Talk:Brendan Eich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Photo

C'mon, someone must have a photo ... - David Gerard 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[][http://images.pcworld.com/news/graphics/118794-2302p064-4b.jpg

something about footnotes

Why are footnotes 12 and 13 placed with the line stating a reference to his 'personal' blog post, and both of them refer to blogposts paraphrasing his post. This should be the mentioned link https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ Sander.houttekier (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this line mischaracterizes the context of his post, which was AFTER the controversy started but BEFORE he stepped down. After the line "There are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla" he continues "I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you." i.e. as CEO. Kellen^T 07:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple neutrality/tone issues

1. While there are five sources attributing the board resignations to Eich's promotion, they are all, as near as I can see, reporting the WSJ report, rather than constituting independent reporting. I'd suggest attributing "resigned because of Eich" to the WSJ, and the denial of that to Mozilla Foundation, in terms of the wording we use. (We kinda do the latter, but I believe "Mozilla Foundation" is the entity rebutting the WSJ report, and would be clearer than "Mozilla".)
2. In the Prop 8 stuff, something about the way the sentence "This reached public notability ... noteworthiness." feels very off, and not just the notable redundancy of notability. The tone of it sounds like a talk page discussion about notability or an AfD discussion, not encyclopedic prose. It feels to me like it's trying a bit too hard to make a point. I think perhaps the reference to it being a March 2012 event, and that it was widely and/or broadly reported, might be right, but I don't know that we need "tech press", "gay press", "the twitter reaction itself", etc.

Any thoughts? I'd like to attempt some changes to improve the article to resolve both of these issues, but I want to first see if other folks agree that there are in fact issues to be solved. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts but refrained from action because one editor created a BLPN making the whole thing potentially more contentious than it should have been. On the one hand, you're right that the first publication on the resignations was the WSJ, but on the other hand many of the other publications have their own sources in the industry so they wouldn't repeat without confirmation. I think the multiple ref note links could simply be combined into one note, i.e. it's possible to have one ref in the text and then several links in the references section. The reason I haven't done that is because one editor contended the resignations weren't even notable in a BLP, and another said they wanted more sources for confirmation of something, so I was afraid that condensing the references into one would understate the notability and the number of WP:RS. Likewise in the Prop 8 section: I think there was probably a debate about whether it was notable when it was only a few reports, but now it's become widely reported, so the section could be streamlined and shortened. Everything has a history.TVC 15 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

By all means, suggest or be bold. Joes's points are excellent. And as for neutrality, the same source that mentions Mozilla employees tweeting for Eich to resign also mentioned calls from employees to stay, though IIRC in smaller numbers. I would have added that already, but didn't want expand the section one character more because IMO it is a bit undue. Perhaps if some of the unnecessary press mentions Joe refers to were trimmed, then this can find a place.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think our combined edits to the resignations paragraph have resulted in improvements. Regarding the Prop 8 section though, I don't think the section is undue at all, it's widely reported and notable because (1) per Citizens United, a CEO can use corporate money for political purposes; (2) regardless of people's personal opinions about same-sex marriage, the dishonest campaign he funded on behalf of Proposition 8 was a Quixotic waste of time and money (the state's then-governor, a Republican, opposed it and called it a waste of time, and the state's current governor called it unconstitutional and indefensible). It raised serious questions about judgment and the direction of corporate resources, which the Foundation has now publicly addressed.TVC 15 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ack! Exactly what I had feared, happened. I combined the references into one note and then pork deleted the whole thing. I try always to WP:AGF, but it's becoming difficult. I suggest that under these circumstances, any changes to the Prop 8 section should be sandboxed first to see if we can get consensus.TVC 15 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe - the tone is indeed an artifact of the discussion higher on the page of whether the donation was noteworthy. By now I think it's pretty clear that said donation is the thing Eich is best known for in the wider world - "he donated to Prop 8 and, oh yeah, invented Javascript". The wording could do with improvement. But I'd suggest that wait until after this burst of the news cycle is over and we have a workable consensus on what goes in the section at all, then we can tweak wording - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please read the telegraph source,which is the only (so far) source to address possible reasons for the resignations. In short, 2 of the 3 were planned, regardless of who was pegged for CEO. Thus, mentioning the resignations in such a way to lead the reader to the erroneous conclusion that the resignations were due to some defect of Eich, is misleading and a BLP violation. There is also the issue of how much weight this should be given considering the state of the rest of the article. Additionally the "half the board" resigned, or any such variety is also leading the reader down the primrose path. Until a source comes out (and it certainly may) that some controversy that involved Eich was responsible for the departure, all mention of the resignations should be left out, as it is an ordinary occurrence.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is also being discussed on BLPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brendan_EichTVC 15 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took a shot at the boards resignation language. I think it's signficant, I think it actually attributes the view. I don't have any problem with including one or two more references that essentially repeat the WSJ if it's felt that it's necessary to enshrine evidence that the WSJ report was signficant, but I hope that more wouldn't be necessary becuse five cites in a row look pretty darn ugly. I hope that if anyone has an issue with it, they'll consider trying to repair the information rather than deleting it. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 03:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. We're reporting what the sources say, no more. Can we get some nays or ayes from the concerned parties? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd wish you would reconsider and remove this edit for now; What if the Mozilla Foundation statement is correct and is corroborated by other RS that have verified this? Too soon? There is no harm waiting, as this all very new. There is no harm by an article being outdated, but there is possible harm by rushing in.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and even if it's left, one source is fine as you suggest. It is prettier.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork: I'm afraid the report is too widely spread, in my view, to entirely ignore, international news coverage and all. I also would guess it is the type of dispute that will remain a dispute--I don't think we'll ever get a completely reliable source for what the board member's "real" reasons were for leaving. He said, she said, etc. But I do agree that we were pushing the WSJ report as factual, and I hope this result feels better balanced. Of course, I'd love to hear other opinions on it too. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let's wait for more opinions. Thank you too Two kinds of pork (talk)

