Talk:Brendan Eich

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I concur with .  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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).  I mean, yes, but I think this may be a misunderstanding where no one actually disagreed with that, yes. Jorm just said  too. Leijurv (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I think this is a perfectly good idea. Jorm (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your edit to the lead seems good to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Parameter should be removed entirely in this scenario. Leijurv (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 'known for' content (regarding you-know-what-I-mean)? 

message: For what it's worth, I support '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:  Or something like that. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a perfectly good idea. Jorm (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your edit to the lead seems good to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Parameter should be removed entirely in this scenario. Leijurv (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . 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)
thread_title:  Remove "best known" parameter from infobox completely? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  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)

text: , 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)

text: , 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)
replies: text: , 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)

text: , 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)

text: , 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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tainting valuable project with ad-hominems 

message: 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)
replies: text: Eich cites himself as saying masks are a "prudent individual choice" in 2020. . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Ardently deny" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Career section content