Talk:James Frenkel

message: 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)
thread_title:  Honestly?

message: I've removed the  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)
thread_title:  "Importance"?

message: 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)
thread_title: BLPN

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Official announcement from WisCon 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  2017 Controversy