Thanks, I think that's much better than omitting it entirely. I think there were originally six board members though, not five, and AFAIK the Foundation didn't dispute the report, merely balanced it by saying there were a variety of reasons. That is to say, the Foundation didn't deny the report, and didn't claim the choice of CEO was not among the "variety of reasons." It is not routine for half the board to resign in the same week; if it were, it wouldn't have made headlines all over the world. Also, I agree we don't need five ref numbers in the text; the existing two or even one ref number combining multiple links would be fine, but we could also include links to some of the other WP:RS that ran the story; they have their own sources in the industry so it isn't onlythe WSJ reporting it.TVC 15 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

TVC 15, I think the number six came from the observation that there were five, three left, and three remained in the WSJ article. However, the CNET interview with Eich both specificially says there had been five, but that one had joined about the same time the three left. I think that explains the confusion, but, double-check my reading of the sources, I might have misunderstood. I don't have any problem with 2nd or even third there, I just think [5][6][7][8][9] starts looking like overkill, but two or three would be fine, too, and I hear your point about wanting to show that the WSJ coverage was itself covered. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While the phrasing noted in point 2, above, was drastically improved, I still have weight concerns about spending even a sentence on an attempt to divvy up where all the controversy recieved the most press. And while individual sources arguably underly each of the assertions made in the sentence, there is almost what one could describe as a mild synthesis problem as well. As such, I've removed the sentence with this diff: [1] Happy to discuss further, this seems a pretty subjective call. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, re weight: A bigger weight problem is that I believe the article could use more detailed coverage of the specifics of Eich's contributions to JavaScript, which is without question one of his largest achievements. It is possilble that a subject matter expert would be helpful in expanding that. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge prop 8 into career

The article is now disjointed, as the donation, while not part of his career is intertwined. What can we do to improve the chronology?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. The section was poorly named and incongruous. GraniteSand (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm the one who rename the section! I trimmed some things specifically not in the sources, and removed verbiage about the news coverage. After all, we need sources to write the article, so it's unremarkable that we report "they covered it" when we state what the source said in the first place! This was some unnecessary piling on and certainly a violation of the NPOV policy. Also I removed a "who" tag and used the source to answer that question. I also removed some superfluous references. We don't need 5 in a row for the same fact. 2 will do.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the 5th paragraph should be merged into the 6th to trim this down and make the timeline cohesive. if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll work on it later.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the merger was an improvement. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Replies to recent edits

• The "who" tag referred to the boycott. That is directly supported by the source. There might be others who called for a boycott, but I did not see that in the source provided
• The text before my edit made it seem like Eich only received calls from employees to step down, while according to the source he received tweets of support from employes as well. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the {{who}} tag, so I'll leave it be, but I would expect that replacing "others" with "other employees" would address any ambiguity about the meaning of "others". The tag may be indicating a simple matter of wording ambuguity, at least, that's how I read it. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Eich just left Mozilla

Got an email just now (as a registered Mozillian I get these news updates)

All,

I have decided to resign from the position of CEO effective today, and to leave Mozilla. An announcement will be made shortly.

Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader for Mozilla.

I have confidence in the team I've been leading -- with everyone working together, I know that Mozilla can achieve its goals.

I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.

Mitchell will have more details to share on the transition plan.

/be

Didn't make an edit since I don't have any verifiable source, but be on the lookout for the public announcement. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

An announcement came up on the Mozilla blog and I edited the news in. Unfortunately I didn't look close enough and didn't realize that his leaving Mozilla wasn't mentioned there. Sorry about that :) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 19:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

He's mentioned that he is leaving Mozilla in a post on his blog at https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/ 95.113.254.19 (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

His departure also drew criticisms http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/04/mozilla-exec-out-of-job-for-gay-rights-intolerance-some-think-thats-intolerant/?tid=hp_mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rr2002 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Prop 8 donation overshadowing Javascript

