Talk:Brendan Eich

Infobox 'known for' content (regarding you-know-what-I-mean)?

I've just accepted, and then swiftly unaccepted (not rejected, mind), the removal of "opposition to same-sex marriage" from the infobox; the removing editor had cited BLP policy as justification. What's the consensus (if there is such a thing!) on this - should it appear in the infobox or not? (Sorry, too lazy to trawl through the entire talk page to gauge that myself.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is going to appear in the infobox because his opposition to equal rights for gays is the thing the subject is most noted for. It is not BLP violating because it is true and well-sourced. This discussion has been had a zillion times; nothing has changed.
FWIW, "pending changes" is the exact wrong degree of protection for this article, as it doesn't reduce the workload of the editors at all; it merely hides vandalism.--Jorm (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Meh. It now has two sources, and it did have an impact, and he has given money to a campaign that opposed same-sex marriage. RSN discussion on use of Pinknews as a source. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: To be clear, Eich is not "most" known for his opposition to same-sex marriage. To my knowledge, nobody here is arguing that. WP:RS pretty much all point to his work with Javascript, Brave, or Mozilla. He happens to also be known for this gay marriage issue. The only reason that statement has three citations is because it keeps getting removed, not because it is especially prominent. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not about to SP content in a BLP that has been challenged. I don't like getting letters from attorneys. Inclusion/exclusion of the challenged, "most noted for opposition to same-sex marriage," part should be determined by consensus. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement that his opposition to same-sex marriage is "the thing the subject is most noted for" is patently false. The subject is known for his work in the computer industry, having invented a programming language used by millions of people all over the world. The subject made a donation to a political campaign; he was not the leader of any political party or activism group. The addition of this text to the infobox appears to be some sort of character assassination attempt by someone who has a personal vendetta against the subject himself or against people who hold views on same-sex marriage that do not align with their own. 135.180.36.114 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Or it was added by users dedicated to building an encyclopedia built upon what is said in WP:reliable sources. Now, I agree we could remove it from the infobox w/o hurting the article, but one cannot ignore what has been documented in reliable sources, even if the subject of an article and those speaking for him do not like it. Did his actions in this matter not have ramifications apart from what is said in an encyclopedia covering those ramifications? Please raise your concerns at WP:BLPN, leaving out the WP:aspersions and personal attacks. If that does not work out to your satisfaction, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Also, once again, the personal attacks work against persuading people to your point of view. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree-- remove from "most noted for. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems a little bit WP:INVOLVED to me to put your opinion (that "best noted for" is unsupported) in the page protection message, after discussing it here. It seems like you're weighing in a 'more official' capacity than normal, almost like a supervote. :( It also just says "known for", there is no "best". If you look at the article, a pretty big controversy in his career was this same sex marriage opposition, it resulted in him being removed as CEO. There's more about that than JS and Mozilla combined. Seems like that follows WP:DUE / MOS:LEADREL to me (although, I'm not sure if there's an equivalent policy for infoboxes). Leijurv (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Leijurv. I don't think that "most" belongs anywhere in the needed phrasings, but I absolutely 100% think it is one of the things the subject is best known for (I assumed Deepfriedokra's use was the type of mish-up that happens to me when I see seven different things at the same time, and an edit summary may have said that, or something.) Jorm (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: Well, I was coming across as endorsing the challenged content in the protection notice And that was wrong. I mean people were reverting to that because of the prior protection notice! What I'm trying to say is that people should stop changing content until this gets sorted. If you look above, you'll see my answer to the IP, where I pretty much agree with you that it should be included, or at least not omitted w/o discussion. They objected to most noted for. And I think "most noted for" is too much. So I think we can all agree that it should be there, without the "most"? Sorry if I'm being confusing. Hopefully this is clearer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Gah! Should have been most. Not best. If I had a way to edit these summaries w/o reprotecting, I could have corrected it correctly w/o all this drama. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I only see "most" or "best" on this talk page, not in the article history (unless I'm missing something)? I don't think anyone wants to write "most known for" or "best noted for" or any of that on the article; I believe the only content dispute here is "should this be listed in the infobox under Known For" (which has been disputed and edited back and forth many many times). So I think we can all agree that it should be there, without the "most"? I mean, yes, but I think this may be a misunderstanding where no one actually disagreed with that, yes. Jorm just said I don't think that "most" belongs anywhere in the needed phrasings too. Leijurv (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "known for opposition to same-sex marriage," can be included without superlatives. The IP editor objected to "most". With a consensus to point to, we can ask those who wish to remove, "known for opposition to same-sex marriage," to look at the discussion. I will note that while the IP was willing to complain here and to edit war, they did not make policy based arguments and did not raise the issue at WP:BLPN as I recommended they do. With three sources, it is better sourced now than with just "pink", which may have been all their was when I first protected.. Pink is not strong enough for this content by itself, per this RFC. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove "best known" parameter from infobox completely?

