie, or that Jolie is known for her various adoptions, since that is how they were searched for, for a very long time? 60.243.100.92 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's literally the thing Brendan Eich is most famous for in the wider world, as demonstrated by the content of WP:RSes - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

can you define what is 'wider world'? apart from the new articles that covered him that way and among the gay community, which part of the wider world knows him more for creating javascript and co-founding mozilla? similarly, you have conveniently ignored my other examples of other celebs but simply keep insisting that you are correct. using your same 'wider world' term, my examples must apply too. why haven't you gone ahead and edited those articles then? are you simply squatting on this article since it is your opinion and you do not wish to change it? is it your ego speaking here? 115.97.89.52 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The world outside tech. You know, such as his opposition to same-sex marriage being literally headline news in multiple highly-regarded solidly mainstream Reliable Sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear David Gerard, I think you haven't addressed the elephant in the room, which is User's pointing out that "Why not add Brad Pitt is known for his marriage and divorce to Angeline Jolie, or that Jolie is known for her various adoptions". This is the very same thing. Brendan Eich has also never made outstanding contributions to the anti-gay marriage cause, so it is hard not to see this label as a biased and vindictive approach to the public figure Eich is. I would be glad if you could address this in a more objective way than "headline news in multiple ... Sources" - we have many headlines about Florida Man too, for what that is worth. Cheers, Edoardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.115.96.41 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If he is known for such opposition, there would be supporting evidence dating from that time. Rather he is known for being bullied because of his support, many years later. 142.163.194.13 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Problematic rolling IP edits on this talk page

This page has an unusual problem. There are many rolling-IP comments and new IP addresses talking with each other. Given the circumstances, with a new IP account, it is unlikely your participation in voting or discussions will hold much weight. There is simply no way to determine who you are or scrutinize your past editing behavior. IP users are not exempt from disclosing conflict of interest, may not use IPs to avoid scrutiny of their past discussions (which is INHERENT in making edits using a rolling IP), and (like all users) must not participate in meatpuppetry or canvassing. I'm interested in what other experienced editors have to say about this? But my suggestion is to please consider registering or using a static IP so you can build a positive reputation. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A statement

It seems Brendan Eich invented 'opposition to same-sex marriage'. Apparently, opposition to same-sex marriage that existed before Brendon Eich was born, was created anticipating his birth. How astoundingly prophetic. Never knew that.

Sarcasm apart, Eich did not invent 'opposition to same-sex marriage' (quite obvious I believe) so it is illogical, petty, vindictive & bullying behaviour to mention the same in the infobox, whether there are citations are not. It is perfectly fine to do so in the article itself, with its own section.

An editor's views of this on the talk page (a response to some older comment) are "it really does appear to be the thing Eich is actually famous for in the wider world" and "it's not at all clear that Brave is something that Eich is famous for; if anything, it's the other way around: Brave's press coverage is mostly from it being Eich's next project" and "The claim is multiply cited to such sources, and the controversy appears to be that someone doesn't like this".

By that logic, one may as well remove javascript from 'known for', for i doubt any layman 'in the wider world' would know he was the prime designer of javascript.

As a matter of fact, one might as well apply the same logic to any low-key personality who has made significant but unknown contributions to tech/science/others and instead associate them with some inflammatory statement just because one disagrees with their views.

That makes no sense. Such comments may freely appear under personal life or controversies or have its own section - but appear in the infobox?

I am not denying Eich's stance here or asking for a 'benefit of doubt' or some other sappy thing. It is a well-cited controversy and absolutely deserves to be present. I would have added it otherwise. It is absolutely relevant enough to have its own section in the article. But is it relevant enough to be stated in an infobox?

Let us take this objectively. Unless it is a person who created an organisation that actively supported/opposed same-sex marriage, or actively campaigned in favour of/or against same-sex marriage, it is not logical or relevant to mention their 'social opinions' in the infobox. There are thousands of celebs who either openly advocate same-sex marriage or are against it or stay silent over the topic. Every famous person out there is known for some controversy or the other. It is as logical as mentioning 'known for smoking weed' or 'known for supporting same-sex marriage' or 'known for being straight' or 'known for being an atheist' in the info box of all celebs out there.

Carrying forward the logic of the editor i.e. , one might as well add 'known for adopting orphans' in Angelina Jolie's infobox or 'known for being gay' in Sir Ian McKellen's & Stephen Fry's infobox or 'known for supporting eugenics' in Nikola Tesla's infobox or 'known for opposing the gold standard' in Thomas Alva Edison's infobox. The editor stated in one of his comments that there are enough citations for his action, but there are more than enough citations for my examples too! Why aren't those mentioned, then? Simple. It is not because those points are not of note, but because it too shallow to mention those points, and not at all relevant for an infobox.

On the other hand, Angelina Jolie's close association with UNHC is of note (which is mentioned in the infobox) and McKellen's contributions towards LGBT rights including his founding of lobby groups is also of note (but not mentioned in the infobox). Had Jolie or McKellen only contributed to charity once or twice, it would be pertinent enough to be mentioned in the article, but not enough to be mentioned in the infobox.