I know we're in the midst of a big controversy surrounding the prop 8 donation and Mr. Eich's resignation from Mozilla, and that that is what, for the moment, he is probably most publicly recognized for. However, I think the material on his creation/contribution to Javascript should be increased. The guy creates a computer language used daily by billions of people, and it only warrants a single sentence saying he "worked on" it? As a computer person I'd like to find more information about this aspect of his personal history. I'll wait a few weeks, though, for this episode to calm down, before I try to add any new material. Tim Bird (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no need to wait. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dive in, there's no need to trim any Prop 8 material in order to add other biographical material, especially in an area where he's outrageously under appreciated. GraniteSand (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

+1 - yep, add more relevant stuff - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Board resignations

Half of the Mozilla board members resigning because of him ought to be noted somewhere. Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-resign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.88.234 (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

yes - done.TVC 15 (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

actually, it is now reported that they resigned because of him becoming CEO, but not specifically because of his stance against gay marriage. My sources are German only, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.157.60 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I put it in a different section, not the marriage section.TVC 15 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been removed, I believe it relevant, notable, and should be included. Mathiastck (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source that says exactly that, and it will be fine. So far I haven't seen anything. I don't doubt it's the case, but it's not our job to speculate about anything, only repeat what our sources say. Perhaps in a few days we'll have more clarity as information emerges about the departures. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, this section is becoming undue. Perhaps this belongs in the Mozilla article? Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At least five WP:RS say that three of the six board members resigned because of the decision to make Eich the CEO. There are plenty more sources saying the same thing. At some point a string cite might become undue but evidently one WP:RS wasn't enough for you; if you think five are undue, maybe we should compromise on three.TVC 15 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, undue means the attempt to bloat this incident which makes this article unproportional. Look that up will you, meanwhile I will look up how to file a sock report.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd hope you could assume better faith than that. A conservative approach to the article is appropriate, but the coverage of the board members resigning over his appointment is pretty significant. Things like the VAC and OK Cupid boycotts, I'd wait until there's enough evidence these are at BLP levels of significance - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The OKCupid boycott just hit the Telegraph and BBC. Eich is quite unambiguously famous in the non-techie world now, for this - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And you certainly shouldn't need to be told what "undue" means, but then again I've already dealt with admin who is either a moron or just a petty bitch, so who knows? That's no reflection on you. But back to the original point. Does this donation merit tilting the weight of this article against the one thing Eich is known for? His tenure at Mozilla and development of JS are threadbare next to this issue. Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've already noted, I explicitly support a conservative approach to updating this article, and to clarify, I don't think it should be updated at the speed of the news cycle - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree mostly (e.g. whether to mention OKCupid can wait) but I think Mozilla's statement on March 29 helps balance the headlines, so I added two quotes from it today. BTW, great formula for martinis on your page.TVC 15 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Very strangely the Mozilla statement was commented and removed by User:Two kinds of pork. The reason is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons! very strangely this reason allowed the donation to be mentioned on Wikipedia for several years, till Pro-Gay-marriage forced his resignation, but now it is not allowed to mention Mozilla statement to stop Anti-Gay-marriage from Boycotting Mozilla [2] ! If you want to apply a policy, apply it fair read (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This was removed because this article is not about Mozilla. Do we have a secondary RS contrasting the official views of Mozilla against those held by Eich? If so, we can also say why this is relevant, instead of speculating or trying to get the reader to see between the lines.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed all mention of the resignations, because the Telegraph source is the only one commenting on any rationale for the resignations, and that the reported reason is that the registrations are wholly ordinary. This is a BLP. Implying controversy is the only fathomable reason for including the resignations at this time. Either we can hash this out here and/or wait until the sources become more clear.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I will keep removing the material until a consensus forms here (or elsewhere) that this is not a violation of BLP. Though I am perfectly willing to discuss mention of the resignations that fall within BLP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sources report that half the board resigned over the choice of CEO, and the Foundation that owns the corporation released a public statement on the matter. That is obviously notable and not a violation of BLP. Your deletion (and then reverting, risking an edit war) is disruptive and unwarranted.TVC 15 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Risking an edit war? You are edit warring to restore material that has been challenged as a violation of the BLP policy.

We have the telegraph source, which AFAICT is the only source to provide any information about the nature of the departures. Since two of the resignations were reportedly planned, then the edit in question is pinning Eich as the reason for all three departures. That's contentious. And even if were to stipulate that the other resignation were due to Eich, this is small potatos. People quit boards all the time for many reasons. In short, the edit (and especially the desire that 50% of the board left) is an unspoken indictment on Eich. At least that's my take on it. But hey, I'm willing to listen to opposing views.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This issue is now being discussed on BLPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brendan_Eich