For what it's worth, I support ProcrastinatingReader's proposal to just remove this parameter from the infobox completely. Probably more than half of the edits to this article over the last year have been related to this infobox parameter. It might be better to just let the article speak for itself.

That said, I thought it was weird that the article noted his opposition to same sex marriage but that this opposition was not mentioned in the lead at all. Therefore, I think a brief mention of his resignation from Mozilla should be added to the lead, maybe by tacking on some words to the existing sentence: "He co-founded the Mozilla project, the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation, and . He served as the Mozilla Corporation's chief technical officer from 2005 to 2011 and, briefly, as its chief executive officer in 2014 before resigning amid criticism over his prior political donations in support of a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in California.." Or something like that. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a perfectly good idea. Jorm (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also support simply removing the parameter from the infobox if it is contentious. The "known for" parameter is already pretty weak in its guidance, and it doesn't help when there are not articles that directly talk about a person being "known for" certain things. The article prose is probably a better place to deal with controversial aspects of a person's biography because they can be presented with adequate context and weight. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to the lead seems good to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Parameter should be removed entirely in this scenario. Leijurv (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader. I thought I would be bold and try to help out, and some of the additional details you mention above may be helpful as well. I also just now removed the "known for" parameter from the infobox since several people have suggested that and no one has made any objection to it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tainting valuable project with ad-hominems

Why is Eich's denial of the effectiveness of face masks and lockdowns part of the Brave Software section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.55.154 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ardently deny"

The phrase "ardently denied" in "Eich ardently denied the effectiveness of face masks and lockdowns in combating the transmission of COVID-19" is not in either source. The phrase is very strong, especially given "denied" has the connotation of him incorrectly rejecting something. NYT's describes the something as "prevailing assumptions" -- far less severe. Eich expressing "skepticism about many prevailing assumptions" is used by NYT, and doesn't have the stink of POV "ardently denied" does. --2.220.88.52 (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Eich cites himself as saying masks are a "prudent individual choice" in 2020. [1]. From the phrasing it seems he has since shifted to believing masks are ineffective, but since he changed his opinion once and primarily states his opinion in combination with quotes from scientific studies the weak wording seems appropriate. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree; you may delete this comment: https://regexr.com/7gmoe 2600:4040:9AFA:2700:282B:9607:D5AD:CE78 (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Career section content

I came to this page because I wanted to understand why people say the Brave browser is run by a controversial person. A majority of this information is currently buried under the “Career” section. While controversy definitely seems to have had a big impact on Eich’s career I think there’s a strong precedence to see this sort of information in a more clearly labelled section. Especially when it’s a majority of the information in that section. Despite it being the majority of the information, I almost missed it when at first I only read the first paragraph of each subsection.

While heated, comments in this talk page both for and against the presence of controversies seem to indicate this information isn’t categorised well. I think given the portion of information in the career section dedicated to controversy, and for clarity of navigation and topic, that controversy/personal-life components should be moved to a new section entirely, or the “Career” section should be renamed to something like “Career and Controversy”. If the “Career” section is simply renamed for clarity and the information remains mixed, then perhaps better subsection labels could be added to seperate the career contributions from the personal life activities that have impacted Eich’s career.

My understanding from the biography style guide is that each topic should be in chronological order, and yet the first mention of donations is years after they’ve occurred. This makes sense as things are in career chronological order, but it seems disjointed given most of this information is about the controversies. The donations are clearly significant, but are out of order. This disjointedness might make the case for a seperate controversies section, even if there’s a bit of redundancy and cross linking between sections. However I’m not sure if there’s too much overlap to cleanly separate them.

I’m really not familiar enough with Wikipedia styles and conventions to know the best solution, most of this has been my own experience. I’ve tried to find relevant style guides to make informed suggestions. I hope I’ve at least accurately recorded my frustration with the presentation of information in this article. Cacoyi (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Eich's resignation from lead

Regarding this removal and this removal – aside from the extremely bad faith edit summary in the first edit, I would argue that this content is very due for inclusion where it is in the lead. There is an entire section in the article body that discusses the circumstances of Eich's appointment and resignation as Mozilla CEO. Per WP:LEAD, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies [emphasis added]. I don't see any reason not to include it where it is. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Resigning after less than 2 weeks amid a significant public controversy seems pretty noteworthy for the lead, especially given its coverage in the article. – notwally (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)