But as opposed to Jolie's or McKellen's repeated participation in those activities, Eich's action, though widely recorded, did not involve repeated actions i.e. repeated donations and active participation in movements against same-sex marriages, as far as I have read. He resigned from Mozilla, allegedly due to the furore caused by his personal action, which again appears to have been done only once, from what I have noted. Also, the term 'allegedly', since the article itself mentions both sides of the coin instead of blindly attributing his 2014 resignation only due to his action from 2008.

This makes his opposition or support for same-sex marriages irrelevant. It is as relevant as someone contributing once to a LGBT lobby group (for public brownie points) and forgetting about it. Nobody would mention that in an infobox, so why would someone mention this?

Would one expect the infobox of a baseball player to contain information about his sexuality/sexual preferences? Or would one expect a rapist/murderer's musical preferences to be mentioned in an infobox? Unless it is pertinent to the person's profession or the reason for which the article is written/focus of the article, I don't think so. So unless the Editors are openly going to state that the article on Brenden Eich was solely written with an objective to target him about his outspoken action, which makes no sense (since it would mean wikipedia was used more as a directory to gauge support/opposition to lgbt rights which is not the point of wikipedia), I believe the comment 'opposition to same-sex marriage' has no place to be in an 'infobox'. The same may be freely mentioned in the article with its own sections as required, but it is neither of note nor is it logical to mention it in the infobox. It only appears to be a vindictive act, which is not the right attitude to have for an Editor.

For the record, I don't care either way about same-sex marriage, as I come from a culture where our 'gods' were 'gay' and are still fervently worshipped to this day, so kindly do not interpret my action as a biased one. I firmly believe I am as neutral as one can get in this regard. It is absolutely unfair to put a personal view in 'known for' and feels like it was done vindictively, with an ulterior motive to create an unnecessarily high negative image of him. Its not as if he invented opposition to same-sex marriage. Had he founded a group that opposed the notion of same-sex marriage, that would be of note. This is more optimally placed in 'personal life' or 'controversies'.

60.243.100.92 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's literally the thing Brendan Eich is most famous for in the wider world, as demonstrated by the content of WP:RSes - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As I explained at BLPN, the idea someone being known for something means they invented it makes zero sense. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

can you all define what is 'wider world'? apart from the new articles that covered him that way and among the gay community, which part of the wider world knows him more for creating javascript and co-founding mozilla? similarly, you have conveniently ignored my other examples of other celebs but simply keep insisting that you are correct. using your same 'wider world' term, my examples must apply too. why haven't you gone ahead and edited those articles then? are you simply squatting on this article since it is your opinion and you do not wish to change it? is it your ego speaking here? 115.97.89.52 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, please refer to my response to your response in BLPN page regarding notability. I have continued with the same example you had mentioned to me. I believe things are not handled fairly as far as the infobox is concerned. I believe the rest of the article is quite fine, as already opined. 115.97.89.52 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The world outside tech - those are solid mainstream RSes where Eich's opposition to same-sex marriage is literally headline news. Eich is actually famous in the world outside technology for his opposition to same-sex marriage - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your statement has a contradiction in it. You claim that he is famous in the world outside the technology industry because of his opposition to same-sex marriage, but why is this fact notable in the first place? The answer is simple, it's because of his contributions to the computer industry. I don't understand why you keep repeating the same excuse over and over again to keep this irrelevant and defamatory language in the infobox. Please try to remember the core values that keep Wikipedia a reliable source for millions of people around the world, and try to refrain from letting your personal opinions guide the editing process on a website that is supposed to be neutral. 135.180.36.114 (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

The part where it says "known for mozilla, firefox and also same sex marriage oppsition" is quite retarded. Although that's true, that does mean that goes with co-founding a whole corpo. I suggest removing the opposition to same sex marriage from the intro section. I believe that was intentionally put there to prove a point by the cancel culture. 103.127.59.194 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Look at the section directly above this. You'll need to change consensus to change that wording. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that being known for opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't quite hold water. "Most known for" seems a subjective metric at best, so level of impact (in financial terms) may be a better point of reference. Mozilla [1] and Brave [2] are both multi-million dollar companies and JavaScript is one of the most widely-used programming languages [3] making it worth billions over its lifetime. In contrast, $3100 of donations over a decade ago doesn't really compare. (Also, I'm new to Wikipedia, forgive any flaws in protocol I've exhibited). BraveCafe (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

BraveCafe, Hello! Do you have any association with the Brave organization and are you attempting to advocate on their behalf as part of a job? You must declare any conflicts of interest you have. Jorm (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jorm, Hi there and thank you for letting me know! No, I do not work for them but I have my own free social media website (www.brave.cafe) and commission Brave-related art sometimes. But it's an entirely for fun, a hobby and not for profit. So I wouldn't say it qualifies as a conflict of interest. BraveCafe (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

BraveCafe, This sounds pretty much like a conflict of interest to me but perhaps in a different way. You shouldn't use a username that is also the name of your company or site. Jorm (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jorm, thank you for the guidance, I appreciate it. And that makes sense. Given I'm new I'll just make a new account and work on contributing to a large variety of topics. BraveCafe (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jorm, Regardless, the point stands on it's own. Namely, that professional accomplishments are on a different scale, and in a different category than personal views. Perhaps it would be better to replace "Known For" with "Title" or "Occupation", a less subjective metric. ParkerBanks (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ParkerBanks, And yet, he absolutely is best known for this if you step immediately outside of the small world of Brave enthusiasts. You will need significant sourcing to pull it off that. Jorm (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)