Tech sphere + gay press

Just because a source from the tech sphere (TS) or "gay press" (GP) makes note of the Eich donation, doesn't mean their taking notice is worthy of including in our article -- other than we can report on what they reported. And we are already reporting what they reported! Now if we had ANY reliable source (TS/GP, NYTimes, FoxNews, etc) saying something along the lines of "the gay press and tech sphere covered the Eich donation extensively" that would be a different story. This is some sort of appeal to authority that we are telling the readers Eich done-great-wrong.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, they note that there was a controversy. That's what they're there as evidence of. Pink News is generally considered a reliable journalistic source for its specialist topic, it's not equivalent to a blog or something - David Gerard (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason that I took this out in the first place is this: The phrasing suggests that the controversy was limited to those two categories of coverage, and I don't see coverage that says that's the case. The LA Times is neither a "tech" nor a "gay" source. [3]. So, it's the tiniest bit WP:OR and at least a bit misleading. I believe the article is better without it, but that's just me. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 21:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There was rather more controversy about the whole thing in 2012 than just some upset people on Twitter; the article was misleading before these were added. They also help the reader better understand why it blew up again so much in 2014, when it was inarguably a big deal - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not challenging pinknews or the tech source as being unreliable. However they are not making the claims for the edit you have been trying to advance. The tech cite does reference controversy on twitter, not the tech sphere. The pinknews cite makes no mention of any controversy, but makes note of the donation. Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you (David) please respond to this instead of just reverting?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I just self reverted, because I'm at or near 3RR, while David is over 3RR. Please discuss this or I will escalate this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pink News

For the moment, I'm going to assume that PinkNews is a reliable source, though I believe there are some fair questions about their staff and policies that should be addressed. That being said, let's look at the PinkNews article referenced in the Eich article more carefully, and examine each section in detail.

1. (abstract)Eich made a donation to Prop 8
2. Eich made a donation toward a Prop 8 fund
3. California law requires donors to list their employers, and some of this infomration was published by the LA Times
4. Eich was the only employee of Mozilla to donate towards supporting Prop 8
5. Mozilla has no control over employee donations
6. The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause
7. Quote from the ruling by the 9th Circuit
8. Qutoe from LA times editorial deploring Prop 8

It seems to me this article is simply reporting on Eich's donation and the status of Prop 8, with noting an editorial from the LA Times. I see nothing to indicate that this "was controversial in the tech and gay spheres".Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Queerty

This article from Queerty on the face of it, does not appear to be reliable, but once again, let's assume it is for the moment. A 4 paragraph article:

1. Reports that the LA times is reporting of the Eich donation
2. Mentions there was some "legal wrangling" about the visibility status of the donation list. Editorializes about the donation
3. More editorializing
4. More editorializing

Even counting the editorializing, none of this indicates the Eich donation was "was controversial in the tech and gay spheres".Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

BetaBeat

Another source whose reliability may have issues concerning staff and editorial policies, but once again, let's stipulate its reliability and see what it has to say in this 5 paragraph article

1. The discovery that Eich donated to the Prop 8 lead to "...a shitstorm [being] erupted in the Twittersphere (as shitstorms are wont to do)."
2. This story isn't new. Cover's several negatively received tweets about the donation.
3. Description of Eich's response to some of the reactions
4. Raises the questions of whether Eich should be scorned, and uses another twitter response to temper that question
5. Indicates that even before this issue, Mozilla has other challenges

Ok, this article actually does talk about the controversy. Imagine that, a source actually talking about what was purported to be made in the associated edit? At best, this is singling out a few tweets from some tech oriented people does not indicate this reaction was limited to (or even significant in) "the tech sphere", or that this reaction from the tech sphere was anything out of the ordinary over the non-tech sphere twitter reactions. This is much ado about nothing, and narrowing the scope, or singling out the "tech sphere" is not an improvement to the article. In fact, making this claim is a fine example of synthesis. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary

Since David Gerrard had been most uncooperative in discussing this edit, I found it necessary to comb through each article to put this to bed.I trust no one will disagree with the gist of each line item summary. The sources in no way shape and form make this claim. Now David has said via edit summary (he talks!) "the controversy was not in the media per se; the refs document it happening in those cultural spheres". This is a disingenuous. Using the same edit summaries above there is no reaction from anything that could be the "gay sphere", unless "tech sphere" is a synonym. And even using BetaBeat to support this claim for tech sphere is a wild stretch. This is synthesis. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• His donations, CEO appointment, and resignation have been more than adequately covered by mainstream media sources. I don't see a reason to go elsewhere for coverage. Even if niche sources offered in-depth coverage of certain aspects, it's not worth delving into since it would provide undue weight compared to what the mainstream sources are considering. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits are a nice improvement. However the "early life" section seems to be more about his early professional education and career, and less about his childhood/teen years. I'm struggling to reconcile the text to the section name. Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of to encourage expansion to include details about his early life including his personal life, education, and early career work—anything up until his work at Mozilla. Not specifically his childhood, though it might include it. It could be changed to "Early life and career" to make the time frame more explicit. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Year of birth

] What is the source of the 1961 birthyear? His 'joke' home page mentions 1964 and I cannot find a single source mentioning 1961. I'm assuming the joke home page lists a wrong birth year as I've seen somebody revert an edit of 1961 to 1964 but based on what? Jaap3 09:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If he got his masters in 1986 but was born in 1964 he would have been 21 at the time. This is highly unlikely. 25 for a masters is a bit old but at least it's plausible. Whoever reverted to 1964 has been chastised already so don't worry about it.

