Talk:James Frenkel

Honestly?

Are you guys serious? Who do you think you are? I mean, he's been canned. They tweeted about it. Do you honestly want to be 'The Website who Ignored Harassment"? Keeby101 3:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

After I spent time carefully reading the BLP policy: The blog posts that were made detailing the harrassment claim are legitimate sources. They are not self-published (or at least, one of them is, the others aren't) because the same post was cross-posted to other blogs. (In other words, Mr. Scalzi posted a post written by someone else.) The prohibition is against self-published material. However everything in those cross-posted posts is irrelvant, without a link in the chain of evidence pointing to James Frenkel, and said link is only provided in comments. The policy calls out comments specifically as never acceptable for a citation. (I've reverted my edits pre-emptively.) LrdDimwit

"Importance"?

I've removed the {{importance}} tag from this page, as it seems to me Frenkel is quite obviously asserted to be an influential editor. (And the existance of, at this point, 79 other people in Category:Science fiction editors suggests to me that being such a person is broadly notable). Any objections? JennyRad 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Rumor of Sexual Harassment 28 June 2013"

We've got people posting allegations of sexual harassment by this individual into the article based on an allegation off of someone's blog. Do we have a real source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.241.117 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We Do Not. And viz BoLP, EVERYONE SHOULD KEEP THAT ACCUSATION OUT OF THE ARTICLE until it is substantiated in an official manner, and -- better yet -- proven; we don't need to develop a reputation as a lynch mob, folks.
Baylink (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Sourcing such material to blogs is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. If it is added again, delete it. And note that even if better sourcing is found, adding unconfirmed allegations of sexual harassment may fall foul of WP:BLP policy too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added a -- what I hope is -- suitable HTML comment inside the page to remind potential editors. I know we don't do that much anymore -- I was disappointed to see The Sheldon Warning is no more -- but it seems called for here; both sides will be on their horse. Do[ing] No Harm seems the safer course, for now.
Baylink (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read the various blog discussions about him, there have been countless reports about Frenkel over the years. I'm sorry that the neckbeards of Wikipedia think it's more important ot protect "a man's reputation" than women's safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.105.147 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)<! Template:Unsigned IP -->

I'm afraid it's too late for that, Baylink. The fact that you showed up here almost immediately, suggests that you too, believe it's so. If you're going to try and convince your fellows about the need for 'standards of evidence', I'm afraid the horse has already left the barn. It sucks, but that's the community you're part of. SuperMudz (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, what about just saying that he was *accused* of sexual harassment? That way it acknowledges the issue without unnecessarily damning him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.125.116 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that would be fine if two broadsheet-equivalent newspapers report on the accusation having a major impact on his career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tor Executive Editor Patrick Nielsen announced to Tor authors today that James Frekel was no longer associated with Tor books. The article should be corrected to say he is a former editor with Tor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.108.242 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Twitter count? https://twitter.com/pnh/status/355330955835224064

DavidHobby (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added additional information that was recently released by the organizers of the WisCon conference under consultation of their lawyers. "In July 2013, Frenkel left Tor following a formal report filed against him at Wiscon 37, which was widely discussed on blogs" I believe this complies with BLP as this is an official statement made by a conference. In addition, it was made under the advisement of an attorney, and therefore can be presumed to not contain libel. However, this too was reverted.

In addition, looking through the logs, I see this sourced statement was also removed: "In July 2013, Frenkel left Tor following allegations of sexual harassment."

This also complied with the BLP policy as it a publication with editorial review.

Lepidoptera (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You were citing a self-published source, which didn't even assert what you claimed it did - it does not state that an official report was filed 'against Frenkel' (and in a second citation, didn't mention Frenkel at all). And, in making a connection between your unsourced assertion and Frenkel's leaving Tor, engaging in synthesis. And, as I would hope someone who has been editing Wikipedia for as long as you should be aware, WP:BLP policy covers matters beyond potential libel. Even with proper sourcing, allegations of inappropriate behaviour are unlikely to merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

See the discussion at WP:BLPN#James Frenkel where I have asked for advice about whether the sourcing information is now such that we can include this material.  Sandstein  07:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Official announcement from WisCon

James Frenkel's ban from WisCon has been made permanent, with no opportunity for appeal: [1]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this, can I remind contributors that WP:BLP and WP:RS must be followed, and that any material added must be properly sourced, and compliant with policy. I have already had to revert an edit sourced to Twitter and blogs, and another where the edit was not supported by the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the past, what are generally regarded as among the most reliable sources in the world of science fiction: Locus, Ansible, File 770 and the Nielsen Haydens' Making Light, have been brusquely dismissed as not sufficient, by people grossly ignorant of the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Harassment is a crime in many jurisdictions and as a result, I believe that WP:BLPCRIME may come into play. We may not be able to list the reason of why he was fired due to BLP. Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a huge reach. We (and for that matter, the sources) have stayed away from discussing the precise details of Frenkel's harrassing behavior, so it would be awfully difficult to pretend that we were making a criminal accusation (which hasn't been done here in this article, and which I don't think anyone is suggesting we should do). It's definitely out in the public that Frenkel and Tor parted ways (ahem) right after Tor became aware of Frenkel's misconduct; it's also public knowledge that WisCon banned Frenkel for his behavior. Suggesting that we can't mention that Frenkel was banned from WisCon for harrassment because what he did might, under some vague and hypothetical circumstances, have also been illegal (instead of just appalling and offensive) just doesn't hold water. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead Links

All three interview links at the bottom of the page are now dead.128.119.247.147 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

2017 Controversy

The sentence added at the end isn't quite right. It claims that because Jim was made GoH Liaison, several authors withdrew from the convention. That's not quite right. He had been Monica's GoH liaison, but that was changed -- possibly at her request. But then she found out he was going to be on some panels with her. THAT was the reason she pulled out. Author Patrick S. Tomlinson then followed her lead and withdrew, primarily because he felt the Convention Committee had done a poor job of responding to Monica's concerns ("Ignoring the legitimate concerns of your female guests and attendees is a no go."). Then author Catherine Lundoff pulled out, "due to Frenkel's presence on the con com and programming" (but not because he had previously been the GoH Liaison). So the spirit of the new sentence is correct, but the details are off quite a bit. I'm a little too close to the situation to feel comfortable re-writing the sentence, but I'm hoping someone else here can do that. Reading the two links the anonymous editor referred to should give you all the detail you need. Darrah (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made some edits that clarified all the items you raise, Darrah. (Full disclosure: yes, I'm an SF fan and book reviewer in Wisconsin; yes, I know Jim [and Joan], just as I know some of the women he harassed; yes, I also know several dozen people who are or have been on the conventions committees of WisCon and/or Odyssey Con.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I think you fixed it properly. I'm pretty sure I would have rambled on too much; your edit is short and to the point. Darrah (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)