The referenced New York Times article from 1996 says that Brendan is 35 years old. 1996 - 35 = 1961. I guess NYT is more trustworthy resource than this joke-page. Nene (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The NYT is trustworthy, but you've erred in your logic. If he's 35 in September 1996, he could have been born in 1960 (say, Nov or Dec 1960) or 1961 (earlier in the year). --j⚛e decker^talk 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone add info on his religion?

It would be nice to know who he associates with.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.173.20 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not relevent to the article.--199.243.65.6 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it's an interesting suggestion but until a reliable source publishes information about this aspect of the topic we have no business including it in an article. --31.49.41.17 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we would need a reliable source. If we had one, it might be relevant (See Eich's CNET interview 1-2 days before his resignation, where he implies his "political or religious views" are the source of the controversy--that's Eich himself suggesting his religious views are relevant here, but I haven't seen anything like a reliable source as to his specific religious and/or spiritual beliefs, if any. I can take a guess (for reasons that have nothing to do with Prop 8), but my guesses are utterly irrelevant to what we should be writing about any subject, and more so living people. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Brendan Eich graduated with a BA or BS from the University of Santa Clara which is a Catholic college. This suggests, but does not get close to proving, he is Catholic. He also has five children, which may suggest that he is a serious Catholic. The Catholic Church requires on pain of mortal sin that all Catholics oppose gay marriage. Pope Francis, before he became pope, described gay marriage as a satanic plot. The Catholic Church also requires all Catholics to avoid all unjust discrimination against homosexuals, which might help explain why no one could point to anything he had done in the work place against homosexuals. It is interesting how hard it is to get this information. I believe that this information is very relevant.Davisrich1 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have continued to search for this information since adding the preceding paragraph. I find no pictures of Brendan at church. No one says that he belongs to any religion. One other writer on the Internet theorized he was Catholic for the reasons I gave, and added that Brendan is the name of an Irish saint and Pittsburgh is a largely Catholic city. That does not add much. It looks like he may have scrubbed the Internet of references of his religion. Same seems to be true of other Internet leaders. Don't these guys ever go to a funeral, baptism, or wedding?Davisrich1 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

New evidence, this is a bit better. Brendan and Eleanor Eich gave between 500 and a thousand dollars to Catholic Charities of Santa Clara. This is the only information on a donation, other than the famous 1000 dollars to support Proposition 8 that I could find. So this tends to confirm that they are Catholic. Here is the link. http://www.catholiccharitiesscc.org/sites/default/files/AR2011_Final_022812.pdf Beyond this my Catholic pastor said that he had seen a television show that said he was Catholic.Davisrich1 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised at learning his religious views were related the the P8 donation. If you have any sources discussing him, they might be helpful in finding if that theory is true, and possibly include in the article. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if more information were to come to light by some enterprising journalist that manages to get Eich to agree to an interview. Bill Maher might even try to land him as a guest, considering he thinks Eich suffered a hit by the gay mafia. But without any good sources, it will remain a mystery.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I certainly have my guesses, but religous belief requires better sourcing than guesswork. Until then, let us move along. unless and until we have a reliable source that addresses what Eich says his religious belief, if any, is. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He has donated to the Democratic Party of America and Moveon.org and others as well. Donating to a Catholic charity does not make one Catholic. I had read that he was a non-Practicing Catholic and had turned to Atheism like Richard Dawkins and Piers Morgan did. One thing that can be proved is that he had been a pioneer in the early world wide web in inventing a lot of the technology and software that we use today, even some that are a part of Wikipedia. Should we just remove everything he invented and designed because of that one donation to the charity that opposed gay marriage, which as I read later he changed his mind on like Obama did after 2008 when this nonsense was "one man and one woman" going through politics, that changed in 2011 apparently and many people had changed their positions on gay marriage, after first in 2008 being opposed to it. Eris Blastar (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Boycott vs calls to resign

I'd have to go through the sources again to find it, but those calling for a boycott were outside of the company. Employees called for his resignation, but not a boycott. In fact it is quite odd to imagine an employee calling for a boycott outside of labor negotiations. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You were right that I conflated resignation vs. boycott. I would like to see a source characterizing the boycott advocates, most appreciated. I'll leave it for now, no rush, but I would like to see this stick very close to what we can verify. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 05:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll look for it again later, but I'm certain it's out there. I used a head lice comb on the sources for this article a few months ago, after realizing creative license was being liberally applied. Unfortunately calls for a boycott AFTER he resigned is making my search more difficult. I'll go off a previous version to be sure.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You may very well be right, I'm looking too. The only direct call I've found so far was from OkCupid [4], but I'll keep looking as well. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Two gay app developers, as well, and Ive seen both this and OKCupid at multiple sources [5]. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And then of course, there's the other boycott by the National Organization for Marriage, [6], [7] , but we don't mention that yet. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverse discrimination

I believe my edit was justified, since the Forbes article certainly classifies the issue (i.e. boycotting the company on the basis of employees' political beliefs) as reverse discrimination/intolerance ("There is a case to be made for calling it intolerance when a coordinated campaign is mounted against an entire company because a group of people disagrees with the personal beliefs of one employee"). Thanks, Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The content: "[Following Eich's resignation, the National Organization for Marriage called for its own boycott of Mozilla] and many individuals (including even some of the LGBT rights activists expressed their disapproval of what they saw as reverse discrimination." is not supported by either article. The Forbes opinion piece states "many feel that the campaign against him is its own form of discrimination and intolerance." There is no mention of "LGBT rights activists" nor is there mention of "discrimination against conservatives" which you piped from "reverse discrimination". This violates WP:SYNTH.- MrX 18:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That is from the other source, an opinion piece written by an openly gay developer who supports LGBT rights. He spoke out in Eich's support and stated that "the open web shouldn't be verboten to those "on the wrong side of history"". Another Forbes article provides one more opinion from an LGBT activist, who disapproved of the gay movement "hounding its opponents". If you're concerned about the use of the term itself, there is reliable conservative media like breitbart.com that does apply the term "discrimination against conservatives" to this situation. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes that opinion piece refers to one LGBT activist and makes no mention of discrimination. Breitbart is not a very good source (see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Breitbart.com). In any case, our policies do not allow for combining material from three different sources to arrive at a completely novel conclusion as you did.- MrX 18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your interpretation, however the base point Dr Fox was trying to make is supported by the sources if my memory is correct, though I personally wouldn't phrase it the way the good Doctor did (reverse discrimination). In any case the article does (or did at some point ) make note that some opinionistas felt that Eich was a victim (and perhaps that is a loaded word) of a double standard. Joe Decker and I thought the counter boycott might be worthy of a mention, but I'm still on the fence on whether it is necessary.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On the NOM boycott, I really do feel that it belongs, and that is what the WaPo/Guardian references support.. The rest (the reverse discrimination clause) .... I haven't done the legwork to have a firm opinion as to whether to delete or fix what I see as sourcing and minor wording issues in that clause. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What is Brendan Eich doing now?

I have not been able to find anything on the Internet, it has been more than six months since he left Mozilla. I don't want to violate his privacy, but if it is public knowledge where is Brendan Eich now?Davisrich1 (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Richard Bruce

Controversy section

I'm not entirely sure that a "Controversy section" best meets Wikipedia's neutrality goals here, my thinking follows the essay WP:CRITS. I thought about simply reverting it (and did for a moment before reverting myself). What do other editors think about this? --j⚛e decker^talk 15:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comes across as bowdlerisation of what we're actually talking about. To techies, Eich is most famous for Javascript; to non-techies, for donating to Prop 8. - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy sections are both bad for the reader and inherently perilous for editors working on a BLP as they usually end up as coatracks for attacking editing. As there is really only one "controversy" anyway, I've removed it and replaced it with a subsection on his resignation from Mozilla. As he moves on with life the formatting can be tweaked again. GraniteSand (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that "anti-gay" as it modifies "National Organization for Marriage" is inflammatory and non-neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.233.138 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Prop 8 donation

I plan to remove the section on Brendan's prop 8 donation. I don't think it's notable. But, it's been removed multiple times in the past and the removals have been quickly reverted without explanation. If anyone objects to the removal, can they please state their reasons here? Thanks. Tim Bird (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed the section Tim Bird (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it's certainly quite notable now that it's the cause of him resigning his job as CEO of Mozilla now, isn't it? Xardox (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess notability is in the eye of the beholder. It didn't seem important in January, but it clearly is notable now. It's interesting to reflect that this article's inclusion of the fact may have contributed to the efforts to have Mr. Eich resign, by retaining this information in a public space when it otherwise might not have been so available to Mr. Eich's deterrents. Seems kind of recursive to me. Tim Bird (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been reverting, but I'll take a shot at discussing this. Wikipedia:Notability says that notability isn't the relevant guideline here - "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and looking through that guideline, this fact is verifiable and well-sourced, and it doesn't seem to cause harm to the subject to include it (he has publicly acknowledged his donation and the controversy around it).

Continuing to look at the BLP guideline, this is instead a question of balance: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." Is it neutral and balanced to include this information? It's phrased very neutrally in the article, and it does seem significant to his history - looking at coverage in secondary sources as a proxy for significance, there's the LA Times article and this BetaBeat article, and there's also his public response. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And PinkNews (UK), taking it international. Also Queerty. Needs noting that this was hugely controversial in the tech sphere; BetaBeat may be usable for that.

tl;dr no, it's a notable incident - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added these to the article, and changed the section header to say what the section's about - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

i don't think his personal views belong here at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovy (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

His personal views appear to be the thing he is famous for outside the tech sphere - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaand it's happened again, with Channel 4 covering the story as well as a pile of US sources (of which I've linked the apparent epicentre, Ars Technica) - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Major sources worldwide are publishing now, from The Guardian in the UK to Business Insider and the San Francisco Chronicle[[8] and the ]San Jose Mercury News. Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, corporations have 1st Amendment free speech rights including funding political campaigns. The CEO has generally plenary authority to decide which campaign(s) the corporation will fund. Reportedly, Eich stands by his decision to fund Prop H8, even after it has been declared unconstitutional.TVC 15 (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears as though this article is being manipulated by users for political purposes. (communist) witch-hunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.237.46 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break with the histrionics. Witches don't exist. Bigots do exist, and ....redact.... If you want to argue that it's wrong to document bigotry, take it to conservapedia. And read Paradox of intolerance before you get started with the "you're being intolerant of bigotry" bullshit. Xardox (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh give me a break with the histrionics. There is no gay gene or biological differences. If you want to argue that it is right to silence dissent to the point of career termination, go to Huff Post, Salon, Daily Beast or the rest of the just pretend the science exists sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.39.30 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums, and this REALLY REALLY applies to BLPs, particularly mid-controversy. Please don't do this - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brendan_Eich In my opinion, the Prop 8 donation became notable when he became CEO, because per Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a CEO can use corporate $ to fund campaigns and issue advocacy.TVC 15 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Misleading title here The title of this section on Wikipedia seems somewhat misleading. It makes it sound like it is this single donation that gave rise to the controversy. But this is only one of a seried of contributions by Eich to anti-gay causes, going back for 15 years or so. For example, his contribution to Pat Buchanan for President (at least $1,000) and $2,000 to Ron Paul of Texas. Shouldn't the title be a more comprehensive one, something like Controversial Political Donations? T-bonham (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that "anti-gay causes" were *the* reason that Eich supported these candidates? It's not like same-sex marriage is the only major political issue in the US.DanBishop (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does that matter? It's mot like we could look into his head and examine his motives -- we have to go by his actions. And those actions were to support them financially. Just like we don't have "evidence" that everyone who supported George Wallace was racist; possibly some supported him for other reasons. But the result was the same. If Eich supports anti-gay bigots, those actions can be reasonably seen as indicating his personal views. Quite at odds with the Mozilla diversity principles.

There's an ols saying put your money where your mouth is. Well, Eich mouthed those diversity principles, but put his money to anti-gay causes. So what does that show about his attitude toward GLBT employees? T-bonham (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please add:  The dating website, OKCupid, urged users to stop using Mozilla in response to his appointment and alleged vies on gay marriage. BBC

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea not done, while the CEO of Okcupid himself donated to anti gay campaigns. Oh but it's not the same in the liberal denialist spinbot world of Wikipedia. If the guy who invented javascript, a product used by billions can be as well known on Wikipedia for his political donations-match.com pales in comparison regarding technological significance.

OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions.

Sam Yagan, who is currently CEO of the Match Group, which controls OkCupid, donated $500 to Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008 back when he still opposed gay marriage.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.39.30 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure anyone who doesn't hold liberal views is a bigot, right? We should boycott any CEO who doesn't hold liberal views. We should boycott any CEO who is religious as well. Freedom of speech does not exist anymore unless one is a liberal. Anyone who disagrees with the liberal point of view will be censored and forced out of their job by a boycott! Is this really what we want now? You got bigots on the liberal side too, many who supported Prop 8 as well, but they get to keep their jobs? Explain that to me, because I don't really understand that only liberals get a free pass? Eris Blastar (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Brendon Eich was voting for a bill that would *split up established families*, and invalidate already issued marriage licenses. The proposition in question was quite basically a hate-crime being passed as law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1382:C0E2:C3:FEEA:BD90:E2D0 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brendan Eich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is a lot of stengths to this page. The problem is though is that it is all about his carear. I would like to have more information about his birth date. I think that would improve the article overall.

Last edited at 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

further investment in Brave

Brave, which is co-founded by Brian Bondy, previously of Khan Academy and Mozilla, plans to use the new funds for further platform development and growth, it says. The company is a team of 14 based in San Francisco and is using the funds to hire. https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/01/brave-the-ad-blocking-browser-from-former-mozilla-ceo-grabs-4-5-million/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles

At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war problem in last paragraph under "Mozilla"

The last two revisions, [9] and the reversion after it from MrX, show my attempt to enforce notability and neutrality rules, and a reversion that fails to address either concern while asserting an irrelevancy.

The final paragraph under [10] has grown and suffered edit-wars as editors have tried to make a "he said / she said" collection of quotes, ending in non-neutral, non-notable, and counterfactual assertions or insinuations by Signorile and Chu.

Legally, Prop 8 was never going to "annul" any legally recognized marriages. See [11]. Retroactive law is unconstitutional law. As Domestic partnership in California details, Domestic Partner law in California preceded Prop 8 and was equivalent as far as state vs. federal powers allowed to legal marriage.

MrX, in reverting my attempt to clean up this mess by striking all but Sullivan's notable citation, wrote "This content is backed by several sources". That revert reason is both too vague (which content, Chu's or Signorile's?), and either vacuous (of course they each wrote what they're cited as writing) or wrong (see again [12] and Domestic partnership in California.

The main problem is the non-notability and non-neutrality of an obviously ideological edit war to try to cite partisans against Eich, in order to "have the last word". Just the excessive length of this last paragraph as it became edited to wage this war is a bad sign. Wikipedia editors should know and do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:b05b:2059:29df:9d46:35de:177 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The legal arguments about whether Prop 8 would be retroactive or not is not a valid reason for removing commentary of notable people like Signorile. I notice that you did not remove the opinion of Andrew Sullivan though. I think is it valuable to leave these comments in because they are a good sampling of the reactions to Eich's resignation. Notability is a requirement for articles to exist, not for the content in articles. I would only support removing all four comments/quotes is something could be written more generally to convey to readers that Eich was both criticized and supported for his support of Prop 8, and that his (coerced) resignation drew mixed reactions.- MrX 04:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

MrX: Let's see your statistical measure of "a good sampling". Subjective axe-grinding by (notable or not; you seem to concede Chu is not) writers, with only one side getting the last word, is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. In any controversy you can find people writing false statements, but such statements do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Proposal: edit the last paragraph to be even longer, linking to [13] to refute Signorine and Chu, to convey to the reader more documented facts relevant to this incident. Who said the only good to serve by larding this paragraph with point/counterpoint quotes, negative ones last, was to "convey to readers that Eich was both criticized and supported"? Why is that one obvious (vacuous, again) result, that controversy draws supporters and detractors, your only concern?

And since you reversed the order in your "criticized and supported" words above from the pro/con order of the paragraph, how would it be if we reverse the order in the article, and end with Sullivan and Friedersdorf? Why do you make selective and weak arguments for something clearly edit-warred into an overlong, agenda-ridden mess of a paragraph? This paragraph "needs improvement", to put it lightly.

Finally, you ignore the substantive difference between (1) Sullivan's point (Eich's conduct on the job was unimpeachable), or Friedersdorf's argument that political punishment via attacks on employment advantage the powerful and disadvantage the weak, on the one hand; and (2) Signorine's invidious comparison of Eich to Donald Sterling, or Chu's similar assumptions by which he brings up interracial marriage as a false equivalence, on the other hand.

Yes, controversy means critics as well as supporters. No, Eich's biographical article is not the place to air these, selectively and with a one-sided order and emphasis.

Cutting all four quotes would be acceptable, in the interest of neutrality. If you don't want an even longer paragraph, best to stop this ill-disguised edit war by keeping things brief and not dragging in quotes from pundits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.213.5.106 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I found the former paragraph mangled into a single sentence at the end of a different paragraph, where it didn't belong. The main Mozilla paragraph should begin with Eich's arrival and end with his departure, as it does now. The separate paragraph on subsequent reactions to his departure should have WP:balance, or alternatively reduce to the most WP:notable commentator. The prior version quoted only Andrew Sullivan, as if he were the first and last word on the topic. If the article is going to quote Sullivan, it should quote more WP:notable sources, e.g. Signorile and The Daily Beast (i.e. the online brand of Newsweek).TVC 15 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Two negative opinions as last word after Sullivan's is hardly WP:balance. Worse, Chu's words advance the falsehood that marriages would be annuled by Proposition 8 ([14]).

Massive conflict of interest in the sourcing

Coindesk is owned by the Digital Currency Group, which is heavily invested in Basic Attention Token, which is the main cryptocurrency used in Brave software monitization. Since Brandon Eich is the founder of these, it should certainly be removed. Dr-Bracket (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jtbobwaysf: and @Џ:, can I get your opinions on this since you guys are discussing a merge the on Basic Attention Token and Brave (web browser) Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a TechCrunch version of the CoinDesk article. Џ 19:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that it is ok to remove cyrptorag sources. I think we are all erroring the side of caution these days, as these crypto articles are rife with promotionalism and COI. There was an RfC on Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article on restricting industry-rag sourcing, and I think it came back unanimous, and over time this restriction has flowed onto the balance of the articles (maybe in a manner that is admittedly unevenly enforced). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

useless reverts by user:David Gerard

Twice, edits highlighting a positive contribution to society by a living person have been deleted by what looks like a parked admin with a mission Helminthe (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You should probably address the substance (above section) if your issue is one of substance - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Usefulness of "technologist" as descriptor in lede

"[Eich] is an American technologist"

What's that even supposed to mean? I don't think it's a useful word to describe what a person is doing or known for. It certainly isn't a job or role title and sounds much more like a buzzword. Isn't there a more established and meaningful description for who he is? --79.202.96.184 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, the whole of Proposition 8 controversy has been (almost) white washed away.

"Some employees of ...", "Some of the activists ...", "Others ... spoke out in favor". - Welcome to Fox News Corp.

Thank you, wikipedia :\.

I think that (besides the invention of javascript) this is kind of a defining moment of Brendan Eich's life. We need a section of its own.

Siggimund (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to see this claim that it was activists from Mozilla sourced properly - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Siggimund: It has its own subsection now, and was entirely rewritten. Hopefully it reads better now. This is the version when you made your comment [15] --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Thanks for the notification and thanks to all the editors. Current version, permalink: [16], is IMHO way better. - Siggimund (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)